God is good? Come here moral objectivists

[ElderCookies]

<p>

“I should have said “many Christians”. I was not talking about all of them, though this is just a statement which is true, which you showed when you did this exact thing with the reasoning in your first post.”</p>

<p>You obviously haven’t been reading my posts. I have never argued your point at all. I just said that Christians start with the logically unproven assumption that God is the source of all good. I really don’t see where you’re getting this. The argument is dumb because most people wouldn’t claim that God exists because a source of good is necessary. Was it Descartes who developed the fallacious First Cause argument? Most people nowadays don’t take it seriously anyway.

The argument is not just about the proof of god, but also the fallacy that moral objectivm in any form can exist because of a being. You have missed the point. Claiming a being can be the source of objective morality if a logically flawed statement. All morality must be subjective-Christians should say they accept god morals but not claim his morality is somehow objective in nature.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>“If it can not be proven with logic it IS irrational. It may hold some value but it is still irrational. I want to show it to be irrational so people will cease to hold to the nonsensical premise of Christianity etc. It is almost surely false and does more harm than good in my opinion (case in point George Dubya Bush).”</p>

<p>We’re working with two definitions here. In the familiar sense, religion is not irrational.</p>

<p>In the logical sense, it is irrational. However, that doesn’t mean that it is nonsensical

It does mean that. </p>

<p>

or irrelevant, or false. It just means that in a strict debate using traditional rhetoric, religion would lose.

Correct </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>“Like a mission trip? It does not have to be logical to have value, but it is irrational if logic does not back it up. I did not mean to imply illogical things are valueless-just that they are irrational. It is sort of like Santa Clause. He is useful in that he makes Children happy, but belief in him is illogical. Same deal basically with god.”</p>

<p>Right, but that doesn’t make it false. It just makes it unsupported by traditional logic. That’s why I don’t understand the original post. Are you discussing only that one aspect of Christianity, or are you trying to apply that example to all religion? You are fighting a lost cause, I assure you. Mainly because most religious people (a generalization) would probably not claim “logic” as the primary reason for their belief.

Like I said if they admit they hold illogical beliefs I don’t care anymore/ Many do try to claim that their belief can be proven though. I meet them all the time.

“I think those that hold to irrational positions are deluded. I do not respect their opinion as it is unsupported. I do consider myself superior and think that is a perfectly understandable thing to think.”</p>

<p>Why exactly would that be the case? I mean, they could be wrong, but are they less intelligent? Less important? I mean, in what way are you superior?

I have the ability to not hold to arguments for non rational primarily emotional reasons.

We’re talking about specific people, not generalizations here. As in, is someone less able to think for themselves because they are religious? Are they automatically dumber? In what way are you superior? I’m not questioning that belief because it IS understandable. But it’s vague.</p>

<p>“Something must be proven before it is true.”</p>

<p>No. The earth was round way before it was “proven.” Again, we are talking about universal truths, not the ones limited by the confines of formulaic rhetoric.

Let me rephrase as you are correct. “We can not hold to position logically and claim it is true rationally without proving it”. I did write that at 4 in the morning so give me a break.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>“Kant is great for a number of reasons.”</p>

<p>I share your reasons. However, I don’t understand why he is so much greater than the others. It’s fine if the answer is yes: Are they automatically less great because they do not follow what you consider to be pristine logic? If so, then we disagree fundamentally on the value and validity of someone’s work.

Any definition of “great” is going to be subjective. I do not mean to imply that their work has no value. The way that Aquinas used Aristotelian thought was very interesting for example. I just do not think they are as great as Kant, who basically changed the face of modern philosophy. I admit to disliking Augustine myself, though he was the first one to propose evolution.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>“I like to think I win and learn. If someone proves me wrong with logic or evidence my view will change.”</p>

<p>I like to win and learn too. However, I am probably more open to accepting different viewpoints than you, if what you just said is true. Perhaps that’s why I’m approaching this differently.</p>

<p>“My desire to show that religion is nonsense has little to nothing to do with my personal ego.”</p>

<p>I know, but again, you misrepresent me. Your ego is an entirely different matter. You want to both show religion to be nonsensical and inflate your ego. They are not mutually exclusive.</p>

<p>In addition, you can’t prove religion to be nonsensical, because that is entirely different from illogical. If you honestly knew anything about most religions, they really do make a lot of sense.

I would say that this does not apply to Christianity. I think a lot of it is contradictory, such as the Triune god.</p>

<p>

It’s just that the premises are not always proven empirically, although some would argue that there are cases where they are (every religion has their own thing in this regard…).</p>

<p>Again, given that most people have honest reasons for believing in the religion, demonstrating that it is not empirically justified is completely useless. They’re not ■■■■■■■■. They know that. Try showing that religion is impossible, and then you might achieve your goal.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>In a way I regret the arrogance of my posts. On the other hand I think it is important that this issue is raised without allowing religion to appeal to special pleading so I think it was justified somewhat.</p>

<p>Just know I did not wish to offend anyone. If I did it was not my intention. I will not apologize though as I still think that what I said is correct.</p>