 |
| |
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Disagree.
God can only be reached, if he offers himself to men. Men cannot bring God down, only he can.
The key is not in believing God to experience him, for if this were so, how could anyone of us come to know him? But rather, it is by letting him into our hearts, and the recognition of his presences will allow us to get to know him, and to believe in him. |
I meant the only way within our control to any extent. And even that ain't guaranteed.
Which brings me to Boris's second argument (the first I've never heard of, but it sounds like what happens when shaky theology fuses with racist supremacy). Not ALL christians feel what I'm thinking of; I only really felt it once, and not intentionally. It's a rare thing, and I'm guessing what I felt is only a shadow of what hits a saint, or the monks on Mt. Athos. I mentioned it only as something akin to the "proof" some demanded. Probably shouldn't have said anything.
But as an addendum, let me just say that what I felt was utterly different from any other feeling, and as physical as it was mental; try to imagine something like a warm wind spinning around you, but penetrating your bones without violence, or getting embraced by fire. That's the closest I can come to describing it, and if that was false, I see no reason to trust my sense of smell either.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
That's what I was getting at, Boris. There is no atheists' creed that says, "take anyone who you suspect of disloyalty, give them a show trial, and then hit them with the guillotine," so to judge the merits of atheism based on the Reign of Terror would be ridiculous. Much as it is ridiculous to judge Christianity based on the Spanish Inquisition or some such. Sorry if it sounded like a counteroffensive. |
The thing is atheism has no central tenets and doctrines. There is no worldview to atheism. Atheism has no official insitution, no decrees, no hierarchy, no power structure. You can't point to somebody and say, "This is a typical atheist," because there is no such thing.
That's why arguments apply to Judeo-Christianity very often cannot be simply turned around and apply to atheism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Er, GePap? Democrats can't PROVE Republicans wrong, nor Republicans Democrats. And we're all pretty much certain the Libertarians are wrong too, but we can't even prove that. Yet government still exists. It's just that what makes one government work and another fail is too complex to be sorted out under controlled conditions. So it gets anecdotal, based on personal experience, what-have-you.
|
Oh, lord, but if you think this is a rational counterarguement....
Government can work without any of the parties you mentioned- in fact, government's history is long before any of those individual political organizations or political ideologies came into effect- you can hardly say that Christianity predates Christian ideology (ie, the teachings of Christ) or that Buddhism predatd Buddhist ideology (ie the teachings of Buddha).
Political parties are constructs of the era the inhabit, and politics is the realm of managing and deviding power. Yes, at the bottom, there are "faith" issues involved in the basic difference (basic non-logic based differences in the view of humanity)-but party arguemnts basically derive from debates about the allocation of power and economic reosurces- things than can then be raionall studied and debated. All of which is impossible with things that are purely faith.
So please try a different counter-arguement, becuase this one was rather weak.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:34
|
|
Party *arguments* are based on allocation of power, but actual support for a political party generally comes from one's own attitude towards human nature and society, which it is not possible to scientifically test to such a degree as to serve for evidence, as you said. All political parties are built on ideals. Similarly, a church's missionary, charity or outreach programs, for example, are physical entities of its ideals, but are only representative, not the ideals themselves. Which I think is where we disagree.
EDIT: I didn't write this very clearly, in retrospect. I meant that the physical ministries of a church are embodiments of its ideals in the same sense that gun control might be seen as an embodiment of Democrats' ideals; the actual ideas the Democratic Party is or was based on, which is the part that really lies at the heart of its identity, is an abstract concept.
Last edited by Elok on 21-02-2004 at 23:35
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
All political parties are built on ideals. Similarly, a church's missionary, charity or outreach programs, for example, are physical entities of its ideals, but are only representative, not the ideals themselves. Which I think is where we disagree |
While all political paties are built on ideals, these are not necessarily (and no need to be whatsoever) MORAL or metaphysical ideals, nor are precriptions made about the existensial meaning of life NOR the structure of being and reality. IN fact, a political party is a very limited things and makes no prescriptions about human life in general.
A political party is a self-created grouping of individuals who share similar notions about how political and economic resources should be used. Their aim in inherently worldly-and in fact in the end, specially in an artifical two party system like in the US, people with widely divergent basic views of humanity ay be part of the same party for political expedience (like evangelical christians and libertarians as part of the republican party or labor unions and environmentalists in the Democratic party).
On top of that, one can do tests as to the effecitveness of the ideas about distribution of wealth and political power, by looking at the worldly outcomes. In theory as well, you can state that eocnmics is already a 'science' and politics has its rules and theories- even if not willing to accept the viability of "political science".
While the same basic idea of my post can apply to TV shows for example (a fan of the simpsons can not "disprove" the quality of seinfeld and vice versa) there is a difference between your personal opinion about a show, or a flavor, or a color, and then making grand moral judgements based on that, which is what religionistas do.
Even if we accept you feel the existance of some greater force in the universe, unless you have voices in your head, you got the name of that feeling from a book, and now debate ardently about the correctness of the name you chose and the prescriptions for life attached to that name without really being able to show in any way that the same feeling would still be there if you decided to change the name of it and adapt a whole different set of moral prescriptions attached to it.
The same can not be said about a political party.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:34
|
|
Actually, you usually can't prove that a system of government "caused" a failure or success as such; there are too many factors, mostly human and historical, but some of them pure bad luck. You can say, for example, that communism is a failure because of the crappy conditions in the former USSR, but that might also have to do with the devastation of WWII, the Cold War leaning on them, bad leadership, poor implementation on a regional level, or a host of other things.
A political party says nothing about existential questions because it is not a religion, but that doesn't mean it makes no bold claims. A political philosophy implies certain beliefs about the proper duties of government, the extent of our rights, and how many of those rights should be sacrificed by individuals or smaller groups for the greater good. How many of those can be "proven"? Has anybody ever divided a country in half, kept those two halves from interacting, and ensured that each half received identical external stimuli in every respect but one until a certain point?
Even assuming you did, how would you measure "success"? To form a definite scale of values would be to assume one particular governmental ideal was correct itself. For example, if country A enjoys tremendous personal freedoms but its quality of life sucks, and country B vice-versa, how can you judge which is "better" without making a judgment of priorities which itself is entirely subjective, being based on a theory about what a government ought to concern itself with?
My point is and always has been that the scientific method is not a panacea to cure every worthwhile question that ever occurred to us. If you demand scientific proof of non-scientific questions, I can't answer you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
UR: If you define a "christian" as "anybody who claims to follow the teachings of Christ," then you are correct, but the assertion is meaningless. |
How else do you define a Christian?
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Much as terrorists could be called "political activists," and in turn we might assert that political activists often kill people. |
Terrorists are a proper subset of political activists (meaning that the set of terrorists are smaller than the set of political activists), but Christians are not a proper subset of Christians. They are the equal set.
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
If we're judging religion, we should judge religion itself, not its followers. |
Are you saying that the people who called for the Crusades, say, did not follow the ideals of Christianity? On what basis do you say that?
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
I know atheism is not a defined school of beliefs as such. The closest thing to an atheist's creed is simply, "there is no God." By the same token, however, the Nicene Creed doesn't mention killing newly-converted believers to ensure that they go to heaven, and Christ himself certainly said nothing of the sort. |
Hm, again, the tenets and doctrines of Christianity consist a lot more than the Nicene Creed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Which brings me to Boris's second argument (the first I've never heard of, but it sounds like what happens when shaky theology fuses with racist supremacy). Not ALL christians feel what I'm thinking of; I only really felt it once, and not intentionally. It's a rare thing, and I'm guessing what I felt is only a shadow of what hits a saint, or the monks on Mt. Athos. I mentioned it only as something akin to the "proof" some demanded. Probably shouldn't have said anything.
|
If all Christians don't experience it, I find that of little value as proof of anything other than a subjective experience of your mind. Sounds exactly like what I felt at some meditation sessions I've had. Being ensconced in a warmth that seemed to pervade my whole body, right down to my bones, and the feeling of me "lifting" out of myself. It is powerful, but I believe purely mental.
