How do we grow?

[Eudaimonia]

• Moat - Red Herring only means diversion to another topic
  
  
  My Response -You don't understand the term.. It means diversion.. it can be a literal diversion to another topic or literary tricks used to obscure the point..
  
  
  
  
• Moat - There is an absolute morality irrespective of culture..
  
  
  My Response -I disagree.. Further, your stating it does not make it true.. Morality is established by agreement or force.. If there were absolute morality there would be no need for laws.. It would be inherently ingrained in every human irrespective of time, culture and/or context.. Do not confuse survival instinct with morality..
  
  
  
• Moat's point - Choice is the root of all evil..
  
  
  My response - This explains why the religious mind wishes to eradicate it in favor of complete submission to THEIR understanding of their belief in God... This type of thinking is dangerous imo..
  
  
  
  
• Moat's point - Progress happens in spite of the existence of religious thought so there is no need to wish its eradication
  
  
  My response - Scientific advancement has occurred at great costs to lives, sanity, social standing held by the religious in power.. Science has had to fight the religious mind in order to exist.. This is unnecessary and a distraction.. And as I understand it the religious all wait for the "big fight" "armageddon" or some such thing..
  
  
  
  
• Moat's point - "I know you are but what am I?" response to my pointing out he uses red herrings.. by saying I feign contempt.
  
  
  My response -Nope.. my contempt for your ideas and the way you express yourself remains...The last dialogue we had you were lacing your posts with disrespectful sexual references.. My contempt is real.. trust..
  
  

The dialogue has gotten far away from the initial point of this thread... Religion is an obstacle to progress... It is a distraction... Religious thinking requires suspension of logic and evidence.. as faith in God is the foundation of its existence.. Any time a scientist involves himself in science then he has to suspend his religious thinking.. as theories, evidence, testing, double blind studies etc are part of scientific habits..

In other words when Newton described gravity he was forced to not say "God made the apple fall on my head" .. He may choose to characterize it in this way later.. but if humanity is to move forward he realized on some level must keep his mind outside of "faith based thinking"

[tackattack]

If you truly believe that Eud. I'd ask you to clearly define religious thinking, evidence and faith. I'd be more than happy to discuss the topic with you. It seems that you are under the impression that founding anythign on faith requires suspension of logic and experiential evdience. Is that your stance?

[Eudaimonia]

If you truly believe that Eud. I'd ask you to clearly define religious thinking, evidence and faith. I'd be more than happy to discuss the topic with you. It seems that you are under the impression that founding anythign on faith requires suspension of logic and experiential evdience. Is that your stance?

Since you asked a direct question.. I will answer.. but I'm wary of doing this with you, specifically, since the last dialogue we had you asked me to present my point.. A point which I deliberately and purposefully stated in multiple posts prior..


To answer:

• Evidence – Empirical data derived from scientific methods
  
  
• Faith – “Belief” stemming from an authoritarian relationship with one's belief in god in the absence of empirical evidence
  
  
• Religious Thinking – The worldview based off of faith that one’s belief in and understanding of God is the source or root of all things.. and that theophanies are evidence of God’s existence or guidance from God.. and which are the psychological basis (window/framework) through which one interprets and draws conclusions about reality..
  
  

[tackattack]

Your trepidation is understandable, but rest assured I have no intent other than a positive and fruitful conversation. I enjoy seeing others viewpoints and sharing my own, usually the former.

I understand your definitions and you are contending that due to one's religious thinging logic and evidence are impossibilities?
Assuming you are I'd like if you looked at your definition of evidence. As your definition stands I'd agree that religious thinking has no direct correlation to evidence to the point of it being majorly devoid of it. I don't think you can say the same thing about logic. Perhaps if you said Religious thinking is illusory due to lack of evidence I would agree with our statement using your definiitions. I however consider faith something completely different.

[Whirling Moat]

Peace...

My Response -You don't understand the term.. It means diversion.. it can be a literal diversion to another topic or literary tricks used to obscure the point..

There is a difference between someone trying to distract you with language, and you failing to understand the point for reasons which I will not venture into. When you are reading and reducing everything into more basic concepts you should be very careful not to change the meaning of what you are reading. "So basically" is not always the best way to get to a point. sometimes you have to do the difficult work of considering exactly what is said.

My Response -I disagree.. Further, your stating it does not make it true.. Morality is established by agreement or force.. If there were absolute morality there would be no need for laws.. It would be inherently ingrained in every human irrespective of time, culture and/or context.. Do not confuse survival instinct with morality..

I am making the very argument that there is a core moral compass which is engrained in all human beings. Breaching this engrained code is often justified by cultural practices which arise for various reasons. Human sacrifice may have been the norm in parts oif the ancient world. During that period people understood that it was wrong to murder, however they mistakenly justified this by raising a higher moral law as the purpose for this act.

