Toaster strudel alliance takes on drugs, atheists and liberalism

[Darkstar]

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.

...? You said that one cannot trust their mind, and yet you somehow know that you aren't being decieved by Satan or just crazy. Wouldn't the idea that you can't trust your mind provide support for the idea that "god" was simply your misperceptions?

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

Yeah. Culture has invented many things that do not have a direct evolutionary advantage. Take this debate for instance; neither of our survivals hinge upon it. However, it should be noted that a free for all backstabbing society would tend to be less successful than a peaceful and cooperative one.

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

God. Because an unknown principle formed god...or a higher god...or a heaping plateful of special pleading.

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.

Which is what I'm doing by opening myself to other theories of morality, rather than sticking with one theory and remaining relatively unquestioning about it. I think that most moral theories have some good parts, but no one theory encompasses all behaviors.

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

I'm mocking religion? The more you know...
Well, it depends on what is considered mocking, I guess. Mere mockery is pointless, really.

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.

I think they experienced something too, but rather something natural (the sun, lightning, tidal waves) that they attributed to the supernatural because they had a very limited understanding of science.

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.

I don't think it is very strong evidence due to the general scientific ignorance of the people of that time.

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.

It depends on how you define "opinion". If by that you mean simply a whim or feeling, then I would argue that morals can be more substantial than that. It isn't like the opinion that the color black is cool, because there is no solid evidence that can support that as a statement of fact. For morals, on the other hand, there is (hopefully) a solid reason behind each moral rule, rather than simply a mere opinion. So while you can't 100% objectively prove moral rules, you can demonstrate that some morals are superior to others in a way that is more than simply opinion or feeling.

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.

Can you prove it is a virtue, or is that just your opinion?
Just kidding, I also agree. And there is an obvious factual basis to support that idea, rather than simply feelings.

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?

Here is where one runs into the "opinion" dilemma. Can it be proven that killing is generally wrong? Sure, you can turn to the golden rule, and explain what would happen to society if killing was seen as a moral act in most circumstances, and how that would impede survival and ruin (end) innocent lives, but what if you just wanted to see the world burn? Then what? It is difficult to objectively prove moral rules, but the concept of human rights, paired with empathy would be a good start. Empathy isn't in and of itself a moral yardstick, but rather a means by which to help determine if an action would be harmful to another person. I'm not sure if that anwered your question...

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?

Locking someone up for no reason would be wrong, but you are allowed to lock up lawbreakers. This contradicts normal morals by allowing one to supercede normal moral rules in the name of justice. If the person is guilty, then it is supposed that the contradiction is justified under that pretense that it will prevent other harms (i.e. the person committing another crime). One would hope justice would be better, but you must be careful to make sure the penalty is proportional to the crime in order to maintain this balance. It would be difficult to put in formal logic. I suppose one could develop a mathematical formula for fines payed/years of prision vs. amount of money stolen or...something else, but it might be clumsy ouside of strictly fines. I'm not sure I understand what you are asking in the last part.

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.

Well, I can ask, but will he answer?
(H'Shem? I've only heard Yahweh and Jehovah, or do you mean something else?)

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.

I dont think it proves the supernatural, as it would seem to have an evolutionary basis. And I'm not sure how empathy is a desire.

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.

Is the love insincere, then? Or is it that they force themselves to feel empathy for other people?

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

I don't think Social Darwinism is moral, and even evolutionarily it fails because it is a misapplication of natural selection. Unless for both you mean to ask whether their application would be moral or not, in which case I would note that both are not very popular througout the world. Culture refined morality generally speaking, but this is not to say that every culture continues to do so.

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?

Liberal society? More like the Sumerians. I'm talking way back. Just learning how to cooperate in multifamily groups and follow basic laws. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "explain other moralities understanding".

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?

Well, nothing really. If the rights can't be enforced, then they might as well not exist. If you were in a war zone, would your right to life really do anything for you?

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.

Do you mean to say that human rights are a political opinion? There are demonstrable reasons why they should exist (which I believe I have covered more than once).

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.

Well, if you don't want to live, have any friends, have protection form foreign enemies or use any infrastructure, then I guess these things wouldn't be valuable. Almost no one would think that, though. Someone could try to inent other values, but they would need solid reasons to back them up. (and then we wonder what is considered "solid" and devolve into the opinion dilemma again...)

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.

So...I should research moral theories for an hour a day, or try to become "holy"? What is holy anyway? Is there any objective definition?

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.[/quote]
You said "reveal". You didn't provide any evidence either. You asked me to ask someone else (who I presume would also not provide any actual evidence besides their word).

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.

What kind of miracles? If there were verified miracles at any church, it would be big news. Also, how can one understand god? I mean, he's...god. (and you keep pressuposing his existence, but I'll let it slide)