The more people doubt their beliefs the more they try to convince others

[BlackTerrel]

Kind of intuitive. But pretty interesting nonetheless

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/opinion/07brooks.html?_r=1


Classic research has suggested that the more people doubt their own beliefs the more, paradoxically, they are inclined to proselytize in favor of them. David Gal and Derek Rucker published a study in Psychological Science in which they presented some research subjects with evidence that undermined their core convictions. The subjects who were forced to confront the counterevidence went on to more forcefully advocate their original beliefs, thus confirming the earlier findings.

[Sola_Fide]

This is interesting, but I don't think doubt or skepticism is a bad thing.

One of the reasons atheists come across as so ignorant is that they are not honestly critical of their own worldview. They hold to it many times by a sheer blind faith.

The only self-critical atheist that I have any respect for is David Hume. He was extremely intelligent. Not wise,but one of the most intelligent ever.

[Fox McCloud]

there could be multiple reasons for this; in some instances, they may know or think they can prove its wrong, and given that there's this information out there, they may feel the need to compete against this new information.


I've always found psychology interesting, but I've always felt it had a certain bias towards particular explanations and it tended to ignore other factors *shrugs*....it seems like there's a lot of "correlation doesn't necessarily establish causation".

[nate895]

This is interesting, but I don't think doubt or skepticism is a bad thing.

One of the reasons atheists come across as so ignorant is that they are not honestly critical of their own worldview. They hold to it many times by a sheer blind faith.

The only self-critical atheist that I have any respect for is David Hume. He was extremely intelligent. Not wise,but one of the most intelligent ever.

+1

I think it's obvious that this is the case in a lot of instances. However, I think this is a problem that could be resolved by the adoption of a philosophical approach to truth. That means that you have to embrace it when you see it. That's what drives me in my better moments. In any event, if I find out something is the truth, I want to tell others about it and be strengthened in that knowledge. That's why I want to teach.

This age is so anti-intellectual that it's hard for people like me who want to emulate the great philosophers and theologians of the past to go around behaving that way. It used to be a compliment to say someone was a "scholar and a gentleman," now those of us who try to live up to that ideal (you will fail to live up to your standards) are considered strange and, in some cases, even unmanly. It has really put us as a culture in a place where instead of defending our beliefs in a rational way, we belittle those who disagree because we are really that small ourselves. I'm not saying I'm above it, either. I've insulted people as a substitute for argument in disagreements when I had little confidence in what I was saying.

It's really a rather strange world we live in where to put forth your point-of-view on a topic and defend it is a sign of weakness. For some people it might be, but you cannot say that it is an infallible sign of a deep lack of confidence in your beliefs that forces you to lash out at those who attack them. My guess is that the vast majority of these instances aren't people legitimately defending their beliefs with logic and reason, but rather lashing out when people question their beliefs, as if they're entitled to believe whatever they want without challenge.

[hazek]

This is impossible by the sole definition of what a belief is.

Beliefs are the assumptions we make about ourselves, about others in the world and about how we expect things to be. Beliefs are about how we think things really are, what we think is really true and what we therefore expect are likely consequences that will follow from our behavior.

Here's a simple definition: A belief is an assumed truth.


Now tell me, how can one doubt what one assumes as the truth? :rolleyes:

[Kludge]

This is impossible by the sole definition of what a belief is.

Beliefs are the assumptions we make about ourselves, about others in the world and about how we expect things to be. Beliefs are about how we think things really are, what we think is really true and what we therefore expect are likely consequences that will follow from our behavior.

Here's a simple definition: A belief is an assumed truth.


Now tell me, how can one doubt what one assumes as the truth? :rolleyes:

People don't necessarily believe 100% in what they assume to be truth.

[nate895]

This is impossible by the sole definition of what a belief is.

Beliefs are the assumptions we make about ourselves, about others in the world and about how we expect things to be. Beliefs are about how we think things really are, what we think is really true and what we therefore expect are likely consequences that will follow from our behavior.

Here's a simple definition: A belief is an assumed truth.


That's not what a belief is. A belief is a proposition thought to be true. For example, the traditional definition of knowledge in epistemology is "justified true belief." First, you must believe something is true. Then it must actually be true. Then you have a good reason to believe it.

Belief (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/)

[amy31416]

This is interesting, but I don't think doubt or skepticism is a bad thing.

One of the reasons Christians come across as so ignorant is that they are not honestly critical of their own worldview. They hold to it many times by a sheer blind faith.

The only self-critical Christian that I have any respect for is Martin Luther. He was extremely intelligent. Not wise,but one of the most intelligent ever.

[nate895]

This is interesting, but I don't think doubt or skepticism is a bad thing.

One of the reasons Christians come across as so ignorant is that they are not honestly critical of their own worldview. They hold to it many times by a sheer blind faith.

The only self-critical Christian that I have any respect for is Martin Luther. He was extremely intelligent. Not wise,but one of the most intelligent ever.

I can say the same about atheists/agnostics.

In any event, Luther is an interesting case. I don't think you can consider him in the realm of the thinkers of the Christian Church. He was more a firebrand preacher. That isn't to say he wasn't intelligent and that he didn't think about things, but rather that his role was more as a charismatic agitator who found out was true and fought for it tooth and nail.

The great thinker of the Reformation was John Calvin. He systematized the thinking of the Reformation up to that point and put it together as a powerful system that has left its mark on the world down to the present day. That isn't just my thinking as a Calvinist, that's the consensus even among non-Reformed people familiar with the Reformation.

The deepest thinker in the history of the Christian Church, who left his mark on everyone in the Latin world and beyond over the course of time was Augustine. Augustine made the great strides when it came to pretty much every Christian doctrine. He was the first Christian who not only defended aspects of Christianity, like the Resurrection and Monotheism, but the religion taken as a whole. While he was heavily influenced by the Platonists, he can still be said to be the first great philosopher to have a Christian philosophy.

[BlackTerrel]

there could be multiple reasons for this; in some instances, they may know or think they can prove its wrong, and given that there's this information out there, they may feel the need to compete against this new information.


I've always found psychology interesting, but I've always felt it had a certain bias towards particular explanations and it tended to ignore other factors *shrugs*....it seems like there's a lot of "correlation doesn't necessarily establish causation".

I agree. I find this sort of shit fascinating. But data can be interpreted in a lot of ways.

[nate895]

I agree. I find this sort of shit fascinating. But data can be interpreted in a lot of ways.

Particularly scientific data. Too often we commit sweeping generalizations when it comes to these studies by only looking at the surface.

[amy31416]

I can say the same about atheists/agnostics.

In any event, Luther is an interesting case. I don't think you can consider him in the realm of the thinkers of the Christian Church. He was more a firebrand preacher. That isn't to say he wasn't intelligent and that he didn't think about things, but rather that his role was more as a charismatic agitator who found out was true and fought for it tooth and nail.

The great thinker of the Reformation was John Calvin. He systematized the thinking of the Reformation up to that point and put it together as a powerful system that has left its mark on the world down to the present day. That isn't just my thinking as a Calvinist, that's the consensus even among non-Reformed people familiar with the Reformation.

The deepest thinker in the history of the Christian Church, who left his mark on everyone in the Latin world and beyond over the course of time was Augustine. Augustine made the great strides when it came to pretty much every Christian doctrine. He was the first Christian who not only defended aspects of Christianity, like the Resurrection and Monotheism, but the religion taken as a whole. While he was heavily influenced by the Platonists, he can still be said to be the first great philosopher to have a Christian philosophy.

You missed my point. Read AquaBuddha's post again.

I have a lot of respect for many Christian philosophers, Augustine, Aquinas, etc...Luther was an interesting character--but throwing his name in there was merely random.

[nate895]

You missed my point. Read AquaBuddha's post again.

I have a lot of respect for many Christian philosophers, Augustine, Aquinas, etc...Luther was an interesting character--but throwing his name in there was merely random.

I think there are a lot of people from every belief system who are ignorant and just believe for whatever reason, and most have their great philosophers to go along with those. My point is that we should go after the best and brightest when we are debating with each other. There are lots of idiots who run around who can't defend their beliefs against a sack of potatoes, but those people are irrelevant when it comes to discussion about belief reflection. I think we should think about cleaning up our own houses before we go around calling others' stupid. I'm just as guilty of it as the next guy, but that ought have any place in a discussion between intelligent people.

[amy31416]

Just saying, Nate--a lot of Christians here say that they're constantly persecuted as if they are above reproach, yet AquaBuddha called all atheists stupid, and you vehemently agreed with him.

I'm certainly not hurt by it, but if you hold yourself to a higher standard than the Dawkins/belligerent atheist types because you're very secure in your beliefs--why is it necessary/okay to disparage an entire group of people? Is that very Christian behavior? Isn't it hypocritical to complain when someone implies that all Christians are idiots?

[Mach]

This is interesting, but I don't think doubt or skepticism is a bad thing.

One of the reasons atheists come across as so ignorant is that they are not honestly critical of their own worldview. They hold to it many times by a sheer blind faith.

The only self-critical atheist that I have any respect for is David Hume. He was extremely intelligent. Not wise,but one of the most intelligent ever.

I had to read that a couple times "hoping" it was sarcastic and not an outright argument, you criticize "sheer blind faith" and put it on Athiest, are you a stand-up comedian or something.

[low preference guy]

another bullshit study, likely funded by the government

[low preference guy]

I had to read that a couple times "hoping" it was sarcastic and not an outright argument, you criticize "sheer blind faith" and put it on Athiest, are you a stand-up comedian or something.

he is redefining words. Aqua Buddha sounds like politicians who say that letting rich people keep the money they earned is redistribution of wealth.

[KurtBoyer25L]

"Do you believe in God" is a loaded question anyway.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Atheism is blind faith HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !! Now I've heard it all.

There is such a small percentage of the population that actually believe in that kooky Christian shit, miracles and all. The rest just check off whatever denomination out of tradition. I mean really, who the fuck actually thinks you can fit all the plants and animals into a small boat? You'd really have to suffer some kind of psychotic disorder to believe that nonsense. The "Christians" who don't actually believe that but continue out of tradition really need to stop because they give credibility to the smaller percent who truly need mental help.

[sevin]

One of the reasons atheists come across as so ignorant is that they are not honestly critical of their own worldview. They hold to it many times by a sheer blind faith.



Wow, I was going to say the exact same thing about theists.

[hazek]

That's not what a belief is. A belief is a proposition thought to be true. For example, the traditional definition of knowledge in epistemology is "justified true belief."

You just repeated after me and missed my point.


I agree with you and your wording of what a belief is but I was merely pointing out how paradoxically untrue it is to say that one can doubt his own beliefs.

Once you have a belief, you already went through:
First, you must believe something is true. Then it must actually be true. Then you have a good reason to believe it.

So you can't doubt what you assumed to be true, it's true to you and you have reason to believe it.


If you do doubt it then by definition you no longer have that belief and instead assume a new belief that negates the old one.

There for my point; just by definition of what a belief is you cannot ever doubt it

[ChaosControl]

Maybe it some cases but that is hardly a rule. Reminds me of nonsense saying people who oppose something secretly support it. Sure in some extreme cases, but too many people treat it as an always.

[Toureg89]

i guess thats why i've slowed the amounts of debates i start on others forums: im tired of their retardedness and im confident in my beliefs.

i usually relegate my self to only debating in threads other people make.

[nate895]

You just repeated after me and missed my point.


I agree with you and your wording of what a belief is but I was merely pointing out how paradoxically untrue it is to say that one can doubt his own beliefs.

Once you have a belief, you already went through:

So you can't doubt what you assumed to be true, it's true to you and you have reason to believe it.


If you do doubt it then by definition you no longer have that belief and instead assume a new belief that negates the old one.

There for my point; just by definition of what a belief is you cannot ever doubt it

I think you need to click on the link. You can doubt a belief that you have, and you do not need to assume a belief is true. You can tentatively hold to a belief and be able to be readily convinced otherwise given further evidence that goes against your current belief on the matter. For example, I believe that Julian Assange is a "flight risk" given the legal definition thereof. However, if you could show me convincingly that Julian Assange has ties to the London-area community, then I'd be convinced otherwise. I don't believe beyond doubt, it's just that the current available evidence points to him being the definition of a "flight risk."


Just saying, Nate--a lot of Christians here say that they're constantly persecuted as if they are above reproach, yet AquaBuddha called all atheists stupid, and you vehemently agreed with him.

I'm certainly not hurt by it, but if you hold yourself to a higher standard than the Dawkins/belligerent atheist types because you're very secure in your beliefs--why is it necessary/okay to disparage an entire group of people? Is that very Christian behavior? Isn't it hypocritical to complain when someone implies that all Christians are idiots?

AquaBuddha didn't say all; he made at least one exception (David Hume), and implied that if an atheist self-reflected that they'd earn at least some respect from him. I have to agree that the majority of famous atheists (you're not one) aren't self-reflective, the only exception being Hume, and you might be able to include Nietzsche and Hitchens, but I have my doubts about both of those. Whatever I did, I didn't "vehemently agree" with him. All I did was post a +1, which meant that I agreed in large part with what he was saying, and then went onto post why I think this study had the results that it did.

[acptulsa]

Atheism is blind faith HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !! Now I've heard it all.

Mr. Jenkins, let me help you out with a small point of logic. Just because there are people in the world who offer a collection of ancient tall tales as proof of God's existence, and those tales are nothing of the kind, does not logically and irrevocably disprove the existence of God.

Therefore, to firmly believe in the nonexistence of God is to believe the unprovable just as completely as to firmly believe in the existence of God. Neither can be proven.

[Sola_Fide]

Here is Christian apologist James White commenting on the shallowness of argumentation of modern atheism. It is a real problem that atheists buy into such irrational and illogical arguments...embarrassing really:

YouTube - The Insulting Richard Dawkins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-eAg7Z6m1Q&feature=channel)

[hazek]

I think you need to click on the link. You can doubt a belief that you have, and you do not need to assume a belief is true. You can tentatively hold to a belief and be able to be readily convinced otherwise given further evidence that goes against your current belief on the matter. For example, I believe that Julian Assange is a "flight risk" given the legal definition thereof. However, if you could show me convincingly that Julian Assange has ties to the London-area community, then I'd be convinced otherwise. I don't believe beyond doubt, it's just that the current available evidence points to him being the definition of a "flight risk."

