| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/31/2009 07:00:27 PM · #3526 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
how it is that Lewis and Tolkein were such good friends? |
They shared a fascination of fairy tales and mythology, and sought to create an adult readership for tales that had been marginalized as children's stories. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 07:03:05 PM · #3527 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Since this thread has strayed from the initial purpose, more than once, can I add another deviation and ask how it is that Lewis and Tolkein were such good friends? |
Both writers, both devout Christians, both proper Englishmen, both Oxford men? They had much in common. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 07:11:24 PM · #3528 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
[Faith = believing something that cannot be proven by material evidence.
God cannot be proven by material evidence.
The nonexistence of God cannot be proven by material evidence.
Therefore, believing in the existence of God and believing in the nonexistence of God are both forms of faith.
That's logic. |
No, it's not. It's two completely separate things.
If you believe in God, then because you cannot prove his existence by material evidence, then it's faith.
If you don't believe in God, there's not point in trying to prove there is no God. You simply don't believe in God.
It doesn't have to be proven that God doesn't exist to not believe.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I believe that a person can use logic and reason to conclude there is a God and come to have faith. |
How? And please don't refer me to some publication or links, I want your words.
|
|
|
|
12/31/2009 07:11:49 PM · #3529 |
One did write a better tale than the other, though. But that's just my opinion - your mileage may vary. :-)
I now return you to your regularly scheduled word-throwing and such. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 07:15:45 PM · #3530 |
| Part of my Tolkien library. :P |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 07:18:19 PM · #3531 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I believe that a person can use logic and reason to conclude there is a God and come to have faith. |
Not without resorting to fallacy. I defy anyone to demonstrate otherwise. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 07:34:09 PM · #3532 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It simply is not logical or reasonable from a practical standpoint to *try* to rigidly adhere to it. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Millions of religious people around the world who try to rigidly adhere to there faith would disagree. |
That doesn't mean that it is......just that there are a lot of people who believe. Just because 10 billion children believe in Santa Claus doesn't make it true.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
It's funny how Christianity is always accused of being so oppressive, discriminatory, and exclusive when if you examine history all the societies that have tried to eliminate religion (namely communist China and the Soviet Union) ended up being more oppressive, cruel, and violent than the religions they were trying to destroy. At least in China and Russia, it seems like Christianity has brought more self-sacrifice, peace, and social justice than atheism. |
You're doing it again......atheism is not the practice of oppressing the world, it means that you don't believe in God.
People may be killed by atheists, but it's not a creed, or dogma. It's political, or genocide rather than religion based.
Of course, then you'll put forth that old saw about how Godless people have no compass for morality, and so on, but a megalomaniac doesn't need much more of an excuse other than wanting to rule the world.
Now the Crusades, and the Inquisition......those are examples of how people are killed in the name of God. If you knew anything at all about the Inquisition, you'd probably not try to say any others have been more cruel and violent than Christians.
BTW, when you talk about peace and social justice......how 'bout them gay rights, huh?
|
|
|
|
12/31/2009 08:04:51 PM · #3533 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Since this thread has strayed from the initial purpose, more than once, can I add another deviation and ask how it is that Lewis and Tolkein were such good friends? |
Both writers, both devout Christians, both proper Englishmen, both Oxford men? They had much in common. |
Actually Lewis was an atheist when he met Tolkien. It was a conversation on Sept 19th, 19xx (hey, our birthdays) that shook Lewis from his atheism and took him back to his Christian roots. Tolkien was a devout Catholic and actually it was a mild friction between the two as Lewis became an Anglican.
They both shared a fascination for literature, but although they were both Oxford professors, they were on opposite sides of a schism that existed in the English dept. Lewis was on the side that favored the "literature" of the English language while Tolkien was on the side that favored the "language" of English literature. The two were part of a small group called The Inklings which existed to share their written work with each other.
I've read biographies of both (as I greatly admire both of them) and one cannot read about one without hearing about the other.
Message edited by author 2009-12-31 20:06:34. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 08:09:59 PM · #3534 |
Incidentally, when I've been referring to "free will", I have been referring to the second definition quoted above: 2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.
