Likes Likes:  0
Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6 12 13 14 15 16
Results 226 to 237 of 237

Thread: Jesus loves you...

  1. #226
    Kimpatsu Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by glad2bhere
    My original post pointed to behavioral rather than intellectual aspects of the subject under discussion. I added one more post hoping to focus on this rather than the intellectual hair-splitting that you are doing. I had hoped that perhaps we might examine things in terms of what manner Christian thought improves the behavior patterns of the countries in which it hold predominance.
    Short answer: It doesn't. Ethics is a matter of the quality of the individual, and doesn't require fairy stories to make people better.

  2. #227
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Lindenhurst, Illinois
    Posts
    1,114
    Likes (received)
    0

    Lightbulb

    Dear Tony:

    "......Short answer: It doesn't. Ethics is a matter of the quality of the individual, and doesn't require fairy stories to make people better......"

    Exactly. So rather than debate the veracity of what constitutes a "fairy tale," or not, how is it that participants are not discussing the nature of a quality individual or in what way a belief system provides for individuals becoming better persons. FWIW.

    Best Wishes,

    Bruce
    Bruce W Sims
    www.midwesthapkido.com

  3. #228
    Kimpatsu Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by glad2bhere
    Dear Tony:

    "......Short answer: It doesn't. Ethics is a matter of the quality of the individual, and doesn't require fairy stories to make people better......"

    Exactly. So rather than debate the veracity of what constitutes a "fairy tale," or not, how is it that participants are not discussing the nature of a quality individual or in what way a belief system provides for individuals becoming better persons. FWIW.

    Best Wishes,

    Bruce
    Because when people take actions based on a fairy tale, they are in danger of committing a great wrong. Therefore, the fairy tale itself must be opposed to stop this rfom happening.

  4. #229
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Lindenhurst, Illinois
    Posts
    1,114
    Likes (received)
    0

    Lightbulb

    Dear Tony:

    ".......Because when people take actions based on a fairy tale, they are in danger of committing a great wrong. Therefore, the fairy tale itself must be opposed to stop this rfom happening......"

    I agree that the position you present is one of a few choices. It is also possible to consider both the fairy tale AND the behavior. It is also possible to ignore the fairy tale and consider ONLY the behavior. My thought was that the frequency with which people debate the fairy tale and eschew discussing the behavior is almost suspiciously high. In fact, in the years that I have been on various Nets where such discussion occur I have yet to ever see anyone discuss the behavior modifications but rather routinely discuss the arcane, esoteric and hypothetical instead. I am left to consider that, just as in the martial arts community at large, people would rather listen to themselves wax eloquent regarding theory than discuss the actual character changes that following a warrior lifestyle brings to their lives. My term for this has been "martial theatre" as opposed to "martial art". Perhaps we need to consider that discussions such as this current string would more accurately characterized as "religious theatre" than actually a discussion of religion, yes? FWIW.

    Best Wishes,

    Bruce
    Bruce W Sims
    www.midwesthapkido.com

  5. #230
    Kimpatsu Guest

    Default

    Bruce, I am not a "know-all" in the sense that Richard Dawkins coined; those who beleive that, even though religion is predicated upon a lie, it is somehow "good" for people, because it teaches them things, or brings them peace. This was evident among those who claimed that Mike Tyson's public conversion to Islam was a good think "if it made him feel better". To rebut this line of (non-)thinking, I offer a quote from Mark Twain: "That a religious man is happier than an unbeliever is no mroe to the point than that a drunk man is happier than a sober one".
    The issue in question is that there is absolutely no evidence--none, mind you--for the existence of the supernatural after 4.5 billion years. You'd think that any god worth their salt would have given us incontrovertible evidence by now. (As Shelley wrote, "If god has spoken, why is man not convinced?") Ethics are totally irrelevant to religion, for it is perfectly possible to be an ethical person without having any faith in the paranormal. The intertwining of ethics with religion is a con job by believers to create a strawman with which to caricature skeptics and critical thinkers. Only once that hurdle is overcome, can the issue of ethics be discussed seriously.

  6. #231
    n2shotokai Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Kimpatsu
    The issue in question is that there is absolutely no evidence--none, mind you--for the existence of the supernatural after 4.5 billion years. You'd think that any god worth their salt would have given us incontrovertible evidence by now. (As Shelley wrote, "If god has spoken, why is man not convinced?")
    Once again Tony, you're expecting God to perform and behave as you think He should. Just like you would have everyone believe or not believe as you do. Perhaps this is why you are so unhappy. Your threatre of life is not playing out to your script.

