Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-02-2017, 05:59 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 05:56 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  Love you all and may God bless you,

Christian Philosophy

NOTE: Many here have read or studied the Bible.

You would do well to read the entire work so that you can then debate on equal terms. I, for example, am a minister.

Christianity is not about love. It is a xenophobic death cult. Nothing more.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
02-02-2017, 06:00 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 05:56 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 05:54 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I sent a username. How is that poor etiquette? And my arguments weren't meant to be original. They're meant to be valid. Cosmological arguments are not an insult to anyone's intelligence.

Serious question. What age group are you a member?

I don't know how to treat you?

You sound very young and inexperienced.

I'm 17.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 06:03 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 05:56 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  This topic is largely a fruitful one (The PSR is a highly debated and argued principle that many have discussed over the years), but yet I am seeing a level of confusion on both sides. I see no reason, to back up Naielis, that an argument cannot be used as evidence. If each of the premises is true, which they are arguably are (The PSR both has appeal from epistemology and metaphysics, including I think the possibility of logic and even science for as Rob Koons states, brain states could also be emerging with no intelligible explanation given the denial of the PSR and Principle of Causality), then I think it follows the argument is viable given classical logical inference. Unfortunately however, this forum appears to be a nest of proponents of scientism, which is dead within philosophy and is primarily held by dogmatic scientists unqualified to speak on the subject. Secondly, why can an argument not rely on scientific or philosophical evidence (like the existence of contingent beings), and work up from there? All of the premises in an argument rely on sub arguments, so reason dictates this could be evidence. Arguments simply could be deductive inferences from the evidence which the premises rely on. I do have to disagree with Naielis here in his/her defense of the PSR in wake of the objections from radioactive decay, which is why I will provide a link by an excellent philosopher, who is a defender of the this principle:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/...y.html?m=1

Love you all and may God bless you,

Christian Philosophy

Yup all that sciencey stuff its just soo evil Tongue Evil_monster
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like adey67's post
02-02-2017, 06:04 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 05:59 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 05:56 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  Love you all and may God bless you,

Christian Philosophy

NOTE: Many here have read or studied the Bible.

You would do well to read the entire work so that you can then debate on equal terms. I, for example, am a minister.

Christianity is not about love. It is a xenophobic death cult. Nothing more.

Hi, Banjo thanks for the reply

I actually have read the entire work which I subscribe to, but I understand the concern. Ultimately I have come to a different conclusion in the midst of my examination. I appreciate your concern, and I agree if that was the case, I would not be in a great position.

Thanks,

Christian Philosophy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Christian Philosophy's post
02-02-2017, 06:05 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 06:00 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I'm 17.

Thanks.

Mate here's my advice, for what it's worth.

Before you post anymore, read around the website. Check out the subjects and debates that have already taken place.

If you do this you will better understand the community. We have people here who are highly qualified professionals in subjects such as biology, physics, theology etc.

I'd discontinue this debate. As I said it is old news to us.

BTW, it is not a crime to be young and inexperienced. Smile

Good luck to you.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
02-02-2017, 06:06 PM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2017 06:10 PM by Christian Philosophy.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 06:03 PM)adey67 Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 05:56 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  This topic is largely a fruitful one (The PSR is a highly debated and argued principle that many have discussed over the years), but yet I am seeing a level of confusion on both sides. I see no reason, to back up Naielis, that an argument cannot be used as evidence. If each of the premises is true, which they are arguably are (The PSR both has appeal from epistemology and metaphysics, including I think the possibility of logic and even science for as Rob Koons states, brain states could also be emerging with no intelligible explanation given the denial of the PSR and Principle of Causality), then I think it follows the argument is viable given classical logical inference. Unfortunately however, this forum appears to be a nest of proponents of scientism, which is dead within philosophy and is primarily held by dogmatic scientists unqualified to speak on the subject. Secondly, why can an argument not rely on scientific or philosophical evidence (like the existence of contingent beings), and work up from there? All of the premises in an argument rely on sub arguments, so reason dictates this could be evidence. Arguments simply could be deductive inferences from the evidence which the premises rely on. I do have to disagree with Naielis here in his/her defense of the PSR in wake of the objections from radioactive decay, which is why I will provide a link by an excellent philosopher, who is a defender of the this principle:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/...y.html?m=1

Love you all and may God bless you,

Christian Philosophy

Yup all that sciencey stuff its just soo evil Tongue Evil_monster

Hi Adey67,

I am actually a great fan of science. I am not trying to deny the great impact of science on human society, and hence, as a sincere truth seeker, I cannot help admire it.