Dude I don't get you. This stuff is super easy to understand, even you your self are saying the same thing as I am but somehow you manage to come to a different conclusion?


One final time:
If you believe that Assange is a "flight risk" then this is true to you at this very moment. You made some assumptions about this issue, you took into account whatever evidence you may or may not have and you drew a conclusion in which you now believe to be true.
But.
You also believe that given new evidence you could assume a new belief on that issue which is a separate belief.
So.
If like you said you do get new evidence, you no longer believe in your old belief of Assange being a "flight risk" but you made new assumptions, you took into account new evidence that you may or may not have and you drew a new conclusion in which you now believe it to be true and therefor you thew out your old belief and assumed a new one.


I hope this finally makes sense to you because if it doesn't I really can see a way to even further break it down for you. It's just logic.

[fisharmor]

IIn any event, Luther is an interesting case. I don't think you can consider him in the realm of the thinkers of the Christian Church. He was more a firebrand preacher. That isn't to say he wasn't intelligent and that he didn't think about things, but rather that his role was more as a charismatic agitator who found out was true and fought for it tooth and nail.

Well, few have even heard of Martin Cheminitz or Philip Melanchthon, so it probably all gets rolled up into Luther....

[amy31416]

AquaBuddha didn't say all; he made at least one exception (David Hume)[that was the only exception], and implied that if an atheist self-reflected that they'd earn at least some respect from him. I have to agree that the majority of famous atheists (you're not one) aren't self-reflective, the only exception being Hume, and you might be able to include Nietzsche and Hitchens, but I have my doubts about both of those. Whatever I did, I didn't "vehemently agree" with him. All I did was post a +1, which meant that I agreed in large part with what he was saying, and then went onto post why I think this study had the results that it did.

Do I have to quote it again for you?

If I say "Christians" do x,y and z, with the exception of Mr. X--am I referring to all Christians (with the exception of Mr. X) or not?

In my experience, most atheists/agnostics come from a religious background, like myself, and quietly become disbelievers after extensive reading/reflection. You wouldn't even know because most of us don't say anything about it. None of my family knows, because they haven't asked. Of my friends/acquaintances--I'd say that only 2-3 people know. More people here know than do in real life.

I don't brag about it. I don't disparage any religious people in my family (or on here, for that matter--until you cross the line and state that your goal is to force me to live by your theocratic doctrines--even in that case, it's not about religion, it's about force.)

So while you may not realize it, you probably know a lot of atheists/agnostics, who just don't feel the need to share it with you. I've read up on a lot of different sources, discussed/debated with a lot of different people, graduated from a Catholic college where I took 3 different courses on religion, and 3 courses in philosophy--and I don't think I'm all that unusual in my current* disbeliefs.

It's just that I'm not in your face, trying to force you to not believe, unlike those few atheists who are and try to blame all the world's woes on religion, and use the law to push their beliefs/lifestyle on others. Now take a look at many Christians--are they in people's faces? Trying to force people to believe? Do they blame all the world's woes on secularism? Do they want to use the law to push their beliefs/lifestyle on others?

Yes. Quite a few are. Probably more than atheists.

My favorite exception to this is Ron Paul, he (and others like him), do more to promote Christianity than 1,000 missionaries wearing their Christian rock band t-shirts and yapping about how great Jesus is. There's no gravitas, it's superficial and often constantly contradictory.

I asked myself last night if I would still be a Christian if so many Christians weren't bastardizing the religion--and the answer is likely no, but I wouldn't be inclined to completely shun it either.

The only sector of Christians that appeal to me in the slightest is the Quakers....and they, unlike you**, would not implement laws forcing and punishing people who do not live up to their interpretation of Christianity.

To conclude--I won't come around to Christianity by force--at least not in any sort of profound way. So if you want to expand your religion the easy and superficial way--insulting non-believers, using the law (or whatever means) to force people to live as you see fit is a great short-term method to gain more people who are susceptible to contemptuous, vile people like "Pastor" Hagee.

Raise your standards. Coercion is for manipulative, insincere people who have no respect for other human beings.


*I say "current" because I'm always willing to learn, and honestly--I hope there is a "god" of some sort. I truly hope there's meaning to life. I can't ignore that I don't think there is--and I'd be quite happy to experience that "feeling" that Tolstoy went on about in My Confessions.

** I say this in reference to your statement that you are not a "live and let live" person like myself--the implication is that you would force all people, using the law or whatever means, to live as you deem appropriate. No human being has the capacity, the right or the knowledge to know what's best in all circumstances for all other adult human beings. The concept of humility is lost on folks like yourself who would put yourself on the level of God--who I'd think would be the only "being" capable of such a thing.

[nate895]

Dude I don't get you. This stuff is super easy to understand, even you your self are saying the same thing as I am but somehow you manage to come to a different conclusion?


One final time:
If you believe that Assange is a "flight risk" then this is true to you at this very moment. You made some assumptions about this issue, you took into account whatever evidence you may or may not have and you drew a conclusion in which you now believe to be true.
But.
You also believe that given new evidence you could assume a new belief on that issue.
So.
If like you said you do get new evidence, you no longer believe in your old belief of Assange being a "flight risk" but you made new assumptions, you took into account new evidence that you may or may not have and you drew a new conclusion in which you now believe it to be true.


I hope this finally makes sense to you because if it doesn't I really can see a way to even further break it down for you. It's just logic.

I don't think you understand the nature of an assumption, and I don't think you understand the nature of doubt. An assumption is something that you take to be true without sufficient evidence, or for the purpose of argumentation. If you took into account prior evidence and then came to a conclusion that something is true, that is not an assumption, it is a justified belief. When you doubt something, it means that you aren't certain. I'm certain that God exists, which means that I have no doubt about it. I'm not so certain that I have a gallon of milk in the fridge. I believe I do, but I'm only like 75% certain of it. Both are beliefs of mine, but both have different levels of certainty.

Furthermore, something cannot be "true for me" in the sense that the exact same proposition is true for me and yet false for you. For example, if I am wrong and Julian Assange really does not meet up to the definition of what is considered a flight risk, I am mistaken and it was never "true for me." I just had a false belief. If we take that approach to truth, we cannot judge the actions of others to be right or wrong because what that person did is "true for him." This could also lead to a problem: What if it is true for me that I have a right to kill someone trying to steal my property, but for the person stealing my property it is true for him that he can take it without being killed? Who's right in that scenario?

[hazek]

Oh man you are soo difficult. But I want to help you.


I don't think you understand the nature of an assumption, and I don't think you understand the nature of doubt. An assumption is something that you take to be true without sufficient evidence, or for the purpose of argumentation. If you took into account prior evidence and then came to a conclusion that something is true, that is not an assumption, it is a justified belief. When you doubt something, it means that you aren't certain. I'm certain that God exists, which means that I have no doubt about it. I'm not so certain that I have a gallon of milk in the fridge. I believe I do, but I'm only like 75% certain of it. Both are beliefs of mine, but both have different levels of certainty.

I think your main problem here is that you confuse beliefs with truths. I can believe the earth is flat or that the sun will rise in the west and although I am wrong, because I believe it, it is true to me. It is not the truth, we all know that, but if I chose for whatever reasons to believe it(mental illness, drugs, living in 1010) it would be true to me.

Beliefs are always justified to you personally, it is their nature. It in fact is what makes you you. They are what shape you and they are therefor always true to you.

Doubt is also a belief! You believe that something that you learned could not be the truth. You may or may not have some evidence, you made assumptions and you formed a belief... To you it is true to doubt that thing. I can have different belief about the same thing than you do, I may not doubt it because I had or hadn't different evidence and made different assumptions. But we each believe them to be true.



Furthermore, something cannot be "true for me" in the sense that the exact same proposition is true for me and yet false for you. For example, if I am wrong and Julian Assange really does not meet up to the definition of what is considered a flight risk, I am mistaken and it was never "true for me." I just had a false belief. If we take that approach to truth, we cannot judge the actions of others to be right or wrong because what that person did is "true for him." This could also lead to a problem: What if it is true for me that I have a right to kill someone trying to steal my property, but for the person stealing my property it is true for him that he can take it without being killed? Who's right in that scenario?

Here you confuse rules with beliefs. As I just shown you it is absolutely possible for something to be true for me and false for you and if we were the only two people on the face of the planet nothing could have stopped us from acting on our beliefs. But we are not. We both live in a society that chose to set up rules of what is right and what is wrong. We each may or may not share the same beliefs but we each have to adhere to the rules of the society we live in or face the consequences..

You may very well believe that it is your right to kills someone stealing from you but the rules of our society prevent you from acting on your belief without consequences.

I mean doesn't it make sense to you that the very reason why beliefs are always true to one person is why we even have rules in a society?? :)

[Sola_Fide]

As I just shown you it is absolutely possible for something to be true for me and false for you...


No, this not possible.

[nate895]

Do I have to quote it again for you?

If I say "Christians" do x,y and z, with the exception of Mr. X--am I referring to all Christians (with the exception of Mr. X) or not?

In my experience, most atheists/agnostics come from a religious background, like myself, and quietly become disbelievers after extensive reading/reflection. You wouldn't even know because most of us don't say anything about it. None of my family knows, because they haven't asked. Of my friends/acquaintances--I'd say that only 2-3 people know. More people here know than do in real life.

I said self-reflection. You cannot adequately self-reflect upon a belief system until you assume, for the sake of argument at least, that it is true. In my experience, the atheists I talk really do not understand what they are saying on a philosophical level. A few in the past have done that. Furthermore, many bring up the most fictitious points against Christianity. There is a debate going on in the religious forum about whether or not Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world. I'm sorry, but if you are so ignorant as to believe there is a more persecuted religion than Christianity, you are a bigot against Christians nothing more. It isn't self-reflective to say that because there are swindlers who dupe Christians into contributing to their "ministry" that all religion must bad, or that because there have been a few Roman Catholic priests who have molested children that means that child molestation runs rampant in Sunday schools. Those are the points that the public face of atheism bring up, and their books sell and I see them being read constantly by atheists I know.


I don't brag about it. I don't disparage any religious people in my family (or on here, for that matter--until you cross the line and state that your goal is to force me to live by your theocratic doctrines--even in that case, it's not about religion, it's about force.)

You misunderstand Christian theocracy if you think it's about forcing people to behave like Christians in their private lives. There has been a long history of Christian Political Philosophy, and I think it's pretty clear that it is the government's job is to punish those who harm others, or who publicly flaunt their sin. It's not the government's job to break into your house and stop homosexual activity, but it is the government's job to use force to prevent public homosexuality. It isn't the governments job to force anyone into communion with the Christian Church or its ethical system. If someone thinks that, they need to read the Bible again.


So while you may not realize it, you probably know a lot of atheists/agnostics, who just don't feel the need to share it with you. I've read up on a lot of different sources, discussed/debated with a lot of different people, graduated from a Catholic college where I took 3 different courses on religion, and 3 courses in philosophy--and I don't think I'm all that unusual in my current* disbeliefs.

I know I know a lot atheists/agnostics. Most of the time I live in the Pacific Northwest, the place is overflowing with open atheists who aren't afraid to tell you that they are.


It's just that I'm not in your face, trying to force you to not believe, unlike those few atheists who are and try to blame all the world's woes on religion, and use the law to push their beliefs/lifestyle on others. Now take a look at many Christians--are they in people's faces? Trying to force people to believe? Do they blame all the world's woes on secularism? Do they want to use the law to push their beliefs/lifestyle on others?

Yes. Quite a few are. Probably more than atheists.

What a lot of atheists consider "force" is nothing more than saying that you believe in Christ, that you have good reasons to, and that they should as well. If that's what atheists consider "force," they need to consider why they're atheists in the first place. I don't hold my beliefs so weakly that I consider it "force" if an atheist comes up and tells me that they don't believe God because there aren't any good reasons to, and that I shouldn't as well. I do in fact have good reasons to not only believe in God, but be a Christian. Them saying otherwise isn't forcing me to do anything. It might just be annoying, but being annoying isn't force.


My favorite exception to this is Ron Paul, he (and others like him), do more to promote Christianity than 1,000 missionaries wearing their Christian rock band t-shirts and yapping about how great Jesus is. There's no gravitas, it's superficial and often constantly contradictory.

Most missionaries in the modern church shouldn't be missionaries. There's a reason why Paul, the educated one, was sent to preach to the Greeks. Most of the "missionaries" that are sent to preach to Greeks* are not actually competent enough to do so.


The only sector of Christians that appeal to me in the slightest is the Quakers....and they, unlike you**, would not implement laws forcing and punishing people who do not live up to their interpretation of Christianity.

To conclude--I won't come around to Christianity by force--at least not in any sort of profound way. So if you want to expand your religion the easy and superficial way--insulting non-believers, using the law (or whatever means) to force people to live as you see fit is a great short-term method to gain more people who are susceptible to contemptuous, vile people like "Pastor" Hagee.


Raise your standards. Coercion is for manipulative, insincere people who have no respect for other human beings.


It is ignorant and unloving to punish people who do not live up to the ethical standards of Christianity. The entire point of the religion is that our sin is so great and impossible to change ourselves that God had to become man and shed blood of infinite worth to pay for our sins. That's what we're celebrating this season of Advent, the one true God becoming true, perfect, man, and the promise that one day those in union with him will be raised from the dead and finally be free from the taint of sin.

I am not free of sin, and I don't expect anyone else to be. I just think the only just government that we can have is one that acknowledges and lives by the Truth. How could a government be just and fair and seek the truth in its courts if it does not hold to the source of that truth? That's what Christian Theocrats point out. Not that you should be killed for every little transgression of the law by other people who have probably transgressed the law in a similar manner. Just that we could and we ought to be reminded of that from time to time when we do bad deeds.

*I'm using that term in a broad manner to refer to non-Christians who do not believe Christian doctrine. Some non-Christians believe that the Christian religion is basically true, they just aren't Christians yet. These two groups are sometimes referred to as Greeks and Jews.