And despite Shannon's argument that it cannot be done, an acceptance of free will, is a rejection of materialism which then opens the door (but does not prove) to the existence of God. I would call that a rational, logical argument. It is not unassailable, but it is coherent and is logically sound. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 08:19:02 PM · #3535 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And despite Shannon's argument that it cannot be done, an acceptance of free will, is a rejection of materialism which then opens the door (but does not prove) to the existence of God. I would call that a rational, logical argument. |
An acceptance of [the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces] does not require supernatural explanations, nor is it a rational, logical argument. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 08:23:53 PM · #3536 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Although, one could make an argument that logic and reasoning are two deterrents of atheism as well. |
Originally posted by Louis:
Oh yeah? How exactly would that argument be made? |
Originally posted by Louis:
You see, it isn't enough for you to throw out remarks like that as though they mean something. You actually have to offer the argument itself. Otherwise, you're just full of hot air. |
Here's a famous argument:
Christianity says that God is all powerful and good.
The world is full of wickedness and lacks justice.
Therefore, either God knows about the wickedness and doesn't stop it, which means he's not good, or God doesn't know about the wickedness which means he's not all knowing. Either way, the Bible is wrong and God doesn't exist.
In layman's terms, an all knowing and good God cannot exist because injustice exists. So, the argument (at least this specific argument) against God relies on the idea that there is injustice in the world.
So, how do we define injustice? We've already defined God as all powerful and good. So what is injustice? Well, you can use the Biblical definition of justice and compare injustice to that, but since you don't believe God exists then you obviously can't use the Biblical definition of justice. If you're a true atheist then you're idea of injustice cannot be compared to any religious definition of justice. If you're a true atheist then the definition of injustice must be your own private idea which comes from observance of the natural world. Well, natural selection (as observed in the natural world) requires death, destruction, and the domination of weaker species by stronger ones. So if you're an atheist, then death, destruction, and wickedness is all part of the natural world and survival of the fittest, and it's perfectly fine.
In order to conclude that death, destruction and wickedness is unjust, you need a higher standard that does not exist in the natural world to compare the wickedness to.
Person A believes injustice exists in the natural world
The natural world requires injustice (i.e. death/wickedness)
Therefore, person A believes in a higher standard of life than what exists in the natural world.
Higher standard than natural = supernatural standard = belief in the supernatural
|
|
|
|
12/31/2009 08:28:20 PM · #3537 |
| Hm? What now? What's the argument being made that logic and reason can be used to defeat atheism? |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 08:38:47 PM · #3538 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It simply is not logical or reasonable from a practical standpoint to *try* to rigidly adhere to it. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Millions of religious people around the world who try to rigidly adhere to there faith would disagree. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That doesn't mean that it is......just that there are a lot of people who believe. Just because 10 billion children believe in Santa Claus doesn't make it true. |
I agree, the fact that millions of people believe in God doesn't prove that God exists.
However, (and this was my point) if a person believes in God, then it is logical for that person to try adhering to the Bible (otherwise that person would be a hypocrite).
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
It's funny how Christianity is always accused of being so oppressive, discriminatory, and exclusive when if you examine history all the societies that have tried to eliminate religion (namely communist China and the Soviet Union) ended up being more oppressive, cruel, and violent than the religions they were trying to destroy. At least in China and Russia, it seems like Christianity has brought more self-sacrifice, peace, and social justice than atheism. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Now the Crusades, and the Inquisition......those are examples of how people are killed in the name of God. If you knew anything at all about the Inquisition, you'd probably not try to say any others have been more cruel and violent than Christians.
BTW, when you talk about peace and social justice......how 'bout them gay rights, huh? |
During the Inquisition people were violently killed in the name of Christianity. However, the motives behind the Inquisition were not Christian motives, but ones of political power and personal greed. The Inquisition was horrendous, and it's unfortunate that it was conducted in the name of Christianity, but the true ulterior motive was political, not religious. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 08:39:37 PM · #3539 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
by the dashboard light...
(This isn't a word association thread?) |
Funny you should mention that. With all this talk about logic and reasoning, the famous Pascal line started running through my head: "The heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing." |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 08:43:19 PM · #3540 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Hm? What now? What's the argument being made that logic and reason can be used to defeat atheism? |
I will simplify my argument for you.