Buddhist monks, who are non-theists, have this exact same kind of transcendental experience through their mediations. That would bely any sort of necessity for a deity to experience such a thing. You can find examples of people from all religious creeds having such experiences. I believe they are a product of the mind's belief, not any supernatural influence.
I'm not saying it isn't what you think it is, mind you, only that the simplest explanation, as far as I can see, is that such subjective experiences are a result of a mental state, not a metaphysical experience. Your faith is what makes you take the leap that it's a divine experience. Faith is inherently unempiric, it's unsubstantiated belief.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vesayen
|
|
My own hell is the Christian heaven.
Idealic bliss for eternity is not something I think I would want.... I like the sense of acomplishment from succeding in something, not having any challenges ever again would not be "me".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vesayen
|
|
Rednecks
Circle I Limbo General asshats
Circle II Whirling in a Dark & Stormy Wind Parents who bring squalling brats to R-rated movies
Circle III Mud, Rain, Cold, Hail & Snow Uday Hussein, Qusay Hussein
Circle IV Rolling Weights NAMBLA Members
Circle V Stuck in Mud, Mangled River Styx Osama bin Laden
Circle VI Buried for Eternity River Phlegyas Saddam Hussein
Circle VII Burning Sands Republicans
Circle IIX Immersed in Excrement George Bush
Circle IX Frozen in Ice Design your own hell
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DinoDoc
|
 |
AECCP loves Democracy
Sep 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
Uday Hussein, Qusay Hussein, Saddam Hussein
Circle I Limbo Objectivists
Circle II Whirling in a Dark & Stormy Wind PETA Members
Circle III Mud, Rain, Cold, Hail & Snow Osama bin Laden
Circle IV Rolling Weights Greens
Circle V Stuck in Mud, Mangled River Styx Scientologists
Circle VI Buried for Eternity River Phlegyas Parents who bring squalling brats to R-rated movies
Circle VII Burning Sands DMV Employees
Circle IIX Immersed in Excrement Apolyton Mods
Circle IX Frozen in Ice Design your own hell
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:34
|
|
I'm not expecting you to convert, GePap, merely defending my position. Note that I do not agree entirely with Ben as far as matters of implementing my beliefs into public policy are concerned. Did I give you a different impression?
Boris, are you agreeing-to-disagree? It occurs to me that I may have sounded like I was trying to make catechumens of you folk, which as I said was not my intention...actually, there's no disagreement at all. I don't think there's any "empirical" evidence for religion either. I just don't see any problem with that. No point expecting a self-aware, not to mention omnipotent, being to act as predictably as gravity or a plant. That's how I see it.
My real, original reason for my beliefs is an entirely subjective observation of human nature, by the way. But it's not like I could find an objective study of human nature either. Eh.
UR: This brings me to my favorite topic-Orthodoxy! Step right up, heathens! 
Seriously, though, the Orthodox Church hasn't changed a bit since the days of the first seven ecumenical councils. It's basically impossible to argue that we're a different church, beliefs-wise, from that of St. Paul. I use it as my personal yardstick, and the Nicene creed was written as a convenient synopsis of the important points of Christian belief, so I used it as an illustration. If you prefer, you may use the bible. Just as a pre-emptive strike, however, don't trot out the stuff about the Israelites slaying all the firstborn among the Ashbabekalites or whatever. Our most recent orders come from Christ, and he specifically says not to use violence. Many times.
Either way, I don't think there's a single source accepted by all Christians, including Catholics and Protestants, to justify the Crusades. I don't think any church ever had a reputable justification for the Crusades.
If you look at Urban II's 1095 kick-off speech, it reads like something from the Old South. It's all "protect the virtue of greek white women from the horrible lascivious Ay-rabs!" The crusades were presented as a real, brave man's duty to fight for Christendom as a national identity against barbarian invasion. He even starts by praising the muscle and grit of the Bold Frankish Knights. It'd be funny if it didn't have such ghastly consequences. Not much theology in it, anyway.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-02-2004 02:21
|