[specsaregood]

This thread is full of win. Of course people are going to see this behavior in those that push the opposing side of their own views/beliefs.

[hazek]

No, this not possible.

You believe that because you confused a belief with a truth.

Johnny: Earth is round

Charlie: Earth is flat

Truth: Earth is round

Mkay?

[nate895]

Oh man you are soo difficult. But I want to help you.



I think your main problem here is that you confuse beliefs with truths. I can believe the earth is flat or that the sun will rise in the west and although I am wrong, because I believe it, it is true to me. It is not the truth, we all know that, but if I chose for whatever reasons to believe it(mental illness, drugs, living in 1010) it would be true to me.

Beliefs are always justified to you personally, it is their nature. It in fact is what makes you you. They are what shape you and they are therefor always true to you.

Doubt is also a belief! You believe that something that you learned could not be the truth. You may or may not have some evidence, you made assumptions and you formed a belief... To you it is true to doubt that thing. I can have different belief about the same thing than you do, I may not doubt it because I had or hadn't different evidence and made different assumptions. But we each believe them to be true.




Here you confuse rules with beliefs. As I just shown you it is absolutely possible for something to be true for me and false for you and if we were the only two people on the face of the planet nothing could have stopped us from acting on our beliefs. But we are not. We both live in a society that chose to set up rules of what is right and what is wrong. We each may or may not share the same beliefs but we each have to adhere to the rules of the society we live in or face the consequences..

You may very well believe that it is your right to kills someone stealing from you but the rules of our society prevent you from acting on your belief without consequences.

I mean doesn't it make sense to you that the very reason why beliefs are always true to one person is why we even have rules in a society?? :)

Explain to me how the Earth can be both flat and round at the same time. Can you create a square circle as well?

Also, rules are based on propositions. The rule that you cannot murder is based on the proposition that it is morally wrong to take another person's life without valid justification, and someone who does so ought to be punished.

[nate895]

You believe that because you confused a belief with a truth.

Johnny: Earth is round

Charlie: Earth is flat

Truth: Earth is round

Mkay?

Yes, you can believe something is true that isn't true. We all have a lot of false beliefs. The other day I posted that Marie Curie developed antiseptic. That was wrong, but I believed it at the time because I had confused her with someone else. It was never "true for me" despite the fact I believed it to be the truth. I just believed a false proposition.

[Guitarzan]

No, this not possible.

Yes it is.

I have a friend that is color blind. He defines the color "red" as what I, and most people, would define as "purple". To me, the truth is that the stripes on our flag are red. To him, the truth is that the stripes are purple. We both have our own subjective reality, which is true to each of us...but they differ. The only "truth" that we can agree on in that argument is that there are definately stripes on the flag. Hence, in some cases, truth to one is a non-truth to another.

[Sola_Fide]

You believe that because you confused a belief with a truth.

Johnny: Earth is round

Charlie: Earth is flat

Truth: Earth is round

Mkay?


So...how is the earth being flat true for Charlie?

Are you saying that everything that everyone believes is true, no matter if it is true or false? How is that possible?

If that is the case, then nothing can be "true". The concept of "truth" itself implies that the opposite of truth is falsehood. This is the law of non-contradiction. A thing cannot be something that it is not. Something cannot be the case and at the same time not be the case.

[hazek]

OMG!!!!!!

Ok I'm done with this thread after this post.


Yes, you can believe something is true that isn't true. We all have a lot of false beliefs.

NO SUCH THING AS FALSE BELIEFS! Stop thinking in absolute terms of the universe and start thinking in subjective terms of a single contentious mind ffs.



The other day I posted that Marie Curie developed antiseptic. That was wrong, but I believed it at the time because I had confused her with someone else. It was never "true for me" despite the fact I believed it to be the truth. I just believed a false proposition.

It absolutely was true for you in that very moment that you believed it. If right then and there someone had asked you, if Marie Curie had developed an antiseptic you would have said yes because you believed it you made a wrong (wrong in absolute terms) assumption. You assumed Marie Curie was someone she was not and based on evidence that you may or may not had on that person you believed that that person could have developed an antiseptic.

Later you made a new assumption on the very same person based on evidence you may or may not had and you CHANGED your belief from your OLD one to your NEW one where you believed that person couldn't have developed an antiseptic.



You'd think someone who has faith in god would know something about what beliefs are. But this is just typical, you just can't fathom how something that YOU know is true, may not be true for ME and that it is possible that neither of us believes what the truth of the universe actually is. It's super ironic.

[hazek]

So...how is the earth being flat true for Charlie?

Are you saying that everything that everyone believes is true, no matter if it is true or false? How is that possible?

If that is the case, then nothing can be "true". The concept of "truth" itself implies that the opposite of truth is falsehood. This is the law of non-contradiction. A thing cannot be something that it is not. Something cannot be the case and at the same time not be the case.


This is beyond simple.

One question for you! Were you born with the knowledge that the earth is round?

What if no one told Charlie: "hey just because you look all around you and see flat land, doesn't mean the whole planet is flat.", what if he never decided to travel so that he could make a full circle. If you met a Charlie like that and asked him if the earth is flat, he'd say YES!

[hazek]

And that's my final post. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

[fisharmor]

I have a friend that is color blind. He defines the color "red" as what I, and most people, would define as "purple". To me, the truth is that the stripes on our flag are red. To him, the truth is that the stripes are purple. We both have our own subjective reality, which is true to each of us...but they differ. The only "truth" that we can agree on in that argument is that there are definately stripes on the flag. Hence, in some cases, truth to one is a non-truth to another.

There is a scientific definition of "red".
To state that this is not true for colorblind individuals destroys science.
Science being destroyed, atheists lose one of their key arguments.

[amy31416]

I said self-reflection. You cannot adequately self-reflect upon a belief system until you assume, for the sake of argument at least, that it is true. In my experience, the atheists I talk really do not understand what they are saying on a philosophical level. A few in the past have done that. Furthermore, many bring up the most fictitious points against Christianity. There is a debate going on in the religious forum about whether or not Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world. I'm sorry, but if you are so ignorant as to believe there is a more persecuted religion than Christianity, you are a bigot against Christians nothing more. It isn't self-reflective to say that because there are swindlers who dupe Christians into contributing to their "ministry" that all religion must bad, or that because there have been a few Roman Catholic priests who have molested children that means that child molestation runs rampant in Sunday schools. Those are the points that the public face of atheism bring up, and their books sell and I see them being read constantly by atheists I know.

What other kind of reflection than self-reflection? I can't reflect on what it's like to be you, and have your experiences. I grew up assuming that the Christian belief system was true--and ultimately I rejected it, based on reflection. In my experience, Christians and other theists don't understand what they're saying promoting on a philosophical level--including you. I didn't even weigh in on the "Christianity is the most persecuted religion" thread, and I'm automatically a bigot if I disagree? I read a bit of it, and I think it's a victim mentality--and it's mostly bullshit (at least for the last 1500 years.) I never even mentioned molestation--Personally, I don't think it's any more rampant in Christian circles than it is in Jewish, Muslim or even atheist--it's mostly about male sexual deformities, and that many in the clergy/churches have access to more children than others along with parental trust. However, I don't think you can rightly call yourself a Christian or a Muslim if you molest children.




You misunderstand Christian theocracy if you think it's about forcing people to behave like Christians in their private lives. There has been a long history of Christian Political Philosophy, and I think it's pretty clear that it is the government's job is to punish those who harm others, or who publicly flaunt their sin. It's not the government's job to break into your house and stop homosexual activity, but it is the government's job to use force to prevent public homosexuality. It isn't the governments job to force anyone into communion with the Christian Church or its ethical system. If someone thinks that, they need to read the Bible again.


I don't misunderstand Christian theocracy in regards to force, CHRISTIANS misread Christian theocracy in regards to force. Just take a look at the religious right in this country. It is the government's job to dole out punishments to those who harm others, but NOT to those who publicly flaunt their sin. Did Jesus recommend some sort of punishment for Mary the prostitute? Everyone knew she was--so you could say she was flaunting it. If "sin" is hidden out of fear--how will you know where it exists so it can be addressed? Isn't that part of being a Christian? No? You'd prefer that everyone be dishonest and stay in the closet? How does it advance anything to have a gay man stay in the closet, marry a woman, and sleep with men? How can you help that family when the man, woman and possibly any children have AIDS? And how in the world does the government prevent public homosexuality without harming a person or using force?



I know I know a lot atheists/agnostics. Most of the time I live in the Pacific Northwest, the place is overflowing with open atheists who aren't afraid to tell you that they are.

The implication being that I'm "afraid" to tell people that I'm agnostic? No...I just don't see the point--I have no need to proselytize or change other people's beliefs--I'm interested in their thoughts.




What a lot of atheists consider "force" is nothing more than saying that you believe in Christ, that you have good reasons to, and that they should as well. If that's what atheists consider "force," they need to consider why they're atheists in the first place. I don't hold my beliefs so weakly that I consider it "force" if an atheist comes up and tells me that they don't believe God because there aren't any good reasons to, and that I shouldn't as well. I do in fact have good reasons to not only believe in God, but be a Christian. Them saying otherwise isn't forcing me to do anything. It might just be annoying, but being annoying isn't force.


Hey, we agree! It's just that I'm not going to impose any laws on you that restrict you from publicly being a Christian, as you might impose on me or a gay person.



It is ignorant and unloving to punish people who do not live up to the ethical standards of Christianity. The entire point of the religion is that our sin is so great and impossible to change ourselves that God had to become man and shed blood of infinite worth to pay for our sins. That's what we're celebrating this season of Advent, the one true God becoming true, perfect, man, and the promise that one day those in union with him will be raised from the dead and finally be free from the taint of sin.

And it is unethical of me to allow Christians to punish gay people for being who they are and their free expression. Forcing people to hide it will never change them. I respect your celebration, and defend your right to do it publicly. Don't try to take that away from other people whose beliefs differ from yours. I'm happy for you that you've found meaning in life in your own way--now leave me and others to find our own way. If Jesus is truly the path...people will find it.



I am not free of sin, and I don't expect anyone else to be. I just think the only just government that we can have is one that acknowledges and lives by the Truth. How could a government be just and fair and seek the truth in its courts if it does not hold to the source of that truth? That's what Christian Theocrats point out. Not that you should be killed for every little transgression of the law by other people who have probably transgressed the law in a similar manner. Just that we could and we ought to be reminded of that from time to time when we do bad deeds.

You do not know the truth, neither do I, neither do the courts--as they are made up of very flawed human beings. Your grasps at the "truth" does not trump mine.

[nate895]

OMG!!!!!!

Ok I'm done with this thread after this post.



NO SUCH THING AS FALSE BELIEFS! Stop thinking in absolute terms of the universe and start thinking in subjective terms of a single contentious mind ffs.

Yes, let's live subjectively, let's. Now, I think it is my right to go over to your house, murder you, enslave your wives and daughters, and take everything that was yours. That's my right that's "true for me." That's how I feel. I feel it's true, therefore I should be able to act on it. After all, there is no objective truth to act upon, it's all subjective. Not to mention, I'm actually more in tune with this amorphous, constantly changing "single contentious [conscious?] mind" than you are, which makes my subjective feelings better than yours.

[Sola_Fide]

Yes it is.

I have a friend that is color blind. He defines the color "red" as what I, and most people, would define as "purple". To me, the truth is that the stripes on our flag are red. To him, the truth is that the stripes are purple. We both have our own subjective reality, which is true to each of us...but they differ. The only "truth" that we can agree on in that argument is that there are definately stripes on the flag. Hence, in some cases, truth to one is a non-truth to another.



I'll show you that truth cannot be subjective, using your own example.


Step back a second from the example you are posing about the colorblind person. If you look at the big picture, you are attempting to posit that we view reality subjectively and truth is subjective to person. IS THIS TRUE? That is, is it true that truth is subjective and not objective?



You see, the concept of absolute truth is so unavoidable, you have to assume it to even try to argue that truth is subjective:). If truth is subjective, why would you be trying to argue that your view of reality (that truth is subjective) is the case, and my view of reality (truth is objective) is not the case?



If you argue that something IS NOT the case, you are assuming that something IS the case. Therefore, you are arguing an objective truth:)

[Guitarzan]

I'll show you that truth cannot be subjective, using your own example.


Step back a second from the example you are posing about the colorblind person. If you look at the big picture, you are attempting to posit that we view reality subjectively and truth is subjective to person. IS THIS TRUE? That is, is it true that truth is subjective and not objective?



You see, the concept of absolute truth is so unavoidable, you have to assume it to even try to argue that truth is subjective:). If truth is subjective, why would you be trying to argue that your view of reality (that truth is subjective) is the case, and my view of reality (truth is objective) is not the case?



If you argue that something IS NOT the case, you are assuming that something IS the case. Therefore, you are arguing an objective truth:)


Yes. I'm arguing that the absolute truth is subjective, and that subjective truth is objective and absolute. :D

[Sola_Fide]

Yes. I'm arguing that the absolute truth is subjective, and that subjective truth is objective and absolute. :D

That is contradictory and irrational.

Is it absolutely true that there is no absolute truth?

[Guitarzan]

That is contradictory and irrational.

Is it absolutely true that there is no absolute truth?


Who knows. If there is an "absolute" truth, I don't believe that human beings can achieve a complete understanding of it. Not at our present level of comprehension anyway.


Can a piece of matter exist in two places at one time, while at the same time only exist in space as one, depending on if the matter itself is being observed or not? If I said yes, that also sounds irrational and contradictory, but it may be the absolute truth according to quantum physics. Surely, a truth like that can blur the black and white lines that you are trying to draw here.

[teacherone]

this whole thread can be summed up with a question--is there a super-observer which can verify the subjective and relative truths we hold dear?

if there is no super-observer than A and B are both correct even if their "truths" contradict.

[fisharmor]

if there is no super-observer than A and B are both correct even if their "truths" contradict.

But, to repeat myself, this neat little violation of noncontradiction fails utterly when you are discussing hard sciences.