If you're an atheist that calls for social justice in the world (of which there are many), you're idea of justice and injustice stems from a supernatural standard of justice, therefore you believe in the existence of the supernatural and are thus not atheist. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 09:19:30 PM · #3541 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And despite Shannon's argument that it cannot be done, an acceptance of free will, is a rejection of materialism which then opens the door (but does not prove) to the existence of God. I would call that a rational, logical argument. |
An acceptance of [the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces] does not require supernatural explanations, nor is it a rational, logical argument. |
You keep saying this, but I think you are not using my definition of free will (although you quoted it). Clearly a personal choice separated from physical forces would require a supernatural explanation. Every firing of every synapse in your brain would qualify as a "physical force" so we would be talking about a dualistic "mind" controlling the physical brain. Obviously that is not possible in Materialism.
Message edited by author 2009-12-31 21:21:05. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 09:21:05 PM · #3542 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If you're a true atheist then you're idea of injustice cannot be compared to any religious definition of justice. If you're a true atheist then the definition of injustice must be your own private idea which comes from observance of the natural world. Well, natural selection (as observed in the natural world) requires death, destruction, and the domination of weaker species by stronger ones. So if you're an atheist, then death, destruction, and wickedness is all part of the natural world and survival of the fittest, and it's perfectly fine. |
Naturalistic fallacy. Just because death, destruction, and wickedness are natural has nothing to do with whether they're just. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 09:28:43 PM · #3543 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It simply is not logical or reasonable from a practical standpoint to *try* to rigidly adhere to it. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Millions of religious people around the world who try to rigidly adhere to there faith would disagree. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
However, (and this was my point) if a person believes in God, then it is logical for that person to try adhering to the Bible (otherwise that person would be a hypocrite). |
Not so much logical as a requirement.....as a Chrisitan.
There are plenty of people who believe in God, aren't Christian, and don't have much use for the Bible because of the way it's (improperly) used.
That would hardly make it logical for them to try to adhere to the Bible.
There are a few people here and there who can see life for how it's progressed over the last 2000 years, and are really unwilling to accept edicts that make no sense, or worse, are untrue.
I tried to use this analogy before, perhaps you'll see the dilemma.
I am no scholar of the Bible. I do believe in God, but I have no religious background.
I know you as a good man who tries to live by the rules of your faith, which states that no God is to be worshipped other than yours.
We have my friend Mohammed, that good man over there, who tries to live by the rules of his faith.
Since both of you are complete in your faith and absolutely convinced that you're pursuing the right path, exactly how can I tell who's right?
And.......which one is going to cook? Because if you ain't in with the right crowd, you burn, right?
That goes back to the comment I made a while back that good men transcend religion, and I just don't buy it that so many good men are going to cook simply because their way of worshipping the God of their understanding won't fit into what ends up boiling down to some really unreasonable rules.
It just doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
|
12/31/2009 09:44:38 PM · #3544 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If you're a true atheist then you're idea of injustice cannot be compared to any religious definition of justice. If you're a true atheist then the definition of injustice must be your own private idea which comes from observance of the natural world. Well, natural selection (as observed in the natural world) requires death, destruction, and the domination of weaker species by stronger ones. So if you're an atheist, then death, destruction, and wickedness is all part of the natural world and survival of the fittest, and it's perfectly fine. |
Naturalistic fallacy. Just because death, destruction, and wickedness are natural has nothing to do with whether they're just. |
I think you've got it.
Justice has nothing to do with the natural world because the idea of justice comes from belief in the supernatural.
A person cannot believe in social justice without also believing in the supernatural. Without the supernatural there is no difference between social justice and social injustice, because justice and injustice have nothing to do with the natural world.
Without Christianity there would be no such thing as gay rights!
