Toaster strudel alliance takes on drugs, atheists and liberalism

[Darkstar]

Jesus says - seek and you will find. There is no absolute way to know the will of God or be a Christian. God's will changes over time.

Why would the will of an all powerful being change? Are moral rules just subjects of his whim, then? I think this points to him not being an absolute moral authority because he chanes his mind.

But if you seek God, you will find him.

Only if we do some True A/S/King™. Just ask Drich...

The New Testament of the Bible is a good place to law, but it is not intended to be a moral absolute that replaces God. God is the ground of being and the ground of morality. The two are related. God can be the ground of morality because God is the ground of being. When God created the universe, morality was created at the same time.

So...the bible doesn't establish absolute moral law, but god does? Where does god exist outside the bible? It isn't like I can just ask him...

The bible forbids drunkenness (1 Cor 6) which has been interpreted through church tradition to include drug abuse and reason says that cocaine is more dangerous than other drugs so it is reasonable to believe that cocaine use is sinful.

Fair enough.

But you aren't defending this through logic. Killing is wrong because we live in a teleological universe in which everything bears the stamp of God and cries out to us through empathy, society, law and culture that it is wrong to take a human life, not just because someone happens to reason about it but because the human spirit demands it.

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).

Humans don't value their lives unless thay have religion? The more you know...

But many people believe just that. That does not make the argument self refuting, it may not help the people to survive. For someone that has much to say about logic, you rely on conversational reasoning much more than you rely on philosophy. I don't say that to insult you, but what you consider logic is really not much different from theology, it does not presuppose less. To pressupose that human life is valuable because of an unknown cause does not pressupose less than pressuposing that it is valuable because God created it.

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.

quote]
Let's say they see themselves as the end of the actions. Same result. If they are living in society, they don't want it to become a free for all (well, most people don't) and so still would want to preserve peace. If they are living outside of society...well...that's kind of hard. As for revolutionaries, they still want a society, just a new one. The US constitution gives the citizens the right to overthrow the government if it becomes seriously oppressive.

You are acknowledging the crux of my actions, that atheist ethics are basically pressupositions. That is fine if there are some things that they don't know through reason, I would say that that is a mark of wisdom to realize that reason and logic can't accomplish all things. But it is fallacious to claim that a pressuposition like "Let's say they see themselves as then end of their actions" is more logical because it has a much smaller and more subjective aim.

It is a common debate trick to simply make the most modest claim possible and then claim that whatever you are arguing against is irrational because it involves more assumptions or pressupositions than your arguement. The reality is that making an extremely small claim that is easier to believe does not make an argument more valid or the propositions invovled more true, although they may appear more true.[/quote]
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.

I already did, if you were reading my post. Humans agree on rights as a social contract. It is to everyone's benefit to respect each others' rights and in return have them respect yours.

Do human rights come from the people that write the contract? What if someone wants to make a new contract? How is this more logically defensible, I do not see anywhere were it is self evident that "Humans agree on rights as a social contract". It is almost like you are making human governments take the place of God as the origin of morality, typical for liberals, and you are saying that it is more reasonable to pressupose that human governments should take the place of God instead of God because you can see governments. It may be that it is easier to believe in the reality of the government laws but that does not make the more "logically defensible". I saw another poster on this board quote Blacks Law Dictionary as if it gave an ethical defense.

Liberals have their faith, it is in the government, that is their God and they aren't going to budge. Their faith is very strong.

Anarchy, YEAH!!!!

...no. Umm, I'm just going to point out a few things here:
1. God doesn't protect rights, governments do (in theory).
2. People could try to establish a new society with a new contract, but if it were undesirable, then people wouldn't sign it.
3. Government is by no means the origin of morality.
4. It is not self evident that they agree? Why not take a poll on how many people think human rights are a good idea. Most will probably say they are.
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?

Yeah, you're right (at least about that last part). Just curious, but what authority am I appealing to?

You are appealing to the authority of liberal philosophical thinkers. The way that you use the word logic actually means exactly the opposite of the word: when you say logic, you mean "an argument from authority from a liberal thinker". Actually, what logic is is a flow of self evident propositions using deductive logic that garentee the certainty of a conclusion (I suppose there could be other kinds of logic like inductive logic too). Logic does not mean the same thing as liberalism.

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)

Reason is not incompatible with theology. Some forms of logic and epistemology are basically imcompatible with theology.

I would say the arguments for God's existence are more things that point toward a God or show how a concept of God solves many problems versus proving in the same way that you measure layers of rock in the grand canyon that God exists. The proof comes when you seek God on his own terms.

I am not an expert in natural theology, the branch of theology concern with showing how God exists from nature. I could not say whether God's existence can be "proven" or not, for someone that has not prior experience.

Faith is not really the same as logic and it isn't really the same as reason, it isn't blind faith. The way that faith works is that you see how something could be true, and you start to follow it on its own terms. And then, when you are serious, God reveals himself to you. It is not irrational, I would argue some parts of faith are based on rational considerations (such as the many good arguments for God's existence) and some are based on non-rational considerations (such as wanting a world in which there is morality and love and wanting to be close to God).

A lot of learning about theology comes down to wanting to learn about God from God, and H'Shem will teach you if you are willing to listen to H'Shem and submit to H'Shem's holiness.

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?

Spirituality is not a delusion. You will see miracles. You will see powerful displays of the glory of God. I have seen so many revelations.

I await a logical defense of a rationalistic approach to learning that today, in the world of string theory, quantumn mechanics, post-modern approaches to seeing the world and Kantian critiques of reason, seems a little bit like it is stuck in the 17th century.

Daniel Dennet said about the relationship of philosophy to other subjects "philosophy is a tool for generating hypothesis that can be checked with other sciences." Obviously Dennett is an atheist, but I would tend to agree with him. Reason alone is a good tool for self deception, pride and authoritarianism.