I'm a computer programmer. My code is either correct, or it is not.
I work in an industry of legal disclaimers and sign-offs, because even if I have forms in triplicate, signed by all parties, with lawyer-reviewed contracts in place, it is still possible that my code is not correct.
It is correct for me at the time I am writing it, but even as I write it it might not be what the customer actually wants.
If I deliver code which is not correct, even if it was correct according to the reams of documentation I have directing me to do it this way, I still have no argument - the customer didn't get what was correct.

Real life takes noncontradiction into account all around your ears. It is axiomatic. If I argue to the customer that it was correct for me, I will be uncordially invited to go fuck myself.

If what you say is true, and it's true for me so it's therefore true, then great - we don't need requirements analysis, we don't need documentation, we don't need lawyers.

Unfortunately, reality disagrees with you at practically every turn.

[low preference guy]

if there is no super-observer than A and B are both correct even if their "truths" contradict.

lol. what a wacko. great post above me by the way.

[nate895]

The ultimate proof of the Law of Non-Contradiction:

(1) The sky is blue.
(2) The sky is not blue.
(3) The sky is blue or the earth is flat.
(4) Therefore, the earth is flat.

If contradictions are true, then you can prove everything and nothing. Think about it.

[teacherone]

in your post you describe a situation where two parties hold subjective truths which come into conflict.

i fail to see how this disproves that two parties can hold different truths.

if there were objective truths then there would be no arguments and no conflicts.


But, to repeat myself, this neat little violation of noncontradiction fails utterly when you are discussing hard sciences.

I'm a computer programmer. My code is either correct, or it is not.
I work in an industry of legal disclaimers and sign-offs, because even if I have forms in triplicate, signed by all parties, with lawyer-reviewed contracts in place, it is still possible that my code is not correct.
It is correct for me at the time I am writing it, but even as I write it it might not be what the customer actually wants.
If I deliver code which is not correct, even if it was correct according to the reams of documentation I have directing me to do it this way, I still have no argument - the customer didn't get what was correct.

Real life takes noncontradiction into account all around your ears. It is axiomatic. If I argue to the customer that it was correct for me, I will be uncordially invited to go fuck myself.

If what you say is true, and it's true for me so it's therefore true, then great - we don't need requirements analysis, we don't need documentation, we don't need lawyers.

Unfortunately, reality disagrees with you at practically every turn.

[nate895]

if there were objective truths then there would be no arguments and no conflicts.

Unless, of course, sin tainted our minds. Nope, that's impossible. It's more rational to be irrational.

[hazek]

YouTube - Bob Proctor on The Secret (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MulLAfffQoQ)

[teacherone]

Unless, of course, sin tainted our minds. Nope, that's impossible. It's more rational to be irrational.

you're proving my point.

in order to verify the subjective truths that you hold, you turn to god-- the ultimate super-observer.

others in this thread utilize science as their super-observer in order to prove their subjective truths.

without these super-observers there would be no way to verify any truth.

but some people don't believe in god.

and some people don't believe in science.

therefore objective truths lie far beyond our reach...

and any two parties can both rationally and correctly argue their own subjective truth.

[nate895]

you're proving my point.

in order to verify the subjective truths that you hold, you turn to god-- the ultimate super-observer.

others in this thread utilize science as their super-observer in order to prove their subjective truths.

without these super-observers there would be no way to verify any truth.

but some people don't believe in god.

and some people don't believe in science.

therefore objective truths lie far beyond our reach...

and any two parties can both rationally and correctly argue their own subjective truth.

And some people believe the Iraq War was justified.

You're proving my point. We either live in a nihilistic universe without reason, logic, science, or anything else at all. If you believe that, you cannot condemn anyone for believing anything because that just "true for them." If we live in a world of reason and science, then there mind really is over matter, and the ultimate mind (God) is over all of the matter. You subjugate our minds to matter.

[teacherone]

And some people believe the Iraq War was justified.

You're proving my point. We either live in a nihilistic universe without reason, logic, science, or anything else at all. If you believe that, you cannot condemn anyone for believing anything because that just "true for them." If we live in a world of reason and science, then there mind really is over matter, and the ultimate mind (God) is over all of the matter. You subjugate our minds to matter.

in one post you've deferred to two super-observers -- science and god, in order to prove your own subjective truth.

weird...own could say your subjective truth is rather contradictory but



If contradictions are true, then you can prove everything and nothing. Think about it.

[Sola_Fide]

This is why I hesitate to get into philosophical discissions on message boards. The level of understanding of logic is horrible...shameful, really.

We actually have people here claiming that "truth is subjective", when they don't even understand that they are making an objective argument about what reality is.


______> insert facepalm here

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I don't misunderstand Christian theocracy in regards to force, CHRISTIANS misread Christian theocracy in regards to force.

:D

[teacherone]

i know right?

i mean here we are getting lectured by those who defer to God as proof of logic!?

we should definitely avoid these silly message board people.



This is why I hesitate to get into philosophical discissions on message boards. The level of understanding of logic is horrible...shameful, really.

We actually have people here claiming that "truth is subjective", when they don't even understand that they are making an objective argument about what reality is.


______> insert facepalm here

[Romulus]

Here's a simple definition: A belief is an assumed truth.



Belief is the death of intelligence.

[nate895]

Belief is the death of intelligence.

Said the man who believes belief is the death of intelligence.

[Theocrat]

Kind of intuitive. But pretty interesting nonetheless

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/opinion/07brooks.html?_r=1

I think the phenomenon mentioned above happens because of one simple truth: skeptics are never skeptical of their own skepticism. ;)

[low preference guy]

why is this in general politics?

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Mr. Jenkins, let me help you out with a small point of logic. Just because there are people in the world who offer a collection of ancient tall tales as proof of God's existence, and those tales are nothing of the kind, does not logically and irrevocably disprove the existence of God.

Therefore, to firmly believe in the nonexistence of God is to believe the unprovable just as completely as to firmly believe in the existence of God. Neither can be proven.

When "god" is some subjective bullshit idea, yes you can. First it was "god" created the earth, then we figure out it was a rotating cloud of interstellar dust and gas. Next it was "god" created man and all living things, then we figure out it was evolution and abiogenesis. Next it was "god" created the universe, then we figure out it was the big bang. Next it was "god" created "god", then we figure out where "god" came from. Nobody can even define "god" therefore it's fucking pointless!!!

What bothers me is that these atheist + 1 don't get as much shit for rejecting all other god's except one (which they were brainwashed into believing as a child) as I do.

[hazek]

And some people believe the Iraq War was justified.

You're proving my point. We either live in a nihilistic universe without reason, logic, science, or anything else at all. If you believe that, you cannot condemn anyone for believing anything because that just "true for them." If we live in a world of reason and science, then there mind really is over matter, and the ultimate mind (God) is over all of the matter. You subjugate our minds to matter.

I actually learned something from this thread. I learned why people look to god or science. They try to prove that their beliefs are the truth.


Please nate895, watch this:
YouTube - The Power Of Belief - Anthony Robbins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BED5oOvYBk4)

[Guitarzan]

This is why I hesitate to get into philosophical discissions on message boards. The level of understanding of logic is horrible...shameful, really.

We actually have people here claiming that "truth is subjective", when they don't even understand that they are making an objective argument about what reality is.


______> insert facepalm here


Come on Aqua...I made that comment as more of a tongue in cheek remark than anything else.

My point is that I, unlike you, will admit that just maybe, juuuust maybe, as a human being, am not capable of comprehending what exactly "absolute truth" is, or if it even exists.

You, on the other hand, seem to think that your logic skills, which you assume to be more refined than mine, allow you to somehow have all the answers. Not only all the answers, but absolute answers.

Logic, although a lovely idea, will only take you so far. Some truths, as I pointed out in my example of quantum physics, are quite illogical.

[1000-points-of-fright]

I suppose that in order to prove that I really believe what I say I believe, I should stop talking to people about it.

Pretty much dumps water all over that "sparking brush fires in the minds" concept.

[teacherone]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/reputation/reputation_neg.gif The more people doubt... (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=3022410#post3022410) 12-09-2010 05:50 PM low preference guy (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=24054) did i neg rep you or did i not? there is no allseeing observer, so we can never know! idiot

i believe you negged me...and you believe you negged me. since we two are the only ones involved in the dispute, and we both believe the same thing occurred, then yes...most likely it was you who negged me.

then again...maybe it was a hacker, maybe it was Josh playing games, maybe you're an asshole...or maybe you just play one on the internet.

since we have no authority, no super observer to defer to...i guess we'll never know :)

[Sola_Fide]

Logic, although a lovely idea, will only take you so far. Some truths, as I pointed out in my example of quantum physics, are quite illogical.

1. Truths can't be illogical.

2. What do you mean by logic "only taking us so far"? What is beyond logic?

[teacherone]

here's an example...

a body is found on a street. witnesses are gathered. they finger a suspect.

the police defers to the courts-- the arbiter of objective truth-- society's super-observer.

the case is presented. the judge is persuaded from believing nothing to believing that the suspect is guilty.

up until the sentencing, the suspect was not guilty, was not innocent, but rather hung in a pergatory of unknowns.

but after the persuasion, after accepting the belief that the suspect is guilty, and upon uttering the sentence "guilty", reality is altered, truth is altered.

from that moment on the suspect IS guilty.

the judge believes it. the witnesses believe it. the victim's family believes it. and a reality is formed from this collective belief.

the now guilty suspect goes to jail.

years later new evidence is discovered. DNA evidence. the detectives now defer to the super-observer of science and re-open the case.

upon observation of the DNA evidence, the detectives' beliefs now change. they now believe the suspect is not-guilty.

they return to the super-observer, the judge, arbiter of objective truth.

they present the evidence. the judge is persuaded. upon accepting the belief that the suspect is not guilty, and merely by uttering the sentence "not-guilty", reality is altered, truth is altered.

from that moment on the suspect IS not-guilty.

the witnesses believe it, the judge believes it, the detectives believe it, and victim's family believes it, and this collective belief alters reality.

the suspect IS not guilty and exits his jail cell.

but there is one member of the gallery who is not convinced. one who doesn't accept this newly held collective belief but doesn't reject it either. he questions--was the DNA evidence tampered with? was somebody bribed?

alas...he is without recourse. there is no super-observer left to defer to, no objective arbiter of final truths to judge.

he could ask God...but God only answers the mad.

there are now three conflicting realities, guilty, not-guilty, and something in the middle.

each is equally valid, and each equally true.

lacking the super-observer the truth is what each man believes.

[EndDaFed]

This is interesting, but I don't think doubt or skepticism is a bad thing.

One of the reasons atheists come across as so ignorant is that they are not honestly critical of their own worldview. They hold to it many times by a sheer blind faith.

The only self-critical atheist that I have any respect for is David Hume. He was extremely intelligent. Not wise,but one of the most intelligent ever.

Why is it those on this forum who believe in god have a need to attack atheists? The topic has nothing to do with atheism yet you bring it up.

[Sola_Fide]

i believe you negged me...and you believe you negged me. since we two are the only ones involved in the dispute, and we both believe the same thing occurred, then yes...most likely it was you who negged me.

then again...maybe it was a hacker, maybe it was Josh playing games, maybe you're an asshole...or maybe you just play one on the internet.

since we have no authority, no super observer to defer to...i guess we'll never know :)

The problem with basing reality on observation is that it runs into the major problem of empiricism: induction.

Universal truths cannot be obtained from experience because

1. No one has universal experience
2. No one can prove their observations are completely reliable
3. Arguments about the unifomity of natural occurences become circular when experience is the measure ("nature is uniform because it has always been that way in the past"...which is a circular argument)


Universal statements must ALWAYS appeal to an axiom outside of the senses and experience. This is why empiricism is irrational.

[fisharmor]

in your post you describe a situation where two parties hold subjective truths which come into conflict.

i fail to see how this disproves that two parties can hold different truths.

if there were objective truths then there would be no arguments and no conflicts.

I'll admit that I wasn't drawing things together as neatly as I could, so let me try again.

As I write a program, I have requirements analysis documents that have been signed off by the customer.
This creates a legal agreement with the customer, whereby it is agreed that I will write a program which does what is in the document.

I then write the program.
If I misunderstand something in the document, and the customer points out that I have misunderstood a requirement, and it is obvious that I did, then I have been adhering to a false belief, as Nate explained.
It does not matter that it was true for me at the time - it was objectively false. It never was true, despite the fact that I believed it to be true.
In this case, we are discussing the objective reality of what the document says.

If the customer has made a mistake in relating requirements to me, that is why we have the signoffs. We understand from the beginning that there is only one objective truth in how to write the program. The documentation and signoffs is to protect us. If I do everything exactly according to the requirements, then if it comes up that I did something which is objectively incorrect, we tell the customer that we have fulfilled our contract according to the document.

In this case, we are discussing the objective reality of what they wanted the program to do.

We do not claim that the program is correct, because we know it's not correct.
We rightly claim that we have done what we agreed to do.
We understand that we were operating under a false belief. If we tried to argue that it's right, that it's his subjective reality getting in the way, we're going to go out of business.

So we don't say business-smashing drivel like that. Instead, we appeal to the contract, pat the customer on the back and say "there, there... now would you like to sign a new contract for us to fix it?"

This is the way the world works. It's either objectively correct, or we are operating under a false belief. We're not defining reality with contracts: we are protecting ourselves from accidental or purposeful mistaking of what reality objectively is.

[fisharmor]

from that moment on the suspect IS guilty.

Holy shit, can you send me a picture of yourself so if I get charged with something, I can ID you on the jury and know that I need to break out and flee the country?

[1000-points-of-fright]

they finger a suspect.

Tee Hee

[libertarian4321]

I had to read that a couple times "hoping" it was sarcastic and not an outright argument, you criticize "sheer blind faith" and put it on Athiest, are you a stand-up comedian or something.

Oh the irony of a "man of faith" saying atheists go on "sheer blind faith."

It's hilarious, but I think he was serious.

BTW, anyone want to commission a test of 1,000 atheists vs 1,000 theists, picked at random, to see which has the highest average IQ? My money would be on the atheists.

[low preference guy]

s.

BTW, anyone want to commission a test of 1,000 atheists vs 1,000 theists, picked at random, to see which has the highest average IQ? My money would be on the atheists.

i'd like to see a similar test to see the relation between truthers and mental disorders. too bad the psychiatrists are also crazy so the test wouldn't be reliable.