Thanks for the reply,

Christian Philosophy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Christian Philosophy's post
02-02-2017, 06:09 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 06:05 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 06:00 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I'm 17.

Thanks.

Mate here's my advice, for what it's worth.

Before you post anymore, read around the website. Check out the subjects and debates that have already taken place.

If you do this you will better understand the community. We have people here who are highly qualified professionals in subjects such as biology, physics, theology etc.

I'd discontinue this debate. As I said it is old news to us.

BTW, it is not a crime to be young and inexperienced. Smile

Good luck to you.

I've seen and taken part in many debates. I was an atheist for years. I'm young, but I certainly don't think I'm inexperienced.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Naielis's post
02-02-2017, 06:10 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 06:06 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 06:03 PM)adey67 Wrote:  Yup all that sciencey stuff its just soo evil Tongue Evil_monster

Hi Adey67,

I am actually a great fan of science. I am not trying to deny the great impact of science on human society, and hence, as a truth seeker, I cannot help admire it.

Thanks for the reply,

Christian Philosophy

That's a relief to hear Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 06:11 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 09:32 AM)Naielis Wrote:  What about someone who doesn't have the instinct to live in peace and harmony? Why are they wrong? Just because the majority deems it so? That opens the door for any moral system.
Your concern would be valid if morality were a pure democracy, but no one takes a vote about particular cases. Any enforced rule is the end product of a long and involved process of explicit and implicit interactions between individuals at different levels and through different mechanisms over time. Under most non-totalitarian societies, that ends up producing laws that society enforces in various ways. In theory that "opens the door for any moral system", but in practice, no moral system that doesn't derive itself from the consent of the governed has proven particularly durable.

Besides, having a "moral strong man" in the picture opens the door to the strong man's caprice concerning morality, so I don't see how that would be better than a system that each member has some participation and voice in. Arguing for a supreme deity as the source of morality and moral authority is no different than arguing for a totalitarian despot who makes up and orders the enforcement of all the rules.

What concern are you really expressing about "opening the door for any moral system"? You are under the moral system you are under. Your only options are to somehow escape or withdraw from engagement with the system by leaving that society or playing the hermit; to flout the system in whatever ways you can get away with; or participating in the society in ways that change the moral system to be more to your liking (by voting, advocacy / activism, plotting a coup d'etat, etc). Or, I suppose, asserting without evidence that an invisible man in the sky demands that you do this or that. But be careful with that last one, if the man in the sky disagrees in any substantive way with the REAL moral authorities, you will be branded ... immoral ... and find that it is the state, or denial of your social reciprocity needs, or both, that actually visit sanctions upon you.

At the end of the day, morality as asserted by religion is basically the same morality as enforced by society, possibly with extra requirements / embellishments that society tolerates or ignores. Religious morality is not immutable, it changes with society, if often on a delayed basis. So it's really a waste to talk about "god's morality" or the morality of religion X, which goes around pretending to be the originator and protector of "real" morality when in fact its just hijacking what's already there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mordant's post
02-02-2017, 06:11 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 06:04 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  Hi, Banjo thanks for the reply

I actually have read the entire work which I subscribe to, but I understand the concern. Ultimately I have come to a different conclusion in the midst of my examination. I appreciate your concern, and I agree if that was the case, I would not be in a great position.

Thanks,

Christian Philosophy

Hi.

What you say here needs to be addressed in another thread I think. You read the entire work and decided the xian message was love?

Were I you I'd read it again.

Since we are just meeting, I feel I should explain. My mind has been destroyed by serious chemicals. I am not at my best.

If you really want to discuss what is written in the bible, we can do that. If you wish to discuss the ancient Roman xian authors, we can do that too. I read them all.

Probably not on this thread though. It has become a confused mess. Smile

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: