Toaster strudel alliance takes on drugs, atheists and liberalism

[jstrodel]

You're good at this irony thing, aren't you?

What is ironic about that statement? Since when do atheists hold a claim to being open minded or clear thinkers? Who has given them that title?

Wow. That was...extremely vague. If you can't trust your mind or anyone elses, then how do you know that you aren't just crazy? (or being decieved by Satan)

You can't trust your mind anyways. You don't know very much. No one does. You have to experience God to know if God is real. There is no substitute. Just like you would have to experience anything to know it. You cannot learn about God through idle speculation.

You have to learn to not trust your mind, and just listen to God. Read about natural theology and follow the proofs and read apologetic if you want to, but you have to listen to God and let God work. The only way that you can know if God is real or not for certain is to experience God. You have to seek the experience to know it is real.

It isn't going crazy. You know that you aren't decieved by Satan by following what is good. Satan is evil. Satan can deceptive people though easily.

They confer and evolutionary advantage. I suppose you think god magically put them there, huh?

Do you think it is possible that people could be required to do something that was not related to evolutionary advantage?

What is more fantastic: believing that God formed the universe or believing that an unknown principle did? Why is it more fantastic?

What is "data from intuition"? Are you saying that because it seems like common sense that there should be rights means that idea was magically put into our heads by god?

I think it is something that people should ponder deeply because every single human society in history has considered morality to be the most important or among the most important issues in existence. The good willed person will apply his heart to understand morality in a deeper way than an atheist apologetic, he will seek to pierce deeply into what it means to be a moral person and moreover WHY that is so.

You aren't making any arguments when you mock religion, you are just showing yourself to be brainwashed with the fruit of hundreds of years of technocrats desperately trying to take control of the West. It is a sad thing to see a young man so full of so many peoples ambitions and so unaware of the source.

There is no philosophical case against theism - Gk Chesterton

There is "a massive amount" of evidence from every civilization for god. Like the Egyptions prove Ra, the Greeks prove Zeus, the Norse prove Thor, etc. Or...do the widely differing and contradictory accounts actually destroy their collective credibility, rather than cement it?

I think they give evidence that the people of the ancient world experienced something. The Bible describes the sorcerers of Egypt as being real. I have experience magic and occultism in my own life, it is certainly real, and I witnessed its reality in spite of my naturalistic prejudices before I was involved.

The issue of competing theological claims makes it impossible that all claims are equally true. But what if the different religious civilizations had an experience of the supernatural and formed their understanding of God around that.

The Christian faith does not honor equally all experiences of the spiritual world. The existence of large numbers of people who have personal testimonies of the supernatural in the ancient world is evidence for the historical fact of the manifestation of the supernatural throughout history.

You mean like the collective perception by nazis that Jews were inferior and should die? What would people think now if Hitler won and rewrote history? I'm most certainly not saying that all morals are mere opinions (though some are). It depends on how you define "opinion". If you read the article I posted (maybe you didn't see it, as it was added with an edit) you wouldn't be having this misunderstanding. One can use reason and empathy to argue for or against certain morals. There are such things as right and wrong, they are just slightly harder to pin down than one might think.

The collective perception of morality does not necessarily mean there is agreement about the nature of morality, or that some people are wrong, only that it seems to be human nature to treat morality as being more than an opinion. I would argue further that the testimony of the human race is that people are aware that they could be wrong, although they hold their beliefs as if they are correct or if there was some truth value. I would argue this holds true even for the Nazi's, even if they serve as an example of those who have deviated from the path given to them by God.

Well...you can be a rather sudden and harsh judge sometimes. Good thing I'm not the same way...
Just to mention, the witness of history also says wars should be liberally fought, as that is how is was for much of recorded history.

I don't mean to be harsh, I consider it my kindness to warn others when the modern world with its lowest common denominator approach to wisdom does not see fir to warn people of the destructive effects of deceitful thinking.

I try to be nice to people as much as I possible can. Kindness is a virtue.

Well, if he was wrong, then either he wasn't using reason correctly, or any sane person would be following his example.

When you say "correctly", what is it that reason is pointing towards? What makes it correct?

Remember what I said about justice contradicting morality? You have to deal with the lawbreakers, even if the way you deal with them (lock them up, take some of their money) would be immoral in other circumstances.

How does it contradict? What happens when they contradict? How do you know which side is the better one? Could you put it in logic? How do you know what to presuppose about what is good?

That's still rather vague, but I doubt there will ever be a definitive answer as I cannot just ask god for clarification.

You can ask God for clarification. God is a friendly person. H'Shem wants to wrap H'Shem's arms around you. God is my best friend.

Wait a minute..."love your neighbor as yourself"? You mean use empathy?

You use empathy, but empathy is not a sufficient cause. Empathy is a desire that proves the natural and supernatural origins of the great commandment, but it does not ground it in anything.

Also, people are to love their neighbor as themselves not only when they feel empathy, but also when they don't. Empathy is a certain feeling that people have. Christians are commanded to love others regardless of whether they feel like it or not.

Evolution gave a basic understanding of morality, and when society developed, it was refined.

Which societies? What about Social Darwinism and Eugenics? Do those figure into the understanding of morality that you describe?

Now, when you say "society developed", are you talking about "liberal society"? You have a very specific understanding of morality that is a product of certain societies and their wars with Christianity. How does your conception of morality serve to explain other moralities understanding? Is it intended to describe all moralities or only that of liberalism?

If the government takes away our rights, we can overthrow them. That's part of the deal (at least in America). The government is not justified in taking away our rights in that it is part of the government's side of the deal (in exchange for legislative power) to protect our rights, and not abuse the powers vested within it. The power of a democratic government comes from (in theory) the people.

But if you overthrow the government because it takes away your rights, don't you lose the rights that existed in the government? What is the thing that makes rights exist independently of the government?

Are rights created by the government or not? You say that come through evolution and they are applied by the government. Is there any idea or any method whatsoever that defines rights in any sort of rigorous way? I don't think you have any way to define rights, I think for your rights are sort of a linguistic gymnastic trick in order to accept that what you call morality would be considered in almost everything single society to be something like a political opinion.

It helps you survive, creates social networks, improves the efficiency of many things and helps maintain order.

Those are important things about society, but it doesn't explain why those things are valuable or why people wouldn't be free to invent other values and prove some other authoritative path some other way.

Yes, it should. Which is why I researched multiple moral theories and have thought about them, rather than following the advice of a 2000+ year old book without an questioning of the source.

It is something that you should do at least 1 hour every day. If you care about others, you will do everything you can to appreciate the nature of the world and try to become a holy person.

To people who are already sold on the idea, or very desperate for it to be true. (or just plain crazy)

No, God saves people all the time who have difficult circumstances. What you said was a naked assertion, you don't have any evidence, it is a prejudice against the church.

So if not all spiritual leaders are saved, then how do we know which are and aren't?

You have to grow in the spirit and understand God. When you know God more it becomes easier and easier to discern who is of God and who is not. A simple way is to test whether the church believes in the scripture or not or whether their are miracles there or not.