God is good? Come here moral objectivists

College Confidential Community
21

<p>“Not what I said. Your post contained an admission that your belief was not logical on the strictest sense. That is it for your argument. I was talking about my discussion with you.”</p>

<p>Yes you did. My admission was that my beliefs were not logically proven in the traditional manner. You then said that that was all that mattered because you are only concerned with “rational debate.” As if something that is not able to be proven in the strictest sense is automatically irrational. In addition, you seem to be expanding this way beyond the scope of what you had in the first post. There you were discussing a specific aspect of Christianity, but you seem to apply it to the religion as a whole.</p>

<p>"I did not make derogatory claims. "</p>

<p>Let’s see…Here you are making a generalizations about the beliefs of an entire religion (which encompasses countless different denominations, mind you).</p>

<p>“What Christians forget is that Christianity is just atheism + God.”</p>

<p>Yes, let’s reflect a completely unfounded statement like this onto, what 1.3 billion+ people. That makes total sense. In addition, your entire post is dripping with condescension. I’m pretty sure that is a fair statement. You are using a very isolated and meaningless example in an attempt to discredit an entire belief system that doesn’t even depend on logic to function properly. Religion does not NEED a basis in logic to work. It may just not convince you. Remember that its purpose is not to be logical. I still don’t see what your point is. Religion is illogical. That’s nice. Does that make it true? No. False? No. Important? No. Unimportant? No. Stupid? No. Smart? No. Again, I question your motives.</p>

<p>"You are reading them into my statements because I am arguing against Christianity.</p>

<p>Ah, yes, even better. Simply because I disagree with you, I am totally misinterpreting you, either out of ignorance or desire, because I am that closed-minded and unable to comprehend people whose opinions differ from my own. I am constantly surrounded by atheists who do not make useless threads in a pathetic attempt to promote a particular point of view. Those people I respect and understand. You I don’t respect yet still understand. Again, I love how you can make such absurd claims and expect me to accept them.</p>

<p>“If I appeared derogatory it is because I think religion is illogical.”</p>

<p>Again, what is the relevance? You still haven’t justified your implied point of view that something must be traditionally logical to have any value. In addition, my suspicion was confirmed: This thread is clearly an attempt to push your own point of view on others.</p>

<p>“You may correct me and offer arguments against my view if you wish.”</p>

<p>I agree with your statement that religion cannot be justified in the strictest sense by logic. I really don’t like your attitude. I am pretty tolerant religiously, and I value the diverse points of view that I encounter (except at my school, which is entirely atheistic, so I must look elsewhere for diversity). What I don’t like are people who think themselves superior in criteria completely unrelated to religion, e.g. intelligence, because of their persuasion.</p>

<p>“Something must be proven logically in the traditional sense, as no other kind of non traditional proof exists.”</p>

<p>Uh… Not really. Logic is a very structured form of rhetoric. But you haven’t justified this statement at all. We are not talking about reality within the confines of a debate. We are talking about universal truths and untruths.</p>

<p>“Kant, a FAR greater philosopher than the ones you mention (and a Christian incidentally) would agree with me on that.”</p>

<p>I have read Kant, and he is one of my personal favorites. I assume that such an absurd claim is made from someone who has read those philosophers, especially the Summa Theologica? Otherwise, that person would not make claims without knowing about what he was talking.</p>

<p>In other words, I call your bluff by claiming that I don’t think that you can justify that statement through your own experience. Or is he simply far greater because he’s not as dogmatic and associated with religion?</p>

<p>“I did post this to debate people. I enjoy debating. No one forced you to post did they? Though I admit I do think your beliefs are bogus.”</p>

<p>I never said that they did. And this post was obviously made to debate people. But there is a difference between wanting to debate and learn and wanting to debate and win. You clearly have your motive, and that’s fine. I just do not comprehend why you would rather adhere to your desire to win (as you have explicitly stated) when you could learn from the different, albeit possibly erroneous, beliefs of others.</p>

<p>“Because when someone attacks a religious view it is automatically self-aggrandizement.”</p>

<p>Again, a completely false claim. Man, for someone who loves logic so much, brush up on your fallacies and please stop misrepresenting me (almost to the point where I can call it a strawman). You are attacking religion. I have no problem with that. But I am also saying that your purpose in doing so is to appear intelligent compared to religious people. My claim may be false, but I’m not at all saying that you are inflating your ego just by challenging religion.</p>

<p>"I have no desire to make myself look intelligent on a random forum. "</p>

<p>Then what was the motive? You wanted to debate, but to what end? You didn’t want to understand the beliefs of anyone else, you wanted to attack religion…Those are your own words. So are you just here to promote your own opinion? If that’s the case, then just say so. I’ll probably drop it. It just seems like this thread could have gone somewhere interesting, but instead you used it as a way to promote your own opinion.</p>

<p>“You do not know me in real life, thus your opinion is meaningless to me.”</p>

<p>I love you too. :*</p>

22

<p>Baelor, what do you personally think of Islam?</p>

23

<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>

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>

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>

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>

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

<p>

Kant is great for a number of reasons. I think the following are most relevant:

  1. His destruction of both traditional rationalism and empiricism.
  2. The way he built on Hume.
  3. His work with the transcendental dialectic
    etc</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>