Before Christianity brought the concepts of self-sacrifice and humility, it was just a dog-eat-dog world where individuals sought after the increase of power, control, and wealth. Without a God, and no reward in the afterlife, there's no reason for anyone to sacrifice anything for another person. If you sacrifice you're $10 so a homeless person can have a meal, what does that get you in the natural world? Does that action increase your chances of survival? Why would you sacrifice your means of survival to help another person survive? That contradicts survival of the fittest. The point? There has to be a reason for self-sacrifice because if everything revolved around natural selection and survival of the fittest, you wouldn't help the competition! |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 09:47:13 PM · #3545 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If you're a true atheist then you're idea of injustice cannot be compared to any religious definition of justice. If you're a true atheist then the definition of injustice must be your own private idea which comes from observance of the natural world. Well, natural selection (as observed in the natural world) requires death, destruction, and the domination of weaker species by stronger ones. So if you're an atheist, then death, destruction, and wickedness is all part of the natural world and survival of the fittest, and it's perfectly fine. |
Naturalistic fallacy. Just because death, destruction, and wickedness are natural has nothing to do with whether they're just. |
I think you've got it.
Justice has nothing to do with the natural world because the idea of justice comes from belief in the supernatural.
A person cannot believe in social justice without also believing in the supernatural. Without the supernatural there is no difference between social justice and social injustice, because justice and injustice have nothing to do with the natural world.
Without Christianity there would be no such thing as gay rights!
Before Christianity brought the concepts of self-sacrifice and humility, it was just a dog-eat-dog world where individuals sought after the increase of power, control, and wealth. Without a God, and no reward in the afterlife, there's no reason for anyone to sacrifice anything for another person. If you sacrifice you're $10 so a homeless person can have a meal, what does that get you in the natural world? Does that action increase your chances of survival? Why would you sacrifice your means of survival to help another person survive? That contradicts survival of the fittest. The point? There has to be a reason for self-sacrifice because if everything revolved around natural selection and survival of the fittest, you wouldn't help the competition! |
Ai yi yi. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 09:54:03 PM · #3546 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Before Christianity brought the concepts of self-sacrifice and humility, it was just a dog-eat-dog world where individuals sought after the increase of power, control, and wealth. Without a God, and no reward in the afterlife, there's no reason for anyone to sacrifice anything for another person. If you sacrifice you're $10 so a homeless person can have a meal, what does that get you in the natural world? Does that action increase your chances of survival? Why would you sacrifice your means of survival to help another person survive? That contradicts survival of the fittest. The point? There has to be a reason for self-sacrifice because if everything revolved around natural selection and survival of the fittest, you wouldn't help the competition! |
It is abundantly clear that you know very little about people.
Message edited by author 2009-12-31 22:10:13.
|
|
|
|
12/31/2009 09:58:20 PM · #3547 |
Ooh. Johnny's got Jeb doing one sentence paragraphs.
I guess after JP's last post I can kiss my last reply goodbye...
I would be interested though, in hearing Jeb define "human decency". I think it would be interesting.
Message edited by author 2009-12-31 21:59:38. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 10:03:29 PM · #3548 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would be interested though, in hearing Jeb define "human decency". I think it would be interesting. |
Being good to, and thoughtful of, the people you live with and around, who share your journey through life. For its own sake, without the fear of reprisal for not doing so, or the promise of salvation.
|
|
|
|
12/31/2009 10:09:59 PM · #3549 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would be interested though, in hearing Jeb define "human decency". I think it would be interesting. |
Being good to, and thoughtful of, the people you live with and around, who share your journey through life. For its own sake, without the fear of reprisal for not doing so, or the promise of salvation. |
I'm not going to be able to continue this because my parents are here, but what if an individual thinks the "decent" thing to do would be to try to cure someone of their homosexuality or to prevent them from acting on their perverse desires. Obviously you would disagree with them, but what would you appeal to in your quest to try to show him the error of his ways? Anything other than your personal experience? I think Johnny is trying to get at this problem (although he's not doing an awesome job at it).
Message edited by author 2009-12-31 22:10:33. |
|
|
|
12/31/2009 10:13:30 PM · #3550 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ooh. Johnny's got Jeb doing one sentence paragraphs.
I guess after JP's last post I can kiss my last reply goodbye...
I would be interested though, in hearing Jeb define "human decency". I think it would be interesting. |
I was going to ask the same!
If belief in God isn't required in order to do something decent to your fellow man, then what is required?
|
|