    As far as being convinced most people are. Remember, you are in a VERY small minority.

  7. #232
    Kimpatsu Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by n2shotokai
    Once again Tony, you're expecting God to perform and behave as you think He should. Just like you would have everyone believe or not believe as you do. Perhaps this is why you are so unhappy. Your threatre of life is not playing out to your script.
    The riddle of Epicurus deals with that assertion perfectly:
    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
    Then he is not omnipotent.

    Is he able, but not willing?
    Then he is malevolent.

    Is he both able and willing?
    Then whence cometh evil?

    Is he neither able nor willing?
    Then why call him God?
    Originally posted by n2shotokai
    As far as being convinced most people are. Remember, you are in a VERY small minority.
    Argumentum ad populam (appeal to popularity). Yest another logical fallacy. Every time you argue your position, Steve, you argue nothing but logical fallacies and anecdote, neither of which are acceptable in logic. It just goes to show: you have nothing concrete to back up your assertion. Show me evidence for a god--any god--or admit that your faith is irrational. Oh, sorry, you won't do that, will you, because it would be the rational thing to do...

  8. #233
    n2shotokai Guest

    Default

    Tony,

    good dodge on the subject. Also, I argued nothing, but simply stated the fact that atheist are a minority. Which is contrary to your earlier statement from Shelly, that people are not convinced. I would call that twisting facts. Or was that too simple?

  9. #234
    Kimpatsu Guest

    Default

    Steve, yet again, you miss the point. The statement, "god exists" is a scientific statement; therefore, we must subject it to scientific examination. You said in your last post that I expect "god" (Allah? Yahweh? Thor?) to answer to my call; damn right--this is science.
    That you do not understand does not undermine the facts.

  10. #235
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Posts
    2,088
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Kimpatsu
    Steve, yet again, you miss the point. The statement, "god exists" is a scientific statement; therefore, we must subject it to scientific examination. You said in your last post that I expect "god" (Allah? Yahweh? Thor?) to answer to my call; damn right--this is science.
    That you do not understand does not undermine the facts.
    Right,

    Not sure what i'm doing here. I'm bored at work, and reading all the religious threads to stop me from falling asleep (yes, i'm that bored! ).

    Anyway, Tony's post got me thinking.

    Have any of the thiests here said that god is a physical entity?

    If not, would this work as an arguement:

    God is a branch of philosophy.

    If you ask me for proof that Stoacism exists, i can show you a Stoic, i can show you writings detailing what Stoacism is, yet i can't show you physical proof of Stoacism itself.

    Sounds a little like God to me.

    Appologies if this is a load of cobblers.
    Huw Larsen

    Number 1 member of the Default Collective of Misfits

  11. #236
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Lindenhurst, Illinois
    Posts
    1,114
    Likes (received)
    0

    Lightbulb

    Dear Tony:

    "......Ethics are totally irrelevant to religion, for it is perfectly possible to be an ethical person without having any faith in the paranormal. The intertwining of ethics with religion is a con job by believers to create a strawman with which to caricature skeptics and critical thinkers. Only once that hurdle is overcome, can the issue of ethics be discussed seriously......"

    I would not say that "Ethics are "totally" irrelevant. But then, I would note that one need not resolve the issue of the nature of God in order to discuss productive behavior. Were that true I would be a poor Buddhist, indeed. Certainly one does not need a rationale (IE: God, Politics, Morality etc.) to be productive, benign or supportive. In like manner, then one does not have to resolve the nature of agencies in order to conduct oneself well. I am discounting for a minute that people tend to erect insurmountable barriers to avoid both growth and change, even if such growth and change might only be intimated in an on-line discussion. For myself I can say honestly that you may well have a fine constitution that allows you to conduct yourself without benefit of the usual crutches upon which many depend. However, if you will allow me this single thought, to my eye you seem inordinately committed to deriding other peoples' crutches without being willing to discuss the manner in which you yourself walk. Such things often raise a red flag for me in discussions.

    Best Wishes,

    Bruce
    Bruce W Sims
    www.midwesthapkido.com

  12. #237
    Kimpatsu Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by larsen_huw
    God is a branch of philosophy.
    No, that's a weasel word. (See Dawkins for clarification.) It's simply a way to work "god" into a philosophy, where there is no need for such. "God" is an anthropomorphic entity used to explain facts that are better explained by science.
    ---
    Bruce:
    You don't need any god to be ethical. Read the Humanist manifesto. Ethics for those who reason. As for crutches, the definition of an atheist is someone with no invisible means of support.

Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6 12 13 14 15 16

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •