The story of Adam and Eve explains the introduction to sin.
| |
but he comes to this conclusion from the idea that no person can truly have any pure imagination
Willy Wonka disagrees. | |
Jp wrote:
Toadfish: If ethics aren't universal they aren't ethics. I am, as Jp and presumably Toadifsh know completely well, fully an atheist and fully a disbeliever, but I am incredulous about this statement. | |
EmpirezTeam wrote:
Jp wrote: Yes, that's his opinion. Whose else would it be? | |
Duel: He was stating that Jp's comment shouldn't be taken as a fact, it should be regarded to as an opinion, because many might take it the other way.
| |
Now, see what happens when we ask these things? I love the philosophy part about it, but there are always a few people like JP who have very biased and clear opinions. Now, I know that you can't base any religion completly on fact without going through all its history, and a most of the current denominations of the major religions have a pretty "well-know" or "easy-to-find-fault-in" history.
I am personally christian, but don't discredit me just yet. In my mind, I think Christianity is not pretty clear-cut. Its a poor statement because it has nothing to do with Christianity as a whole. You can't judge or meassure a religion by one person in it. And its virtually impossible to see it as a whole without comming up with more opinions than facts. In the end, I love philosophy myself, but I think I wouldn't take a class on it. You'd be mostly learning either boring facts from a history book or the teahcers opinion on everything, which doesn't do you much good. Though I cannot completly prove christianity, no one can completly dissprove it, since there are a lot of facts and strong evidence to suppourt it yet many mysteries that allude the believers. It is so in almost every international religion under discussion. Anyways, if you guys want to post your thoughts, go right ahead. But know that you probabaly don't know everything about what you are saying, just like I dont know everything abouy christianity or religion as a whole. Its foolish to try, and impossible to do. | |
I don't think it's foolish as much as it simply brings out the ignorance in everyone. However, I do have to admit while Jp is fairly biased, so am I. However, a good argument requires bias on both sides to some degree - if everyone agreed with each other, nobody would have anything to discuss, and nobody would be unique.
| |
Ahoy Jp. It's good to be able to be openly on this side of the fence now.
I love the philosophy part about it, but there are always a few people like JP who have very biased and clear opinions. Jp is acting honestly in response to the information he has, and choosing to accept what he finds to be most logical. He refuses to believe in something that he finds ill-founded and illogical. This is objectivity, not bias. --- I think I was going to write something on topic here, but then I had to attend to something, and now I don't remember what I was going to say. I'll let the defense of Jp paragraph stand, though it's pretty far off topic. | |
Jp is acting honestly in response to the information he has, and choosing to accept what he finds to be most logical. He refuses to believe in something that he finds ill-founded and illogical. This is objectivity, not bias. Well said. You may not agree with Jp on all counts (I certainly disagree with him on some), but let's not throw accusations of bias left and right. An extreme opinion does not mean a biased one. Let's adhere to the "constructive comments" guideline and limit our discussion to the philosophical question itself. | |
In the end, I love philosophy myself, but I think I wouldn't take a class on it. You'd be mostly learning either boring facts from a history book or the teahcers opinion on everything, which doesn't do you much good. You would be learning about the theories and ideas of many great minds about the nature of morality, existence, thought, humanity, and what have you. I don't know what brought on the comparison to a history book (nor do I agree with your assessment of history books!). Anyways, if you guys want to post your thoughts, go right ahead. But know that you probabaly don't know everything about what you are saying, just like I dont know everything abouy christianity or religion as a whole. Its foolish to try, and impossible to do. Is that reason enough to stop learning more? | |
Popisfizzy wrote:
Jp wrote: The idea is problematic. In what sense are ethics universal? Is rational thought supposed to eventually lead us to a single, unified behavioural code? Are moral values a supernatural attribute of actions and behaviours, such that we can clearly recall them (in the Platonian sense)? Is there really an ethics which is right for every individual, or class of individuals? I looked around to see if I could direct you fellows to a very nice piece by Sartre on this subject, but all I could find is this specialised discussion, which might not appeal to people not very versed in some of the ideas discussed. Webmaren's analysis sounds more accurate (to me) out of the two. | |
I think Toad is basically saying to JP that just because you are very intelligent and use big words doesn't make you an athiest/non-religious. Religion is an belief, not a trait. Many christians, jews, etc. are very intelligent and smart. Your ethnic group and beliefs has little to nothing to do with how you interpret information.