Moat's point - Choice is the root of all evil..


My response - This explains why the religious mind wishes to eradicate it in favor of complete submission to THEIR understanding of their belief in God... This type of thinking is dangerous imo..

This a prime example of the problem with reducing concepts. "Choice" is not the equivalent of Free Will. When you reduce Free Will down to Choice you radiate out very important components. Free Will definitely includes choice, however it also includes the power to Will or bring forward or act. Free Will is the agency which allows humanity to generate the objects of their imagination. Animals have choice...A rabbit can choose the lettuce or the cabbage in the garden patch...A large mouth bass can choose the cricket or the toad..These animals however do not have the ability to think outside of their nature, they do not enjoy the ability to literally create choices. This is what Free Will is.

My response - Scientific advancement has occurred at great costs to lives, sanity, social standing held by the religious in power.. Science has had to fight the religious mind in order to exist.. This is unnecessary and a distraction.. And as I understand it the religious all wait for the "big fight" "armageddon" or some such thing..

Science does not have to fight the relious mind in order to exist...This is an dramatic exaggeration. We are not living within the inquisition. Einstein was right. Science without religion is lame. Lame like your points...

I am going to let you off the hook now...and move to another discussion....Chuckin up the deuces on this thread...


Whirling Moat

[chatpilot]

WM said:"Science does not have to fight the relious mind in order to exist."

I completely disagree with this statement Moat, simply because historically religion has always been used as a means to curtail scientific research and discovery based on their interpretations of Gods laws. A modern day example would be the prohibition of using stem cell research, cloning, etc. basing themselves on completely baseless religious morals. Although the religious are no longer burning people at the stake for being at odds with their beliefs they are now using the manipulation of political force to get their way. I also agree with Eudaimonia regarding absolute morality I am firmly convinced that the society and culture in which we are brought up in will dictate what is moral and what is not. This is evident in other cultures where some of the things they consider to be the norm we would consider criminal and appalling.

[Eudaimonia]

RE: Red Herrings and comprehension - You are all over the place.. I understood your point.. I did not respect it.. You do use red herrings.. saying you don't doesn't change anything..

RE: Absolute morality - Saying there is an engrained moral code doesn't make it a reality...

RE:

The root of all evil is Free Will, which is also the root of our divinity as human beings. Evil is a state of disorder and imbalance which manifests itself as deformities in desire. Evil incarnate seeks to satisfy its inordinate cravings and lusts...it will spare no expense to possess what it desires, even if the cost are the lives of the undeserving and innocent.

For most religious institutions evil was not its progenitor..Most likely good intention was at the center of the movement during its inception..Evil is a liar..It infiltrates..and seduces...and rises to the crest of an organization and then it corrupts...ever hiding its hands.

Your problem

You present two choices good and evil.. The root of evil you say is the desire for evil.. You also call free will the root of divinity a concept which has no actual basis as a human characteristic.. It is just posturing and stating things as if they are true because you state them..

In other words.. The ability to choose evil is the root of evil.. and hence your problem is with the choice.. Since there is no engrained moral code to determine.. Human agency is just agency.. only you couch it in the terms of good and evil ... I just highlighted your error..

or your religious thinking..

[Eudaimonia]

I understand your definitions and you are contending that due to one's religious thinging logic and evidence are impossibilities?
Assuming you are I'd like if you looked at your definition of evidence. As your definition stands I'd agree that religious thinking has no direct correlation to evidence to the point of it being majorly devoid of it.

Yes..

[tackattack]

So then how do you support your claim that faith is without logic? I also feel it's a little more than ridiculous to look for objective materialistic quantifiable evidence as proof of God. That evidence type should match the proof. Mathematical justification for mathematical truth, scientific evidence for scientific proof, etc. As far as my definition of Faith, I agree completely with Ryft's definition here which basically summarized, as it applied to Christians, is the sum of having reliable information, being persuaded of it's truthfulness and trusting in it.

[Eudaimonia]

So then how do you support your claim that faith is without logic? I also feel it's a little more than ridiculous to look for objective materialistic quantifiable evidence as proof of God. That evidence type should match the proof. Mathematical justification for mathematical truth, scientific evidence for scientific proof, etc. As far as my definition of Faith, I agree completely with Ryft's definition here which basically summarized, as it applied to Christians, is the sum of having reliable information, being persuaded of it's truthfulness and trusting in it.

Faith without logic = The premise that God exists is false..

I'm not sure what to say.. It seems that you think having no evidence of God means having faith.. I too see having no evidence of God means having faith.. So we agree.. right?