A logical defense of Christianity would be hundreds of pages. You could consult someone like Thomas Aquinas, Alaisdair MacGraph, Alvin Plantiga, the neo-Thomist thinkers, William Lane Craig (who is a good apologist despite the character assasinsation attempts of atheists).

I posted a long list of theistic arguments in another thread, there are so many of them. Many of the most brilliant people in history have believed that Christianity was a reasonable belief system.

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?

[Angrboda]

Let's say that, for the sake of argument god exists and he is the ultimate moral authority. So, now what? Which god? Which morals? (Jesus contradicts some of the OT laws) Is there a need for interpretation? Here's something to think about: god never said "thou shalt not abuse cocaine", therefore it is not immoral to do so. How would you respond to this?

---

Jesus says - seek and you will find. There is no absolute way to know the will of God or be a Christian. God's will changes over time. But if you seek God, you will find him. The New Testament of the Bible is a good place to law, but it is not intended to be a moral absolute that replaces God. God is the ground of being and the ground of morality. The two are related. God can be the ground of morality because God is the ground of being. When God created the universe, morality was created at the same time.

---

The bible forbids drunkenness (1 Cor 6) which has been interpreted through church tradition to include drug abuse and reason says that cocaine is more dangerous than other drugs so it is reasonable to believe that cocaine use is sinful. Perhaps you had a tooth operation and you were going to be given cocaine (it is legal for some purposes), if you were concerned about it, you could pray and ask God to show you in the scriptures whether it is acceptable, and God would. Ultimately, God has the final authority to direct people, but God will agree with the New Testament and use that, at least in this particular period of the grace of God.

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

This raises a question which may or may not have been answered. Is jstrodel a Catholic, a Protestant, or something else? He sounds like a Protestant, and if so, this argument has no foundation as the tradition of the church is not authoritative for a Protestant. (Protestants have other problems involved in deriving authority from their chain of command, but that's a separate issue.) [ETA: Drunkenness and mere use of alcohol may be separate things; we have laws against public drunkenness, but not against drinking.] [ETA2: For a Protestant to argue in this way would be analogous to the controversial practice of kalam in Islam.]

The other question, which has been in the back of my mind, is the mechanism that makes these objective morals flow from God. One might ask, if God happens to be dead — he created the universe, its morals, and human life, but ceased to exist somewhere along the way — are his morals still authoritative? Objective? Should we follow the morals of a non-existent god? And what properties of the universe would justify saying it has morals and teleology when the teleosee is gone? The likely answer you will get is that it is not possible for God not to exist, or that we know he still does; in doing so, that brings a lot of new, questionable premises onto the field, all of which need to be justified.

[Darkstar]

[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?

---

EDIT: This sums up quite well what I am trying to say, and more concisely than I have been able to. Subjectivism in Ethics

[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?

[Darkstar]

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).

But the enemy would also be discarding empathy, so reason would tell you that you would be justified in treating them the same.

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

Naturally, I disagree. Justice, when morailty is severely breached, would often not be considered moral outside of the domain of justice, I should note.

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.

Do you know what would happen to the world if human rights disappeared over night? They're pretty important...

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.

You will need to define "authority" then.

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 don't worship the state either, and I think nationalism is highly illogical, so we're on the same page in that regard.

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

Okay, so how do you determine exactly how much authority they have?

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

What is the origin of morality?

Evolution of morality
I'm not 100% positive, but this is your best bet at the moment. It should be noted that morality didn't evolve purely out of genetic change, but from societal constructs that would, you know, keep it from becoming a free for all where the greediest and most selfish prevailed.

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.

Well, rather it protects the rights that are there. The constitution says the rights are self evident to begin with. Of course, if someone wants to act as if rights don't exist, then their own rights don't exist either, and they become extremely vulnerable.

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.

I don't worship the founding fathers just because I agree that human rights are good. The difference between us is that you think the founding fathers need to be like religious thinkers, whereas I don't think religion is necessary.

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.

There are a number of atheists here who were strongly theistic for decades, but never found god. I don't know how natural theology works, but I would imagine that science would say it is improbable that god exists. What has natural theology conrtibuted to the world? (honest question)
Why do we need religious thinkers anyway, if you can get all the answers direct from god himself?

---

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.

These will take a while to read, and even longer to respond to. Perhaps this particular part of the debate should go in another thread.

[Angrboda]

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).

Funny, because the U.S. military's use of the M4 carbine in Afghanistan and Iraq is a direct consequence of finding that the bulk of soldiers in combat intentionally avoided firing their weapons in a way that was likely to kill the enemy. Maybe they were just not good Christians, in addition to being moral cowards. Damn them soldiers and their secular morality. It's a good thing the moral lights at Abu Graib are there to lead us out of our slavish obedience to empathy.

---

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic."
— Bertrand Russell

"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion."
— Thomas Paine

"Many statements about God are confidently made by theologians on grounds that today at least sound specious. Thomas Aquinas claimed to prove that God cannot make another God, or commit suicide, or make a man without a soul, or even make a triangle whose interior angles do not equal 180 degrees. But Bolyai and Lobachevsky were able to accomplish this last feat (on a curved surface) in the nineteenth century, and they were not even approximately gods."
— Carl Sagan

[Cato]

No, I have plenty of direct evidence for God that I will get to in a minute,

Your minute is up. Bring the evidence, or shut the fuck up!

[jstrodel]

I posted several links where you can read quite a bit about natural theology.

---

Your minute is up. Bring the evidence, or shut the fuck up!

[Ryantology]

He asked for direct evidence, not fanfiction.

[Esquilax]

He asked for direct evidence, not fanfiction.

I ship JesusXJudas, personally.