Religion didn't spread morality, oh wait, yes it did.

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Kinjiro Tsukasa, Jun 8, 2005.

  1. Cuchulain82

    Cuchulain82 Custodia Legis

    Think, don't just talk

    There is alot of talk about how such and such is irrational. So far, EVERYTHING that Alexander has said has been rational. Contrary to what people may or may not believe, not believing in God is a rational approach. As has been proven beyond all doubt by some of the greatest thinkers in history (ie: Kant), Faith and Theistic belief are, by their very nature, untestable.

    In logic, it is a fallacy to say that because something is not proven true, it is false. This is the argument that you, Rizal and Strafio, are using- you are saying that because the existance of God cannot be disproven, belief in theistic God is therefore rational. This is not a valid argument. Please read what Alexander has said again- all he has proven is that there is no experiential evidence that can prove God. To misread his argument is to misunderstand much of the history of Philosophy for the past 400 years.
     
  2. medi

    medi Sadly Passed Away - RIP


    Except that the same people who told us God is real also told us a bunch of other stuff that turned out to be false.
     
  3. Alexander

    Alexander Possibly insane.

    Thanks for the help. I was trying to work out how to phrase that properly.
     
  4. Cuchulain82

    Cuchulain82 Custodia Legis

    You're absolutely welcome. It is worth mentioning that there is no lack of lucid, articulate and compelling philosophers who argue in favor God, faith, and spirituality. I am personally partial to Kierkegaard. However, using semantics and flawed rhetoic doesn't help a discussion in any manner.
     
  5. Yokozuma

    Yokozuma New Member

    Let's be careful about setting Kant up on a pedestal. There are plenty of theistic thinkers who are intellectual heavyweights (on the same level as Kant). If there are any martial artists our there who are theists ( I realize you're in a minority on this board), then you might want to look at "A Shorter Summa". It's a very abreviated version of St. Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologica". It is also annotated by its author Peter Kreeft, a religious philospoher ar Boston College.
    Anyway, if you want to look at rational arguments for the existence of God, there are plenty of them. I think what might help is Aquinas distinction between "natural theology" or "rational theology" as it is sometimes called, and "revealed theology" or those truths which cannot be known unless they are revealed by a divine source.
    Aquinas is not a biblical fundamentalist; i.e he strikes a great comprimise between a stricly literal and stricly symbolic interpretation. Most importantly, I beleive, Aquinas will demonstrate -better than anyone else I've read- the true limitations of reason, rationality, and truth when they are truncated from faith. Heck, even if you're an atheist or agnostic, you'll at least get a chance to see theism defended in the strongest terms possible. Enjoy!
     
  6. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    Most definately, great job Alexander, I particularly like this

    ;) sweet, my sentiments exactly.


    My comments on this, would be merely to say that emotion is probably the biggest hurdle to cross in regards objectivity. I agree that our incentive to be moral is in accordance with our true nature, as set out by design, which is efficient. IME negative emotions tend to rise from irrationality, and are a warning signal of non accordance with nature. Likewise acting morally in a rational manner feeds positive sentiment. Religion cleverly intertwines positive sentiment to act morally in Gods eyes, with the negative sentiments attached to guilt when not in accordance with the word of God. All this from words written by men. Hmm.. gotta make you wonder.

    Religion/omnipotent creator/god mysticism does a pretty good job of stirring/creating emotion & sentiment around the issue, thus acting IMHO as repelling force to objectivity. So there may be a link, just not a positive one.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2005
  7. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    Well, there is no reason not to believe, so that's a start.
    You could still argue that there is no reason to believe in it.
    Ofcourse, people wouldn't have their faith if there was no reason to believe in it. And there IS a difference between "not believing", and admantly believing that there can't be a God (isn't an agnostic a "not really believing" and the Athiest believing that it's definately not), assuming I got my definitions right there, I'd say the agnostic is rational while the believers (believing that there definately IS/ISN'T God) are taking leaps of faith.


    Well I wasn't arguing with that.
    I guess whether have good reason to believe in God is down to them and their experience.
     
  8. medi

    medi Sadly Passed Away - RIP

    If I saw something really cool like God parting the Red Sea or bringing Jesus back to life, I'd believe. So the existence of God can be demonstrated.
     
  9. Alexander

    Alexander Possibly insane.