[TER]

The problem with basing reality on observation is that it runs into the major problem of empiricism: induction.

And the results of this problem is that people put themselves above God. They become deluded to think they are the lord of their own life, that they owe their lives to no one and the body and soul which is part of them was a pure luck of science. And since science is not a person, they owe it nothing. Perhaps they even make themselves a god of logic and reason!

The conclusion often becomes that reality can only be assured by what one's eyes can see, or what their ears can hear, what their hands can touch, or what their mind can know.

And what do we see? 300 nanometer range of light, a fraction in a range where the wavelengths approach infinity! Though we can only sense an impossibly small range, look at the splendor of colors we can see and what majestic beauty we can behold all throughout creation!

And what do we hear? Better yet, what do we allow them to hear?? Do we fill them with sounds of joy and happiness and love? Or do we bombard them with fear and anger and sounds of disorder? While the eyes may be the window to the soul, the ears I believe are the door to it. Here can the words 'mommy' or 'daddy' be heard in the voice of a child or where a lover can hear their beloved say to them 'I love you'.

If so much beauty can be found in such a minuscule difference of wavelength, what of the beauty that is found in the remaining infinite wavelength? Beauty, I believe, is proof of an infinite God.

And when the soul (and body) is purified, and the mind descends into the nous (closest translation: the heart), then the energies of God can be experienced and the eternal become our reality. Partakers of the divine nature, adopted sons of God.

[eOs]

//

[MN Patriot]

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance had a bunch of good quotes:

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion."

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/401.Robert_M_Pirsig

You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.

http://members.cox.net/teewood/QuotePirsigZen.html

[hazek]

I don't understand why mods haven't moved this thread to the Religion section yet.

[Sola_Fide]

When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.

So...we are all here at RPF because we secretly doubt liberty?

[Heimdallr]

So...we are all here at RPF because we secretly doubt liberty?

Yeah, why else would we go on? We need other people for positive reinforcement.

[eugenekop]

This research has some merit. I often try to convince other people of Libertarian principles so that I could hear their counter arguments, in order to settle my doubts. On the other hand when I am very sure of some things I also like to debate them, because I know I'll win the argument. So although the conclusion is not necessarily true, but the psychological analysis makes sense.

[Sola_Fide]

I don't doubt liberty...at all.

I am firmly convinced of the failure of collectivism and statism. There is not a single doubt in my mind about the evils of central planning.

I also do not doubt the Lord or Christianity as a system. I often seek for answers deeper in my theology, but Ido it not because of doubt, but because of love.

[Travlyr]

So...we are all here at RPF because we secretly doubt liberty?
Yes. Religion is a huge obstacle to liberty.
For example, how can one believe that it is a sin to have sexual relations outside of marriage, yet simultaneously leave non-religious people to enjoy two or more partners?
Most cannot. Religious people generally will not allow non-religious people their liberties.

[Sola_Fide]

Religious people generally will not allow non-religious people their liberties.

What do you mean by "religious" people? Atheistic Maoist China did not allow anyone not in government to have liberties. Life, Liberty, and Property were routinely crushed. The same with the atheistic Stalinist Russia.

In fact, I could argue right here that atheistic societies in the 20th century have denied more liberty, and butchered more innocent people than the entire history of Christianity. It's not even close. We are talking millions and millions of people murdered by the god of atheism, the State.

Atheists have a DEPLORABLE history of defending liberties...in fact, there is no ultimate or consistent reason to defend liberty at all in the worldview of atheism.


The only consistent and stalwart defense of liberties come from the ethos and worldview of Christianity.

"Resistence to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual."

-John Hancock

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if they have been removed from their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that they are gifts of God?"

TJ

[hazek]

I was about to reply to AquaBuddha2010 but I figured there's no point.


Please the rest of you atheists out there, don't reply in here any more because you're wasting your time. Just let the thread die.

[amy31416]

I don't doubt liberty...at all.

I am firmly convinced of the failure of collectivism and statism. There is not a single doubt in my mind about the evils of central planning.

I also do not doubt the Lord or Christianity as a system. I often seek for answers deeper in my theology, but Ido it not because of doubt, but because of love.

You just implied/stated (yesterday?) that all atheists, with the exception of Hume, are idiots. That's collectivism.


I was about to reply to AquaBuddha2010 but I figured there's no point.

Please the rest of you atheists out there, don't reply in here any more because you're wasting your time. Just let the thread die.

Yep. Just had to point out one last thing. :)

[Sola_Fide]

I suppose that in order to prove that I really believe what I say I believe, I should stop talking to people about it.

Pretty much dumps water all over that "sparking brush fires in the minds" concept.

:)

[YumYum]

If G-d appeared in my bedroom and told me that I was going to be in heaven with Him, and to follow Christ's example of love, I would have my bags packed; waiting for the Rapture or my death and wouldn't waste my time arguing with atheist or non-believers. I would do what Jesus said and that is to "shake the dust off my sandals". I have no clue why Christians who are "saved" love to argue. Do they doubt their salvation?

[Sola_Fide]

You just implied/stated (yesterday?) that all atheists, with the exception of Hume, are idiots. That's collectivism.



That is not collectivism. Merely identifying people by what they believe is not collectivism.


Collectivism is:

"Collectivism is any philosophic, political, economic or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human in some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual goals. Collectivists usually focus on community, society or nation."



Anyway, I said I had respect only for Hume, that he was one of the most intelligent in my view, and I stick by that. I also posted a video a few posts back where a popular Christian apologist comments on the piss-poor reasoning abilities of popular atheists. Did you watch that video?

[osan]

This is a common phenomenon and one I have observed countless times.

[osan]

This is interesting, but I don't think doubt or skepticism is a bad thing.

One of the reasons atheists come across as so ignorant is that they are not honestly critical of their own worldview. They hold to it many times by a sheer blind faith.

Ironic, that.

[YumYum]

That is not collectivism. Merely identifying people by what they believe is not collectivism.


Collectivism is:

"Collectivism is any philosophic, political, economic or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human in some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual goals. Collectivists usually focus on community, society or nation."



Anyway, I said I had respect only for Hume, that he was one of the most intelligent in my view, and I stick by that.

Christians are collectivists. Jesus said "They will know that you are my followers if you have love among yourselves". He didn't say "love for yourself".

[osan]

+1

I think it's obvious that this is the case in a lot of instances. However, I think this is a problem that could be resolved by the adoption of a philosophical approach to truth. That means that you have to embrace it when you see it. That's what drives me in my better moments. In any event, if I find out something is the truth, I want to tell others about it and be strengthened in that knowledge. That's why I want to teach.

This age is so anti-intellectual that it's hard for people like me who want to emulate the great philosophers and theologians of the past to go around behaving that way. It used to be a compliment to say someone was a "scholar and a gentleman," now those of us who try to live up to that ideal (you will fail to live up to your standards) are considered strange and, in some cases, even unmanly. It has really put us as a culture in a place where instead of defending our beliefs in a rational way, we belittle those who disagree because we are really that small ourselves. I'm not saying I'm above it, either. I've insulted people as a substitute for argument in disagreements when I had little confidence in what I was saying.

It's really a rather strange world we live in where to put forth your point-of-view on a topic and defend it is a sign of weakness. For some people it might be, but you cannot say that it is an infallible sign of a deep lack of confidence in your beliefs that forces you to lash out at those who attack them. My guess is that the vast majority of these instances aren't people legitimately defending their beliefs with logic and reason, but rather lashing out when people question their beliefs, as if they're entitled to believe whatever they want without challenge.

+1 yourself. Well stated.

[Sola_Fide]

Christians are collectivists. Jesus said "They will know that you are my followers if you have love among yourselves". He didn't say "love for yourself".

Yes He did command us to love ourselves.

"Love God with all your heart, strength and mind, and love your neighbor as *you love yourself*".

Besides, the Bible teaches private property, and it abhors theft. Collectivism is based on theft and an abolition of private property.

[Dr.3D]

Has anyone noticed, those who don't love themselves, find it very difficult to love others?

[YumYum]

Yes He did command us to love ourselves.

"Love God with all your heart, strength and mind, and love your neighbor as *you love yourself*".

He wasn't commanding us to love ourselves, he was commanding us to love our neighbor as much as we love ourselves. Humans are self-centered. We already love ourselves; we don't need to be commanded to do that. lol! That is why He said: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

[fisharmor]

Christians are collectivists. Jesus said "They will know that you are my followers if you have love among yourselves". He didn't say "love for yourself".

Jesus also told his followers to cut off their hands and poke out their eyes.
Why do you guys do this? This is the intellectual equivalent to calling RP a hard core socialist because he puts earmarks into bills.
FFS, if you're going to take things out of context and not bother to learn a single thing about the book you're quoting beyond a couple mangled quotes, why don't any of you go for the easy stuff? There's plenty of bat-shit crazy in Scripture to go around, if you're not bothering to figure it out beyond the occasional sound bite.

[hazek]

Ok how do I get the mods attention to this thread so that they can move to the Religion section?

[YumYum]

Jesus also told his followers to cut off their hands and poke out their eyes.
Why do you guys do this? This is the intellectual equivalent to calling RP a hard core socialist because he puts earmarks into bills.
FFS, if you're going to take things out of context and not bother to learn a single thing about the book you're quoting beyond a couple mangled quotes, why don't any of you go for the easy stuff? There's plenty of bat-shit crazy in Scripture to go around, if you're not bothering to figure it out beyond the occasional sound bite.

What is being taken out of context, and what do you define as the "easy stuff"? I like the easy stuff, since the Bible says that "G-d is not a G-d of chaos", and Jesus said "keep the eye simple". I like keeping it simple.

[YumYum]

Ok how do I get the mods attention to this thread so that they can move to the Religion section?

Stomp up and down and scream.

[Sola_Fide]

He wasn't commanding us to love ourselves, he was commanding us to love our neighbor as much as we love ourselves. Humans are self-centered. We already love ourselves; we don't need to be commanded to do that. lol! That is why He said: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Maybe you can help me understand from Scripture where God does not want us to love ourselves. Do you have any verses for me?

While you are looking for those verses, ponder this quote from Murray Rothbard about the individualism of Christianity:


Quote: "But it is to Christianity that we owe individual freedom and capitalism. It is no coincidence that capitalism developed in Christian Europe after the transnational church limited the state. In ancient Greece and Rome, the individual was merely part of the city state or the empire, unimportant in his own right. Christianity changed that by stressing the infinite worth of each individual soul." - Murray Rothbard

[pcosmar]

Has anyone noticed, those who don't love themselves, find it very difficult to love others?

Yup.
And in the same vein,, Those that are not honest with themselves have trouble being honest with others.

I see it all the time.
:(

[Sola_Fide]

Ok how do I get the mods attention to this thread so that they can move to the Religion section?

Let it go bro...its not that big of a deal.

[AxisMundi]

Kind of intuitive. But pretty interesting nonetheless

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/opinion/07brooks.html?_r=1

I have made that observation for many decades now, it's nice to have one's opinions vindicated every now and then. :D

It not only applies to religion though, and can be found in the more rabid of the political arena as well, people who don't want to appear "less liberal", "less conservative", or "less Christian" by embracing the more rational and reasonable ideals of the opposing party and or religion, or even showing any tolerance towards others.

For these people, intolerance towards other religions, and/or fanatically clutching one's claimed political alignment without any shred of cooperation and compromise is the norm.

[Travlyr]

I believe:

That we live in an abundant world, and that nobody must go to bed hungry, wet, or cold.
That the "powers that be" cause poverty and pain on others while they exempt themselves from laws and wallow in luxury.
The power elite oligarchy need to get their privilege of central banking control taken from them for the good of the masses. This is my #1 goal.

I side with Ron Paul on this belief.

That liberty, peace and prosperity provides equal opportunity for all and can only be achieved by engaging honest money in laissez-faire free-market capitalism.

http://mises.org/media/1203

I do not doubt these beliefs. I work daily to convince others that these beliefs are true.

What do you mean by "religious" people?
Religious people hold firm moral beliefs. Most religious people project their beliefs onto others as if they are God's laws. However, their God and my God do not see eye to eye. I do not believe everything they believe. Except for my abundant world laissez-faire free-market beliefs, I do not try and force my beliefs on anyone.

[YumYum]

Maybe you can help me understand from Scripture where God does not want us to love ourselves. Do you have any verses for me?

While you are looking for those verses, ponder this quote from Murray Rothbard about the individualism of Christianity:


Quote: "But it is to Christianity that we owe individual freedom and capitalism. It is no coincidence that capitalism developed in Christian Europe after the transnational church limited the state. In ancient Greece and Rome, the individual was merely part of the city state or the empire, unimportant in his own right. Christianity changed that by stressing the infinite worth of each individual soul." - Murray Rothbard

At John 12:25, Jesus says: "If you love your life down here-- you will lose it, if you despise your life down here-- you will exchange it for eternal glory."

Another translation reads :"He that is fond of his soul destroys it, but he that hates his soul in this world will safeguard it for everlasting life."

I agree that Christianity promoted more freedom from the state, and promoted capitalism. There was struggle between church and state; the state wanted people to pay more tax, and the church demanded tithing. More tax to the state is less tithing to the church. The wealthier the church follower was, the more tithing he can give.

But let me ask you: Do you think Christianity is a form of collectivism?

[osan]

Beliefs are the assumptions we make about ourselves, about others in the world and about how we expect things to be.

Not quite completely so. Beliefs may be as you assert, but they can also be based on assumptions as well, yet be derived in a wholly rational manner. This is reasonable from a practical point of view, and is in fact necessary because as some level blind faith is required in order for us to live. This is the nature of things.

In a very real sense we are constrained in most cases to accept the input of our senses blindly. For example, if I see an automobile careening toward me, I am presented with a choice. I can blindly choose to trust what I see and take the appropriate measures consistent with the drive to live on, or I can remain still and wait to find out whether there is actually a car and a body with which to collide. Given our makeup as living beings imbued with a sense of self preservation, we most often dive out of the way if we are able, based on the assumption that what we are sensing is, in fact, real. I trust, quite blindly I might add, that this is almost universally the correct thing to do. In other words, all else equal, we blindly accept that which our senses tell us at this primitive level.