And also, Im not saying that everything that doesn't agree with me is bias. Im saying that you can't trust everyone's opinion and get honest answers when (some but mostly not all) comments will be influenced by said-person's personel experiences and/or thoughts. And also, personally again, I think that history books do offer insight into great historical events, places, and people; but that it is not completly factual, especially if you are religious or have other beliefs that cause you to think differently on certain things that have happened through time. Ex: Some catholics would disagree with the theory of the big bang, of which a heavily-densed mass suddendly imploded and sent the things in it outward and away from it. They would believe that God created the world in 7 days and made everything by his own design. In this sense, some would agree, some would disagree, and some would call it bias. Q: Who is right? A: None of them. Why? Because since there is no factual proof for either, you can't prove that either happened, no matter what the bible says or what scientist theorize from the small "hints" in the Milky Way and the galaxies around us, there will always be speculation on the big bang and god. The same goes for religion as a whole. Everyone has an opinion, but not many people bring factual suppourt, or a foundation based in things that everyone knows is true. And from a phisological point of view, it really depends on the person and not on what they're looking at. | |
My beliefs and faith is set in stone
Consider this: if the above is true, then you will never learn a new concept for the rest of your life. | |
Im saying that you can't trust everyone's opinion and get honest answers when (some but mostly not all) comments will be influenced by said-person's personel experiences and/or thoughts. I don't understand how this has anything to do with a discussion on proof. It's either proof, or it isn't. Personal belief has nothing to do with it. If it doesn't follow, it doesn't follow. Why? Because since there is no factual proof for either [...] This is incorrect. There is plenty of evidence for the big bang. It isn't absolute proof, but it's more than you can say for creationism. You can reasonably not believe the big bang occurred probably, but to suggest there is less evidence for it than creationism is just dishonest. [...] since there are a lot of facts and strong evidence to support it [...] There's strong evidence to support Christianity? I'd love to hear it. As far as supernatural beings go, as you can probably tell, I'm not interested. I went to church probably 4 times that I can consciously remember. My father forced me to go three times when I visited him as a child, and my sister had me go with her once much later. I don't recall anyone ever explaining what god was to me, and I only learned about Jesus through billboards much later. I never had a reason to believe in a god, and I was never given one later in life. There is no god - as far as I am concerned - that is relevant or has any bearing in my life. Nothing has ever happened that I've seen that would necessitate a god's intervention. Bad things are randomly attributed to god, and good things are randomly attributed to god. Some religious people would say that hurricanes and earthquakes and tsunamis are all god's doing. Some would say that when people are killed by them, it was god doing something that nobody can possibly understand. What's the point? As far as I'm concerned, religion is more trouble than it is worth. In many people, it propagates good will towards others, charity, "morals," and all of that good stuff. In other people, though, it propagates ignorance, hatred, and sometimes murder. When I see people driving planes into buildings, standing outside of funeral processions and saying they're glad your children are dead, and praising god for the tsunami in Japan, that is really the only reason I need to say I dislike religion. As far as I am concerned, religion is more trouble than it's worth, and to suggest it is necessary to be a good person is just dishonest. To say I have been indifferent towards religion would be incorrect. I've always enjoyed when people who are totally ignorant about their own religion would try to sell it to me. I've spent a lot of time talking to Christians, trying to understand their beliefs, and trying to come up with fun ways to contradict them. You could say I am biased, but I don't go around saying god doesn't exist just because I don't think he does. That would be dishonest. I say things like "the Christian god doesn't exist because his very nature is fallacious, there is no hard evidence for its existence that most likely couldn't be attributed to some other god, the world itself contradicts what the Bible teaches (or taught, I might say. depending on which set of beliefs you are choosing to say are god's doctrines. I've seen christians give 10 different belief systems, so it's hard to be consistent), etc..." If religion and religious followers weren't constantly trying to hamper progression in our society, and if it wasn't the source of so much confusion and pain, I might be more inclined to accept its existence and tolerate it. But that just isn't the case. | |
I've always gone with:
There had to be absolutely nothing at one point. So what created what? God for instance would have just been there, the same could go for the energy/matter/whatever for the big bang. | |
here had to be absolutely nothing at one point. So what created what? What created god!? | |
True. Anyways Keeth, its your opinion, which I happen to kinda agree with.
But all in all, its kinda been too late to argue over this petty subject. Since, like Keeth pointed out, there is not a lot of facts concerning religion, its pointless to argue and try to find truth/fault within it. But then again, thats just my thoughts. :x | |
Keeth wrote:
---here had to be absolutely nothing at one point. So what created what? That was my point. What created God? What created the materials for the big bang? We don't know an answer for either. So in my mind at least, it makes them equally as plausible. | |
CauTi0N wrote:
And this is why a lot of people are just going to discredit everything you're saying here. The problem is that you hold the belief in stone. Your reasoning here is absurd; it's more or less nothing but a bunch of accidental fallacies. You should be using logic to deduce your beliefs; not support beliefs you already have. That's the problem. If you delve in to philosophy with a mindset that you say is "set in stone", you are most likely not going to get anywhere unless that mindset somehow changes. You may come up with some haphazard excuse for logical thinking to try and shakily support your beliefs, but ultimately it's not going to do you any good. People could sit here for hours and refute whatever argument you come up with to support the existence of god; it isn't going to get us anywhere, because you simply refuse to change your preconceived beliefs to accommodate reality, and you have stated this clearly. | |
That's your opinion.