    But how do you intend on testing the claim 'god exists'?
     
  10. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    I've heard RC Sproul discuss what is, essentially, this very thread on his radio show. He seems to know Kant, Acquinas, all of them, backwards and forwards. His radio presentation of the rational-ness of theism is very, very good. I do not know if he ever published these lectures in a book. If he did, it'd be worth reading.
     
  11. medi

    medi Sadly Passed Away - RIP

    I'll wait for a miracle. Like the Red Sea. Or water into wine. Lazarus back from the dead. The same document that told us about God in the first place says all those things were performed by God in the comparitively recent past. The fact that those miracles occurred on more than one occasion leads us to suppose that there will be a repeat performance.

    1 miracle might have been a one off. But 2 miracles gives us a reasonable expectation of a third, if God exists. And the Bible gives accounts of many more than 2.


    *waits*


    ...





    ...





    ...
     
  12. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    How do you know it was God though?
    There could be a number of explanations! ;)
     
  13. HandandFoot

    HandandFoot New Member

    Throughout the ages we see constant evidence that mankind NEEDS supression! Most of the truly notorious villains in history claimed to be atheistic (or its most reprehensible form "egotheistic). The unfortunate thing here is that many of them were professing themselves as Christians. Obviously, they were not!

    I do not agree that all religions bind us to superstition and ignorance. Quite frankly, this intellectual gets a different message! "Don't worry! Trust!"
     
  14. HandandFoot

    HandandFoot New Member

    Unfortunately, the next scheduled performance is by invitation only! My ticket is 3rd row, stage left, seat 16.
     
  15. medi

    medi Sadly Passed Away - RIP


    huh?
     
  16. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    Don't think, obey/ Don't worry, trust.

    Sounds like different words, same message to me.

    It comes down to questioning and what you are prepared to accept - where you place your faith.

    In general I would say that atheist beliefs, are more inclined to rely on self guidance and are less judgemental. note: I said in general!

    A lot of parts of religion, I don't have a problem with, and most atheist I think feel that way. But some parts/sections are a problem due to how they effect outward and the underlying influence that pervades society negatively. To some it's worth speaking up about.

    Imagine if you took everything on trust and obeyed. Hmm..
     
  17. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    Anyway, I think it's a very unfair thing to to tag religion with.

    It's something that come from power-hungry authoritan institutions.
    Yes, sometimes they can be religious but necessarily, so blaming it on the religion isn't fair at all.

    Personally, I'm not trusting either the US or UK governments at the moment, and Tony Blair is taking the very PC stance of not mentioning religion at all.
    I was raised "Catholic", and no one has ever tried to make me simply obey.
    I mean, sure I was raised with a Christian slant, but it was just people teaching me what they thought was true, but it was teaching not brainwashing, if you see the difference. :)
     
  18. HandandFoot

    HandandFoot New Member

    Really?! Hmm...

    Nope. Not even close.
    Well, except that they are both 3 words with a comma after the second and they both start with "D". Other than that... Blind obedience requires no thought. Trust requires a great dealof thought. If you actually confuse the two as being the same then I can see why you might think that intelligence precludes religion.

    So at least you are willing to concede that we all live by faith of some sort. That's a start!

    No greater fool would live (and probably die quickly :eek: ) than one who took EVERYTHING on faith and obeyed! The important point, you already made for me. It's a matter of "where you place your faith".

    Now consider if everyone had faith in a being that called us all to love one another regardless of their faults, to not only do no harm to another, but care for others who cannot care for themselves. And for these actions, he would give us a comfortable, joyous afterlife. Could you say that it would be bad to "trust and obey" that Being? Keep in mind that the description of this Being encompasses about 85% of all organized theistic religions!
     
  19. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    Live for knowledge, die in ignorance.

    If you consider what you are told in the bible as knowledge, good luck to you. Its 'knowledge' of a sort mixed with a lot of other things that are rather blinding I would say.

    Btw where did I say intelligence had anything to do with it? If you look back over the thread, I have argued that intelligence covers a wide gamet not just IQ - so I am loathe to see the issue that way...

    Please don't take it personally, I'm sure you are an intelligent guy.
    I have a 'spiritual' side too I just express it differently is all.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2005
  20. brahman

    brahman Banned Banned

    even if all you posted on this thread was complete crap, it was still very entertaining to read :love:
     

Share This Page