At a higher level of operation, however, we are afforded the ability to apply rational thought in the process of choosing what it is we believe. For example, if I accept certain very basic assumptions about the nature of what it is to be a living, breathing, sentient being, particularly in the context of living with other such beings, it is thereby possible to rationally derive a precise, complete, and correct system of beliefs about how such beings should behave in that context. The entire corpus of beliefs regarding human rights can be so derived from a single simple assumption, which in turn leads to four beliefs that serve as additional assumptions and form the basis of derivation for the far larger body of rationally constructed beliefs. I call these five assumptions The Canon of Individual Sovereignty and they consist of the following base assumption:
All men hold equal claims to life

From this single assumption follow axiomatically these apodictic principles:
Self ownership
Right to action
Right to private property
Non-aggression
And from these, a complete and correct corpus of principles follow most naturally regarding proper behavior for all people that provide for expansively broad avenues of choice while imposing but a single general restriction. None of this is based on blind assumption at this level of reasoning, but rather only on the acceptance of a single assumption whose validity is obvious, axiomatic, and most likely apodictic.


Beliefs are about how we think things really are, what we think is really true and what we therefore expect are likely consequences that will follow from our behavior.Agreed, but they are not always assumptions in and of themselves.


Here's a simple definition: A belief is an assumed truth.This is a poor definition because of ambiguity in the definition of "assumption". Assumption may be based in blind acceptance or in reason. It is important to be keenly aware of this difference and its great significance.



Now tell me, how can one doubt what one assumes as the truth? :rolleyes:That is easily demonstrable in that assumption may be made dishonestly and yet still be assumption. Furthermore, one may dishonestly assume something as true without the intention of being dishonest. There are many reasons that might underpin such a circumstance including fear and coercion.

For example, a Christian may assume Jesus Christ is his lord and savior, yet be riddled with doubt as to the truth of that proposition. The assumption may be held out of the pure fear of eternal damnation, but that does not necessarily dissipate the lingering doubt, thereby placing the person in question squarely behind the 8-ball. It is the morbid fear of eternal damnation that forces its assumption. That fear, in turn, transitively drives the fear of doubt. This, then, reinforces acceptance of the assumption of Christ's position in the believer's life to the exclusion of all question while failing to remove the doubt that would drive such questioning. Mr. Rock, meet Mr. Hardplace.

[Sola_Fide]

At John 12:25, Jesus says: "If you love your life down here-- you will lose it, if you despise your life down here-- you will exchange it for eternal glory."

LOLOLOLOL. Yum-Yum, you win bro. I guess Jesus really did say that we shouldn't love ourselves:):):)



I agree that Christianity promoted more freedom from the state, and promoted capitalism. There was struggle between church and state; the state wanted people to pay more tax, and the church demanded tithing. More tax to the state is less tithing to the church. The wealthier the church follower was, the more tithing he can give.

That is one of the most inaccurate views of the history of Christian political theory I've read in a long time. Are you trolling? If so, you got me again!:)



But let me ask you: Do you think Christianity is a form of collectivism?

No. Christianity is not collectivistic.

1. Christianity rigorously defends private property and abhors theft. Collectivism is based on a denial of private property and theft.

2. Collectivism urges that the few are subsumed by the whole, that the group is more important than the individual. Christianity, as Murray Rothbard pointed out, stresses the infinite worth of each individual soul, it stresses the individual as a true owner of property, not the State. The group (the church) is seen as an outgrowth of the individual "stones" that make it up (Christ being the cornerstone), but the group is NOT more important than the individual.

3. THE SOCIAL GOSPEL IS NOT THE GOSPEL. A movement that started in the late 1800s called the Social Gospel began to teach that all of the commands of PRIVATE charity in Scripture were actually commands for the State. This was simply socialism wrapped in Christian language. It is not Biblical, since the Bible rigorously defends private property and stresses private charity, not confiscatory theft and redistribution by the government.

[osan]

I can say the same about atheists/agnostics.

Or any other group. They all have their hypocrites and ninnies.


The great thinker of the Reformation was John Calvin.

I can agree with this.


The deepest thinker in the history of the Christian Church, who left his mark on everyone in the Latin world and beyond over the course of time was Augustine.

He may have been a deep thinker, but his thoughts were riddled with vile sickness. "Confessions" demonstrates clearly just how rotten many of his assumptions were. Of course, those have to be taken in the context of the time in which he lived, but that was cold comfort to those uncounted masses murdered by that church.

I would say Aquinas was the superior thinker in all ways, but it's been a long time since I was familiar with his thoughts.


Augustine made the great strides when it came to pretty much every Christian doctrine. He was the first Christian who not only defended aspects of Christianity, like the Resurrection and Monotheism, but the religion taken as a whole. While he was heavily influenced by the Platonists, he can still be said to be the first great philosopher to have a Christian philosophy.

I find Augustine's motives questionable at best. The dogma of that church as it devolved at Nicea and since is profoundly evil in its very fabric. Those men took a sound thing and turned it into something vile and destructive. The Reformation made at least the good faith effort to correct this.

[YumYum]

LOLOLOLOL. Yum-Yum, you win bro. I guess Jesus really did say that we shouldn't love ourselves:):):)



That is one of the most inaccurate views of the history of Christian political theory I've read in a long time. Are you trolling? If so, you got me again!:)



No. Christianity is not collectivistic.

1. Christianity rigorously defends private property and abhors theft. Collectivism is based on a denial of private property and theft.

2. Collectivism urges that the few are subsumed by the whole, that the group is more important than the individual. Christianity, as Murray Rothbard pointed out, stresses the infinite worth of each individual soul, it stresses the individual as a true owner of property, not the State. The group (the church) is seen as an outgrowth of the individual "stones" that make it up (Christ being the cornerstone), but the group is NOT more important than the individual.

3. THE SOCIAL GOSPEL IS NOT THE GOSPEL. A movement that started in the late 1800s called the Social Gospel began to teach that all of the commands of PRIVATE charity in Scripture were actually commands for the State. This was simply socialism wrapped in Christian language. It is not Biblical, since the Bible rigorously defends private property and stresses private charity, not confiscatory theft and redistribution by the government.

Well, I watched "Robin Hood" with Russell Crowe last night, so you can blame the movie and not me for being wrong! :D

As far as collectivism and Christianity goes, I understand the state/group verses individual freedoms argument. But here is my concern: If Christianity was in control, would it not in itself form some sort of a collective, where people would have to obey the laws of the Bible, or otherwise be punished?

You see, that is why I follow Jesus, and no other man, say like the apostle Paul. Jesus taught love and forgiveness. He taught us to be individuals by inviting us to personally come to him. He taught us not to judge.

Paul on the other-hand, who founded Christianity, judges people and condemns them and he invented "disfellowshipping", or excommunicating. It takes a collective to disfellowship someone for "disfellowshipping" to have any meaning. It takes an individual to forgive, because it comes from the heart.

Jesus taught individualism, and Paul taught collectivism to control his followers.

[hazek]

This is a poor definition because of ambiguity in the definition of "assumption". Assumption may be based in blind acceptance or in reason. It is important to be keenly aware of this difference and its great significance.

My point was that once you assume a belief it doesn't matter how or why you derived that belief once you have it is the truth to you.



That is easily demonstrable in that assumption may be made dishonestly and yet still be assumption. Furthermore, one may dishonestly assume something as true without the intention of being dishonest. There are many reasons that might underpin such a circumstance including fear and coercion.

For example, a Christian may assume Jesus Christ is his lord and savior, yet be riddled with doubt as to the truth of that proposition. The assumption may be held out of the pure fear of eternal damnation, but that does not necessarily dissipate the lingering doubt, thereby placing the person in question squarely behind the 8-ball.


My point again was not the reason why one made a certain assumption which lead one to form a belief only that once one has a belief that belief is the truth to them.

Case in point the example you are talking about the person no matter why still believes in Jesus Christ as his lord and savior.



It is the morbid fear of eternal damnation that forces its assumption. That fear, in turn, transitively drives the fear of doubt. This, then, reinforces acceptance of the assumption of Christ's position in the believer's life to the exclusion of all question while failing to remove the doubt that would drive such questioning. Mr. Rock, meet Mr. Hardplace.

I'm sorry but this one was a very complicated paragraph for a non native english speaker so I hope I got it right :). So your saying that because of his fears that lead him to this belief in the first place he is now unable or unwilling to doubt his belief out of fear it might not be true?

If so I don't see your point. The reality is he now for whatever reason has a belief and it doesn't matter why he doesn't doubt it to him it's the truth. In this case if he ever has the guts to doubt it he would then make a new assumption and form a new belief. Tony Robbins explains this very well:

YouTube - The Power Of Belief - Anthony Robbins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BED5oOvYBk4)

Fact is this:

The topic of that thread reads: The more people doubt their beliefs the more they try to convince others

Where it should read:
- the more people doubt their beliefs the more likely are they to abolish their old belief and assume a new one.
or:
-the more people believe in their beliefs the more they try to convince others.

Because it is impossible to at the same time doubt something to be the truth and defend it as the truth.

You either believe in it or you don't and that's per definition.

[nate895]

Or any other group. They all have their hypocrites and ninnies.

That's why I pointed out that we should only focus on the best, or who we are debating with at that moment in time. Also, it would be alright as part of an effort of evangelism to go to a bad representative of another philosophy in an attempt to see some of his followers (or he himself) converted. However, such activity should not be considered an actual legitimate defense of a philosophy.


I can agree with this.

:D


He may have been a deep thinker, but his thoughts were riddled with vile sickness. "Confessions" demonstrates clearly just how rotten many of his assumptions were. Of course, those have to be taken in the context of the time in which he lived, but that was cold comfort to those uncounted masses murdered by that church.

I would say Aquinas was the superior thinker in all ways, but it's been a long time since I was familiar with his thoughts.

Could you point out why you think this? We are all sick, nay, dead souls before brought to life by Christ. Augustine was the product of his age in many ways, but he was still a great philosopher and laid the foundations for generations of followers. It has been said that Western thought after Augustine is simply a "footnote to Augustine." That isn't to say I agree with him on everything, but I do not think that much of his thinking can be considered "rotten." Maybe underripe, but not "rotten."


I find Augustine's motives questionable at best. The dogma of that church as it devolved at Nicea and since is profoundly evil in its very fabric. Those men took a sound thing and turned it into something vile and destructive. The Reformation made at least the good faith effort to correct this.

The Reformers agreed with Nicaea. Why do you think Nicaea was "evil"?

[Sola_Fide]

Nicea was foundational for western civilization. If you go a step further, Chalcedon was extremely influential to the politcal theories of western government. Chalcedon denied all forms of syncretism. It denied that there was any admixture of the human and divine natures of Christ. This laid the foundation for the firm seperation of heaven and earth. No earthly institution could claim divinity or claim a special link to heaven.

In the ancient world, rulers were often seen as dieties or semi-dieties, able to bridge the chasm to the divine. This of course is the *ground basis* of tyranny and statism. Chalcedon fought against that and laid the foundation for the concept of libertarianism.

[nate895]

Nicea was foundational for western civilization. If you go a step further, Chalcedon was extremely influential to the politcal theories of western government. Chalcedon denied all forms of syncretism. It denied that there was any admixture of the human and divine natures of Christ. This laid the foundation for the firm seperation of heaven and earth. No earthly institution could claim divinity or claim a special link to heaven.

In the ancient world, rulers were often seen as dieties or semi-dieties, able to bridge the chasm to the divine. This of course is the *ground basis* of tyranny and statism. Chalcedon fought against that and laid the foundation for the concept of libertarianism.

On the contrary, Chalcedon recognized the foundation for the idea that heaven and earth can coexist peacefully. In no other religion are heaven and earth in so much harmony as in Christianity. God is Lord of heaven and earth. Furthermore, the earth is not intrinsically evil, but our own souls are evil without being brought to life by the Holy Spirit. That is why Christ could come into the world and take upon himself a human flesh nature without losing His Godhood. In that event, it became possible for heaven and earth to coexist peacefully. That is why in the future, Christ will return to create the new heavens and the new earth, which will be free from the taint of sin the old world so deeply suffers from.

[YumYum]

That is one of the most inaccurate views of the history of Christian political theory I've read in a long time.


You said this on another thread. I don't see where that differes from what I stated.

: "A few things:

1. The level of taxation in a society is an important issue in Scripture. In 1st Samuel 8, God warns Israel against leaving Him for an oppressive government and He says that an oppressive government will force you to pay a tithe...that is 10 percent of private wealth! Think about that!

The theological reasons behind a government being oppressive that takes more than 10 percent of private wealth is this: God requires a tithe from the people. And government should never want to symbolically be God by requiring a tithe. We need to go back to the Biblical principles for MORE freedom


2. Whatever taxes below 10 percent the government will collect, there can NEVER be a tax on property. Property taxes are direct assault on the Creator Himself. Property taxes assume that the government owns the earth. Property taxes assume that the government is God."

[Sola_Fide]

Okay, then we agree YumYum:)

By the way, I would add a 3. to that:

3. The Scripture condemns dishonest weights and measures and it condemns debasement and theft in many places. Money is property too, and it cannot be stolen or debased. In a society in which a Biblical ethic prevailed, there would be SOUND MONEY.

[YumYum]

Okay, then we agree YumYum:)

By the way, I would add a 3. to that:

3. The Scripture condemns dishonest weights and measures and it condemns debasement and theft in many places. Money is property too, and it cannot be stolen or debased. In a society in which a Biblical ethic prevailed, there would be SOUND MONEY.

Do you think that interest would be charged on loans?

[farrar]

In response to some of the atheist comments I will express my opinion.

As an atheist, I find myself very annoyed with my fellow "atheists" who:
1. Make silly arguments, attacking biblical story as opposed to metaphysical argumentation. It makes more for an adolescent jackass than an intellectual.
2. The people who say they are atheists but insist when they die they are going to heaven, without any metaphysical theory or argumentation to explain why there can be a heaven but no god. I hate this type especially if they are also type number one, because they have no idea that there "blind faith" in heaven is just as blind as other's faith in god and the bible.

Atheist is a lot like anarchy in this age. 3% of them are actually what they call themselves. The rest are self-righteous adolescent jackasses following a fad started by their favorite punk rock band. Most them grow up, but only to be replaced by another equally uninformed "atheist" or "anarchist"

But on to my theory.

Being as we have to exist somehow, I believe that before the universe was there was nothing. Nothing, not in the sense of the nothing we know (like the nothing you might find in a box (which still technically is full, likely of air, or fields of energy)), but nothing in the sense of incomprehensible void. The kind of nothing where there is no matter, no energy, and no fields.

Now it is my assertion that science and math, the laws of our universe if you will, are a part of the universe. The laws are bound to it, and exist with it. Therefore, before the universe there was no science or math, the very laws that tell us that something can come from nothing.

If you haven't discovered where I am going with this, I will lay it out here:
Because there was no law to deny spontaneous creation before the universe and its laws came to be, the universe and its laws simply became.

Whats rather interesting about this, I think, is equal requisite of faith and defiance of science and math. Just as religion relies on some incomprehensilbe and mystical force of creation, I too as an atheist, rely on that force. I make assertions that really can not be proven, only believed in or not.

What separates me from most religion is this:
1. I do not personify this creative force. It does not have a personality or perception.
2.It does not care for or watch us.
3.My force is a lack of existence, religious force is existence.
4. Many religions assert that this creative force which exists, can defy math and science if need be. I assert that this creative force which does not exist, cannot defy the laws it created once they have been created.
5. I don't believe in an afterlife

What is interesting about this, I think, is that my above points maintain some sense of mysticism, "the creative force which does not exist"... etc.

It seems to me that those who don't believe in god have two options:
1. never to ask questions like "well then how did we come to exist?" and these are the people that religious others find ignorant
2. To accept some equally mystical force, but on terms that the thinker can accept. This must be done, because there really isn't a scientific way to approach it. Scientific theory of the universe pretty much ends 14 billion years ago... when it started. It can't seem to explain anything before that point. (Which is in part why I believe it is apart of the universe, not separate from it)

I may be back to edit this, I was in a rush. Got to go to work.

EDIT:
added point 5
changed 14 trillion to 14 billion

[Sola_Fide]

Do you think that interest would be charged on loans?

Yes.

http://reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/bet/bet98.04.htm


The more general language of this case law – "brothers in the faith" – has misled commentators for two millennia. This law must be interpreted in terms of the more narrowly focused reference point of the other laws governing interest: poor brothers in the faith, as well as poor resident aliens, who have fallen on hard times through no moral fault of their own. This case law applied to charitable loans made to brothers in the faith and resident aliens who lived voluntarily under God’s civil laws. It did not prohibit interest-bearing commercial loans. It also did not apply to charitable loans to foreigners [ nokree].

The prohibition against interest-bearing loans applied only to morally compulsory loans made to impoverished neighbors. By failing to understand the context of the Mosaic laws against interest-taking, the medieval church placed prohibitions on all interest-bearing loans. This drastically restricted the market for loans. It restricted the legal ability of people who were aversive to entrepreneurial uncertainty from making loans at interest. It thereby restricted the ability of entrepreneurs to obtain capital for their ventures. The result was lower economic growth for the entire society. The New Testament principle broadens the restriction to all borrowers who are in trouble through no fault of their own. We must loan to those who may not be able to repay. "And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful"(Luke 6:34–36). The context is the merciful charitable loan, not the legitimate business loan. This is another example that explodes the myth of the Old Covenant as more rigorous than the New. In this case, the New Testament is far more rigorous than the Old. Because of the broadening of this law to include covenantal enemies of God, the New Covenant lender must see to it that the borrower is truly in need.

At zero interest, there is greater demand for loans than supply of them. At zero repayment, the demand is nearly infinite. So, the lender must exercise good ethical judgment in allocating charitable loans. The goal is to assist desperate people in their hour of need, not gain the money back. Even if a borrower may not be able to repay, he is still entitled to consideration. But the lender must not lend money to subsidize evil. He must lend to those in desperate need. Otherwise, he will be out of loanable funds by the end of the day.

[YumYum]

I attended the atheist convention called "Skepticon" and learned that there are two definitions of atheist. One, is a person who knows for a fact that there is no G-d and will "prove" it. These are generally your scientist, and, two, a person who doesn't believe there is a G-d because there isn't enough evidence to convince them, but admit that they cannot prove there isn't a G-d.

People who don't believe in Heaven or ghosts are "skeptics", not necessarily an atheist. All an atheist is, is someone who doesn't believe in G-d. That's all. On the other-hand, a skeptic doubts the existence of UFO, ghosts, spirit realm, etc. You can be a skeptic and not be an atheist, but rather an agnostic, or, be an atheist, but not a skeptic. There are atheists who believe in UFO's and spooks.

[YumYum]

Yes.

http://reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/bet/bet98.04.htm

This is very logical and makes sense. What do you think Jesus' motivation was for throwing out the money changers? What exactly were they doing wrong in your opinion?

[Sola_Fide]

This is very logical and makes sense. What do you think Jesus' motivation was for throwing out the money changers? What exactly were they doing wrong in your opinion?



Currency debasement. The same thing our FED is doing right now.

The temple money-changers would take the journeyers currency and change it into "temple currency", which the journeyers could use to buy animals and other things for sacrifices.

The money-changers would frequently cheat the journeyers by not changing the currency at an honest rate. What did Jesus say? He said, "It is written, my house shall be called a house of prayer, but you make it a den of theives!" And he overturned the tables and drove them out of the temple in a rage.

How the vast majority of "Christians" in America can be okay with our central banking cartel is mind- blowing to me. The mainline churches are FERTILE GROUNDS for the message of sound money. The Bible teaches honest money. God forbids dishonest scales. Jesus was enraged at the debasement of the money-changers. In no way can a Christian who actually reads his Bible be okay with the FED. The Liberty movement has a genuine opportunity to make inroads here.

[eOs]

What do you mean by "religious" people? Atheistic Maoist China did not allow anyone not in government to have liberties. Life, Liberty, and Property were routinely crushed. The same with the atheistic Stalinist Russia.

In fact, I could argue right here that atheistic societies in the 20th century have denied more liberty, and butchered more innocent people than the entire history of Christianity. It's not even close. We are talking millions and millions of people murdered by the god of atheism, the State.

Atheists have a DEPLORABLE history of defending liberties...in fact, there is no ultimate or consistent reason to defend liberty at all in the worldview of atheism.


TJ

Atheist is not a religion. If atheism is a religion so is not believing in self-transforming elf machines from hyperspace. If atheism is a religion so is not believing in [insert absurd belief here]. You are logically incorrect in saying that we are a religion when we don't prescribe to your belief system. You can't just lump people together and call them a religion because they don't believe in your fairy tale. Atheist is the default position of the universal human. Only when they hear stories from their parents and read religious texts do these ideas of god get put in their heads. Say it with me now, atheism is the default position of any and all humans.

[TER]

Say it with me now, atheism is the default position of any and all humans.

That is an incorrect statement proven by the simple historical fact that most people (the vast majority) who have ever lived have believed in a higher power or God.

But of course, the average atheist will claim they know more about such truths than all those people because of their powerful three pound brain.

[eOs]

That is an incorrect statement proven by the simple historical fact that most people (the vast majority) who have ever lived have believed in a higher power or God.

But of course, the average atheist will claim they know more about such truths than all those people because of their powerful three pound brain.

That is not proof that god is the default position. That is proof that god was a popular belief system. Anyway, all of the gods they believed in of the past, where are they now? Also, thanks for the insult. Don't worry though, this atheist will look the other way. Hell, I'll even say a prayer to my atheistic god since it's a religion, maybe one day you can be saved from your sins.

[nate895]

First of all, interesting points.


In response to some of the atheist comments I will express my opinion.

As an atheist, I find myself very annoyed with my fellow "atheists" who:
1. Make silly arguments, attacking biblical story as opposed to metaphysical argumentation. It makes more for an adolescent jackass than an intellectual.

2. The people who say they are atheists but insist when they die they are going to heaven, without any metaphysical theory or argumentation to explain why there can be a heaven but no god. I hate this type especially if they are also type number one, because they have no idea that there "blind faith" in heaven is just as blind as other's faith in god and the bible.

That's interesting. I never met an actual atheist in the western sense of the term that believed he was going to some sort of heaven. Some Buddhists are atheists, but they are spiritual atheists. While there is no being being that these particular Buddhists call "god," they still believe in a spiritual realm. I really have not investigated their arguments for it, but it doesn't make much sense to me at first glance.


Being as we have to exist somehow, I believe that before the universe was there was nothing. Nothing, not in the sense of the nothing we know (like the nothing you might find in a box (which still technically is full, likely of air, or fields of energy)), but nothing in the sense of incomprehensible void. The kind of nothing where there is no matter, no energy, and no fields.


Now it is my assertion that science and math, the laws of our universe if you will, are a part of the universe. The laws are bound to it, and exist with it. Therefore, before the universe there was no science or math, the very laws that tell us that something can come from nothing.

If you haven't discovered where I am going with this, I will lay it out here:
Because there was no law to deny spontaneous creation before the universe and its laws came to be, the universe and its laws simply became.

I am going to presume you meant to say "something can't come from nothing" because of what you end up saying later on. My point, however, is that "something can't come from nothing" isn't a scientific law. It originated with Parmenides', the ancient philosopher, saying ex nihilo nihil fit, Latin for "out of nothing, nothing comes." This isn't because it violates scientific laws (i.e., what our senses observe the universe behaving like), but because it violates logic itself. Due to the law of non-contradiction (cannot have a and not-a), we are forced to conclude that that nothing can come from nothing. This is because there are only so many theoretical causes for anything to exist:

(1) Self-creation
(2) Self-existence
(3) Created by something outside itself

Now, self-creation is impossible. For something to create itself, it must exist before it exists, this violating the law of non-contradiction. The law of non-contradiction isn't a law of science, but a law rationality. If it can be violated, we live in an irrational world where everything, and nothing is true. There is no possible point in the past that it could have been violated without destroying reason.

Philosophically astute atheists in the past have gotten around this problem by simply saying the universe is self-existing, hence the steady state theory, but that possibility has its own problems due to the passage of time and the problem of infinitude.


Whats rather interesting about this, I think, is equal requisite of faith and defiance of science and math. Just as religion relies on some incomprehensilbe and mystical force of creation, I too as an atheist, rely on that force. I make assertions that really can not be proven, only believed in or not.

It depends on what you consider "proof." Kant developed a form of argumentation called "transcendental" arguments. This where we justify our axioms (i.e., propositions accepted before we can even start to reason) by showing how that if we didn't accept them, rationality itself is destroyed.


What separates me from most religion is this:
1. I do not personify this creative force. It does not have a personality or perception.
2.It does not care for or watch us.
3.My force is a lack of existence, religious force is existence.
4. Many religions assert that this creative force which exists, can defy math and science if need be. I assert that this creative force which does not exist, cannot defy the laws it created once they have been created.
5. I don't believe in an afterlife

It depends on what you consider "religion," and even "most religion." The personification of the ultimate force(s) in the universe is a trait of the Abrahamic religions and Zoroastrianism. The majority of the people in the world at least claim to follow an Abrahamic religion. However, most religions do not personify the ultimate force, and the personal "gods" are themselves subject to a higher power, kind of like the Greek concept of "fate."


Atheist is not a religion.

Neither is theism. There are, however, theistic religions. Atheism is not a religion either, but there are atheistic religions, such as materialism, naturalism, some forms of Buddhism, etc. Just like there are theistic religions, such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, etc.

[Sola_Fide]

Say it with me now, atheism is the default position of any and all humans.

I'm not picking on you eos, but this is an example of the piss-poor reasoning of popular atheism today.

Are you aware that saying "atheism is true by default" is a circular argument? What if I told you "Christianity is true because it is true by default"? You would want me to prove this assumption by logic and reason, right? You would probably wonder why I am taking for granted that something is true at the outset before explaining why my assumption is cogent, right?

No, you must prove that atheism is by default true, not simply assume it without arguments. LoL!

[nate895]

That is not proof that god is the default position.

Yes, it kind of is. In the absence of argumentation otherwise, most people believe in some sort of "god." For literally all of recorded history, people have believed in higher forces and worship them in some way. Furthermore, even today, without any reason not to, people go to church. It's just default.

You could claim that is because every generation of human beings ever was ingrained with religious belief by their parents, but all that is doing is coming up with a rescuing device for your belief. There is no evidence that atheism is the default position. On the contrary, even the pagan skeptic philosopher Cicero said that "Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all, the idea of God."

[eOs]

Yes, it kind of is. In the absence of argumentation otherwise, most people believe in some sort of "god." For literally all of recorded history, people have believed in higher forces and worship them in some way. Furthermore, even today, without any reason not to, people go to church. It's just default.

You could claim that is because every generation of human beings ever was ingrained with religious belief by their parents, but all that is doing is coming up with a rescuing device for your belief. There is no evidence that atheism is the default position. On the contrary, even the pagan skeptic philosopher Cicero said that "Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all, the idea of God."

Point taken, but I still disagree. The default position is atheism, only when they are older, collude with their society, and try to find meaning in their life do they come to conclusions of gods. This is a natural thing. People want explanations for why things occur. And when there isn't one, they will invent one.

[nate895]

Point taken, but I still disagree. The default position is atheism, only when they are older, collude with their society, and try to find meaning in their life do they come to conclusions of gods. This is a natural thing. People want explanations for why things occur. And when there isn't one, they will invent one.

What do you consider older? Three?

[Sola_Fide]

Originally Posted by AquaBuddha2010
Nicea was foundational for western civilization. If you go a step further, Chalcedon was extremely influential to the politcal theories of western government. Chalcedon denied all forms of syncretism. It denied that there was any admixture of the human and divine natures of Christ. This laid the foundation for the firm seperation of heaven and earth. No earthly institution could claim divinity or claim a special link to heaven.

