Toaster strudel alliance takes on drugs, atheists and liberalism

[jstrodel]

I keep using the word logic casually, don't I? Okay, I mean reason, with respect to empathy. Humans aren't machines; they don't function on raw logic and shouldn't be expected to. Simple empathy is enough to understand why killing is generally immoral, but a defense by reason (i.e. avoiding societal degredation) is also possible. Empathy and a basic understanding of right and wrong is innate; you don't need to read the bible. Some people say that this understanding was written on our hearts by god, and while I disagree, they do at least acknowledge it. For less obvious moral issues, we may need to use reason to determine to possible harms and benefits of an action (to yourself and others).

Empathy is not a sufficient cause of the morality of something (consider a case in which people are empathetic but they get the wrong answer) nor is empathy in all cases good (in a case in which you were fighting in a war, it would not necessarily be good to be empathetic toward your enemy, and if the war was a just war, to fail to fight could be considered morally blameworthy, an act of cowardice).

Empathy is an important part of morality, but it does not ground morality in anything, unless it is grounded teleologically.

The cause isn't unknown, it is rather explicit: because we decided it is. We decided this because we value our own lives (mostly) and would want others to value them as well. We have empathy for the suffering of others because we can understand what it we be like if we were in their position. We would not want to die, and therefore we feel empathy for others and do not want them to die either.

If the cause is known, and it is human opinion, then it is incommensurable with other opinions and has no authority higher than the person making the claim.

What you are describing is good feelings to have, but they do not explain why those feelings are important, and why they are the most important feelings in the world to have.

I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about. I was only explaining how even a selfish person would have a motivation to follow the golden rule if they knew others would follow it only if they did.

Motivation is different from having an authority.

Anarchy, YEAH!!!!

I am not an anarchist, but I do not worship the state, I am not a nationalist, and I do not blindly accept the nationalistic dogma that liberals put before me.

I obey the law out of a duty to God, but I do not give human authorities any more authority than they have.

3. Government is by no means the origin of morality.

What is the origin of morality?

5.The rights are established by the people writing the contract because they are required to protect these rights. (By the way, the constitution says that the rigths to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are self evident. Do you disagree, and if so on what grounds?

I do not worship the government and I will not bow down to human ordinances as if they come from God. The constitution cannot give any rights to people, it cannot give people the right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, it does not have those rights to give away.

What liberal thinkers? Or do you mean the concept of rights in general? I'm trying to argue through reason (not raw logic) the merits of those propositions, rather than appeal to authority by saying something like "Would our founding fathers be wrong?" (assuming you're American, that is)

You are treating the founding fathers as religious thinkers, as if they came from God. What are they? Who are they that I should care about them? Some very sketchy characters among the bunch, Benjamin Franklin was no saint. Why should I care what they say? Of course, I am obligated to obey the law. But why should I see their beliefs as having more authority than my own?

I am not encouraging law breaking, but lets be realistic, Bill Clinton is not a spiritual leader. Neither were the founding fathers. They are men. I will never worship a man.

It sounds like basically you interpret something you don't understand to mean god must have made it, rather than presenting any direct evidence for god himself. Am I too far off?

No, I have plenty of direct evidence for God that I will get to in a minute, but this thread is already pages and pages. Oh well, I will post it anyways.

So, what you are saying is basically that without actual science of emperical evidence, philosophical musing won't prove anything? Now, about your evidence for god...it isn't scientific, is it?

I am saying that philosophy has some value, but it typically is more of a tool for raising questions than actually getting concrete solutions.

This is the same way that natural theology works. Natural theology is a good way of putting a lot of pieces together about God and saying it is probable that God exists. Then, based on this knowledge, as well as realizing the nature of your own sin and separation from God, you turn away from sin follow God, if you pursue God, God will reveal God's self to you.

---

[ETA3: He didn't answer your question of which god. He begged the question by assuming the god of the bible.]

Yeah... All of the things he says assume the god of the bible. I guess he won't take no for an answer...

@jstrodel Do you have any actual arguments for god, other than god of the gaps, and arguments from incredulity of personal experience?

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~orie0087/framesetpdfs.shtml
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/2...stence.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosoph...in_god.pdf


You really have to read and study the arguments carefully. I don't think that I can put one in 100 words and you will grasp it. You have to study and become very familiar with all of them and how they relate to each other. That is really the only way to study natural theology. It is such an abstract subject that you must dive into it or else you will not get much from it. I don't think that putting the cosmological argument or teleological argument here I am really going to do it justice.

If you are serious about knowing God you have to read and think through the original thinkers. You can't condense the argument to a few lines. You have to wrap your mind around all the propositions.

If there is an argument above there you would like to debate, I would be happy to debate it with you. But I do not think I will do justice to the brilliance of theology through trying to argue unless you are completely set on appreciating the beauty and subtlety of God's nature yourself. This takes work and most people would rather argue.


You know which God to follow by seeking God. I practiced Judaism before I became a Christian and read about other religions. The main reason that I picked Christianity was the way in which the Christian message confirmed Judaism and I felt like God led me to Christianity while I was in Judaism. I would read the Bible and God would speak to me and lead me.

One other form of evidence that convinced me was that if there was one God who was the creator of the universe, God would appear himself in a way in which most people would understand. I believe that God has done this in Judaism, Christianity and to some degree, Islam. Why would God reveal God's nature in some other way in which the majesty of H'Shem was hidden from most people?