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

<p>

As to using it discredit my opinion?</p>

24

<p>baller…stole the words out of my mouth…</p>

25

<p>I don’t have any grasp of how these types of philosophical conclusions are drawn.</p>

26

<p>ElderCookies knows what hes talking about, and is correct.</p>

<p>/Agree</p>

27

<p>you guys. you guys. <a href=“http://i148.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/albums/s3/lild6666/srsly.jpg[/url]”>http://i148.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/albums/s3/lild6666/srsly.jpg&lt;/a&gt; I find this entire argument ■■■■■■■■.</p>

<p>Basically people who argue that the existence of God does not exist or that you can’t prove that he is good are going to argue that people are irrational and need a higher being. </p>

<p>Religious people will argue that God does exist and he is indeed good and is a matter of faith. </p>

<p>I am a hybrid. I think both ways that makes sense to me.</p>

28

<p>It is not a useless argument. The question of god is one of the most important in history.</p>

29

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

<p>“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? 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.</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.</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. 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>“Baelor, what do you personally think of Islam?”</p>

<p>I am not a Muslim. Islam is a fascinating religion. However, it is illogical. Just like most, if not all, others. I don’t see the relevance.</p>

<p>“It is not a useless argument. The question of god is one of the most important in history.”</p>

<p>It is one that still hasn’t been resolved, and probably won’t be when this thread runs its course.</p>

30

<p>

imrightuarewrong
Threads: 0
Posts: 0</p>

<p>Rofl, I wonder who that was.</p>

31

<p>

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>

It does mean that. </p>

<p>

Correct </p>

<p>

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

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>

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>

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>

</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>

32

<p>Sorry to disappoint, but I am not ElderCookies.</p>

<p>Join Date: 06-17-2008</p>

<p>Yes, I sure did join just to post in this thread, I sure knew that he was going to make it over a week ago.</p>

<p>Some people on this forum are really dumb…</p>

33

<p>“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>I know, but that’s what they say. I completely agree with it is logically flawed. But that doesn’t matter to some people, especially when the being itself is not proven empirically. Why would it be surprising to you that they consider God to be the source of goodness? He IS pure good, by definition. It’s not logically proven, of course.</p>

<p>“It does mean that.”</p>

<p>No, no. Nonsensical does not have the connotations that illogical has, or even irrational. Nonsensical means that it does not make sense. Religion makes perfect sense when you consider within the context of itself. Given a certain number of illogical statements, then other things follow in a very sensible way.</p>

<p>“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.”</p>

<p>But not through logic. And to them, that’s more than enough to prove a religion or a philosophy. Please don’t assume that everyone has the same standards that you do. You may claim that yours is correct, and others may disagree. But you’re not really able to start with the assumption that a belief is untrue unless logically proven when religion doesn’t claim to be logically proven in the first place.</p>

<p>“I have the ability to not hold to arguments for non rational primarily emotional reasons.”</p>

<p>In other words, you are superior to them only in that you have the correct belief about religion and logic? I don’t have a problem with that. </p>

<p>“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>Fair. An unproven statement is one about which we cannot make judgments regarding its veracity.</p>

<p>“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>Hmmm…This is a fine reason. Although you must not like how Augustine used Greek philosophy either… But of course, that is your opinion. I hope that you understand what my perspective was. I didn’t understand the basis for your claim, and now you have laid it out for me. </p>

<p>“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 not contradictory if you understand the reasoning behind it. For example, Jesus’ resurrection defies our idea of life and death. Obviously, it is illogical and nonsensical on the surface. However, in the way that all the pieces of a religion fit together and work, it forms a beautiful tapestry out of threads that would otherwise be “ugly” or unfit to use. </p>

<p>“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>Oh, you’re completely right. But again, most religious people don’t find that truth comes solely through empiricism.</p>

34

<p>Baelor do you believe in God? But I do agree with you that religion, in general, sucks.</p>

35

<p>Uhm, I’m not arguing that religion sucks. Because I don’t think it does.</p>

36

<p>

By YOUR definition of good. What is good to one person does not have to be so to another. Does god command good because it is good or is it good because gods commands it? </p>

<p>

Well, disbelief is the default view in my opinion for any claim.</p>

<p>I really don’t have a problem with people who admit their faith is just that-faith. It just seems like bunch of neo apologetics has come out of nowhere where I live. They DO assert they can prove god exists and it really started to get on my nerves. More than anything that was why I made this thread. I would not lump you in with them though, because you appear to intellectual honest with yourself about the inability of man to prove religious premises.</p>

37

<p>“By YOUR definition of good. What is good to one person does not have to be so to another. Does god command good because it is good or is it good because gods commands it?”</p>

<p>Whatever God does is justified because he is purely good. He is the source of good. Religion takes the first cause and moral objectivism and inserts the first cause and source of goodness. It’s God.</p>

<p>“Well, disbelief is the default view in my opinion for any claim.”</p>

<p>Right, in your opinion. And that’s what matters to you. But clearly it’s not true for others.</p>

<p>Look, I totally agree with you and I retract some of my stronger previous claims. It’s just that I know your argument is true, but it just seems futile to convince those who don’t accept the application of the argument on principle.</p>