In the ancient world, rulers were often seen as dieties or semi-dieties, able to bridge the chasm to the divine. This of course is the *ground basis* of tyranny and statism. Chalcedon fought against that and laid the foundation for the concept of libertarianism.


Originally Posted by nate895
On the contrary, Chalcedon recognized the foundation for the idea that heaven and earth can coexist peacefully. In no other religion are heaven and earth in so much harmony as in Christianity. God is Lord of heaven and earth. Furthermore, the earth is not intrinsically evil, but our own souls are evil without being brought to life by the Holy Spirit. That is why Christ could come into the world and take upon himself a human flesh nature without losing His Godhood. In that event, it became possible for heaven and earth to coexist peacefully. That is why in the future, Christ will return to create the new heavens and the new earth, which will be free from the taint of sin the old world so deeply suffers from.


Exactly.

[TER]

Also, thanks for the insult.


lol. Where did I insult you in my post? By mentioning your three pound brain? Is it because your brain is greater than three pounds or perhaps because I have blasphemed your god?


Don't worry though, this atheist will look the other way. Hell, I'll even say a prayer to my atheistic god since it's a religion, maybe one day you can be saved from your sins.

Your mocking of prayer shows you know nothing about the power of prayer. Perhaps one day even you said a prayer, and because it wasn't answered the way your three pound brain thought it should be answered, your three pound brain has decided there is no use of prayer. Perhaps you are wrong?

[YumYum]

Your mocking of prayer shows you know nothing about the power of prayer. Perhaps one day even you said a prayer, and because it wasn't answered the way your three pound brain thought it should be answered, your three pound brain has decided their is no use of prayer. Perhaps you are wrong?

I have witnessed it and experienced it first hand. That is why Jesus said "Come to me!" Not the Apostle Paul or Pastor Hagee, Kopeland, Dollar or Benny Hinn, but to Jesus. Jesus said that studying the scriptures is futile.

[Sola_Fide]

. Jesus said that studying the scriptures is futile.

Now come on YumYum....

You and I both know you are taking that out of context.:(

[osan]

My point again was not the reason why one made a certain assumption which lead one to form a belief only that once one has a belief that belief is the truth to them.

But D00d, "belief" is not an all or nothing deal in every case. Quite the contrary, it most often falls along a spectrum of what we might call "strength". I have believed some things very strongly, while others were weakly held. A weak belief is more akin to a suspicion, whereas a strong belief carries something closely resembling certainty.



I'm sorry but this one was a very complicated paragraph for a non native english speaker so I hope I got it right :). So your saying that because of his fears that lead him to this belief in the first place he is now unable or unwilling to doubt his belief out of fear it might not be true?

Not quite what I meant. His fear of damnation binds him to the belief that JC is his L&S. Were that fear not present or sufficiently powerful, he might openly question the tenet, or even reject it outright if his senses of evidence and reason were not adequately satisfied by what he had been taught.


If so I don't see your point. The reality is he now for whatever reason has a belief and it doesn't matter why he doesn't doubt it to him it's the truth. In this case if he ever has the guts to doubt it he would then make a new assumption and form a new belief.

But he DOES doubt it, he just will not admit it, which was sort of what the thread was originally about - people going on an on like lunatics in the effort to convince themselves of something in which their belief is weak and where such weakness presents a threat of some non-trivial nature to that person.


The topic of that thread reads: The more people doubt their beliefs the more they try to convince others

Where it should read:
- the more people doubt their beliefs the more likely are they to abolish their old belief and assume a new one.
or:
-the more people believe in their beliefs the more they try to convince others.

Fact is, either of those can be found to be true in some people. Human motivations can be extremely difficult to ascertain - impossible even.


Because it is impossible to at the same time doubt something to be the truth and defend it as the truth.

This is clearly incorrect. Our history provides endless examples of people who defended ideas they had no belief in.


You either believe in it or you don't and that's per definition.

I must again respectfully diverge with you on this point. Belief lies on a spectrum in most cases, whereas the discrete all-or-nothing situations are comparatively uncommon.

[YumYum]

Now come on YumYum....

You and I both know you are taking that out of context.:(

I'm not. Jesus said at John 5:39: "You search the Scriptures, for you believe they give you eternal life. And the Scriptures point to me! Yet you won't come to me so that I can give you this life eternal!"

Everlasting life does not come from diligently studying scripture, but from going to Jesus in prayer. Arguing philosophies and interpretations of scripture with atheist will not help the chosen ones come to Jesus, but will do the opposite, and turn them away.

You want to help atheist and those honest hearted ones searching for truth? Share with them how, by putting Christ first in your life by going to Him, has helped you. This is what people want to know. I could care less what Augustine or Polycarp said; in fact I think most of the early Christian "fathers" were delusional. I am very moved on this forum by the testimonies of those who turn to Jesus for guidance. This is what people need; this is what will help them.

Debates do not serve as a witness for Christ. But, an example of how a follower of Jesus (through prayer and meditation) was rid of resentment and anger serves as a great witness. We are going through horrible times and we need to know how to get through what is coming. Share with us how Jesus has helped you in your life. That is what has helped me.

[hazek]

Of course you can defend something as the truth that isn't what you believe to be the truth, it's called lying. :rolleyes:

And yes beliefs, if you'd care to watch that video of Tony Robbins, are driven by our emotions. We try to stay away from what we think will cause us pain and move towards what we think will provide us pleasure.

Hence in your example the guy fears the pain of his as you put it damnation and thinks believing in JC as his L&S will give him pleasure of not having to face it. Puff a belief in JC is formed.


I see your point and I see what you are getting at but I don't think we can think about beliefs in degrees as in "yes I believe in JC but I'm not a 100% convinced" or "yes I believe in JC but if I get one piece of evidence to the contrary I'll change my mind immediately".

If the person is really honest with him self he'll admit that as soon as there's a shred of honest doubt in a belief and the pain-pleasure motivations are there, he will abandon that belief and form a new one.

Just watch that clip please.

[nate895]

I'm not. Jesus said at John 5:39: "You search the Scriptures, for you believe they give you eternal life. And the Scriptures point to me! Yet you won't come to me so that I can give you this life eternal!"

Everlasting life does not come from diligently studying scripture, but from going to Jesus in prayer. Arguing philosophies and interpretations of scripture with atheist will not help the chosen ones come to Jesus, but will do the opposite, and turn them away.



You are misapplying that verse. It says nothing about studying scripture is vain in any way whatsoever. In fact, it says quite the opposite. The problem Christ is pointing out is the near deification of the Holy Writ. The people He is rebuking think that it is the scriptures that bring salvation, when in truth it is the one they speak of who brings it.

[Sola_Fide]

YumYum,

Jesus was talking to the Jews who were so blind that they could study the Scriptures but not understand that what thr Scriptures had pointed to since the beginning of time was being fulfilled right in front of them!

Jesus IS the Word (John 1:1).

[YumYum]

YumYum,

Jesus was talking to the Jews who were so blind that they could study the Scriptures but not understand that what thr Scriptures had pointed to since the beginning of time was being fulfilled right in front of them!

Jesus IS the Word (John 1:1).

Right, but the majority of Protestant Christians believe the Bible is "The Word", and yet, it is as you point out, Jesus is "The Word." I find that Protestant Christians place way too much emphasis on the Bible, which is not perfect. The Bible can give good counsel, and the gospels are the vehicle that lead us to Christ. When we accept Jesus into our hearts, we act in accordance with our conscience in spirit and truth. After that, it our relationship between Him and us personally that decides our fate, not how much time we read scripture.

The Jews placed importance on the scriptures because they didn't worship G-d "in spirit and truth", but by observing, not just their laws, but their man-made traditions. For this reason, he pointed out they were wasting their time because the scriptures pointed to Him; they were to go to Him. Once they go to Him, then what? Go back and read the Bible?? If I have a treasure map that tells me how to find the treasure, and after years of searching I find the treasure, what do I do, diligently study the treasure map everyday? That makes no sense. Once we have Jesus in our hearts, "The Word of G-d" (Jesus), becomes "alive" and is "sharper than any two-edged sword". How can a book that is over two-thousand years old become "alive"? How can the Bible take in its place a personal relationship with Jesus? Yes, the gospels can lead us to Christ, but outside of some thoughtful counsel, how can it be relevant in our modern day? Christians have killed each other over the interpretation of the scriptures, and yet, how can you fight with Christ when He directs you in your heart?

No, way too much emphasis is attributed to the Bible. Jesus said it as plain as it can be said: "Come to me!" He told the woman at the well: "The hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshipers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for, indeed, the Father is looking for suchlike ones to worship Him."

[TER]

YumYum,

You have been rightly corrected by others on this forum regarding your misinterpretation of the Holy Scriptures, which happens to be a saying of Christ I have never heard there to be much debate regarding His meanings and intention. Put plainly, your interpretation is at odds with most Christians who every lived and commented on the Scriptures.

And yet, you consider the holy fathers and mothers of early Christianity to be delusional?

The Church is the spiritual hospital established by Christ for those who struggle with sin and confusion and doubt. As the Scriptures are a product of the Church, thus within the mind of the Church is the true interpretation of the Scriptures found.

Those who have followed their own interpretations can often lead to heresy, which the Church has battled from the beginning (see Paul in Acts). The Christological understandings and other various ontological definitions of God in the Holy Trinity which the modern Christian takes for granted was not written by the hands of Jesus, but defended and maintained by the lives and voices of the saints, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Those who put themselves above the saints bring themselves close to prelest, which is amongst the most dangerous spiritual states one can be in.

[nate895]

the Bible, which is not perfect. "

Well, there's your problem.

[YumYum]

YumYum,

You have been rightly corrected by others on this forum regarding your misinterpretation of the Holy Scriptures, which happens to be a saying of Christ I have never heard there to be much debate regarding His meanings and intention. Put plainly, your interpretation is at odds with most Christians who every lived and commented on the Scriptures.

Good. Jesus was at odds with the majority of the religious leaders in His day.


And yet, you consider the holy fathers and mothers of early Christianity to be delusional?

Absolutely! And the Apostle Paul is at the top of the list.


The Church is the spiritual hospital established by Christ for those who struggle with sin and confusion and doubt. As the Scriptures are a product of the Church, thus within the mind of the Church is the true interpretation of the Scriptures found.

The Church is a collective that controls its members and does all its thinking for them. The Church acts as a go-between for man and Christ, which is direct violation of Christ admonishment "No man can come to the Father except through me!" Jesus said "I am the way!" The Scriptures are a product of men dictating to other men what G-d expects of those who wish to worship Him. Peter, Paul, James and John all have their own opinions and couldn't agree with each other. They didn't "get it".


Those who have followed their own interpretations can often lead to heresy, which the Church has battled from the beginning (see Paul in Acts).

Yeah, they were roasted alive for having a personal relationship with Jesus!


The Christological understandings and other various ontological definitions of God in the Holy Trinity which the modern Christian takes for granted was not written by the hands of Jesus, but defended and maintained by the lives and voices of the saints, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The Christological understandings that mainstream Christians adhere to today are insane. They would have people think that Jesus had blond hair and blue eyes, was a skinny weakling, drove a BMW, and can't wait to wipe everybody out at Armageddon. Christianity has totally destroyed the true definition of what Jesus was all about.


Those who put themselves above the saints bring themselves close to prelest, which is amongst the most dangerous spiritual states one can be in.

That is what they said about Jesus, and they put Him to death. That kind of talk is way too collective for me; in fact it sounds like a cult.

Why can't we talk about the positive things Jesus has done in our lives? How you perceive Jesus in your relationship is fine, and I would like to know. But what Attila The Hun said, or any other glory seeker wrote about 1,000 years ago is meaningless. I don't follow men!!! The proof is Christ in your life: right here, and right now!

[YumYum]

Well, there's your problem.

No, its not a problem. Jesus said "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." You can only get that "truth" by going to Jesus in prayer, not from a book.

[TER]

YumYum, I don't have the time or frankly the desire to go step by step and show you how distorted your view of history is and how the things you preach are innovations and deductions of your own mind. You appear to lack the obedience of the good steward, the humility of the publican, and the disposition of the ethiopian eunuch who found the true meaning of the Scriptures not by the fanciful inductions of his imaginative mind,, but by hearing the words of St. Phillip and understanding the Scriptures through the lens of the Church.

With that, good luck with you. Your faith in Christ is real, for sure, but your mocking of His Body, the Church, shows you have created your own religion, at odds with the one He entrusted to His Apostles.

[YumYum]

I don't know what Church you have reference to, but I will leave you with this scripture because this is a Church I don't want to belong to:

Matthew 7:13-14

"Go in through the narrow gate, because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it."


Matthew 7: 21-23

"Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in heaven will. Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name? And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!"

[TER]

I don't know what Church you have reference to, but I will leave you with this scripture because this is a Church I don't want to belong to:

Matthew 7:13-14

"Go in through the narrow gate, because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it."


Matthew 7: 21-23

"Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in heaven will. Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name? And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!"

Again, your misinterpretation of the Scriptures to support the religion you started.

[nate895]

No, its not a problem. Jesus said "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." You can only get that "truth" by going to Jesus in prayer, not from a book.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God."

[MN Patriot]

So...we are all here at RPF because we secretly doubt liberty?

I am here because I would like to figure out how to achieve liberty, not just debate if liberty is good. That is a forgone conclusion for me.

You missed the main point of Pirsig's quote: fanaticism about something suggest doubts about it. For the most part, people here aren't fanatics about liberty, they are advocates for liberty, confident that liberty is preferable to slavery.

[Sola_Fide]

No, its not a problem. Jesus said "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." You can only get that "truth" by going to Jesus in prayer, not from a book.

No YumYum. Jesus said "Thy word is truth". God's word is truth.

Jesus is the Word of God in bodily form. The word spoken or the word written is the same truth.

If you deny the Scriptures, you deny God. There is no way to twist out of that.

[Vessol]

Who bloody cares. I don't care what skydaddy or lack of skydaddy you believe in. As long as you don't force me to believe what you believe at the point of a gun, I don't care.

Debating religion is pointless. There's no logic and reason involved, it's all based on faith. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not something that can be debated like politics or philosophy.

I can prove to you through logic and reason that government institutions are immoral and tyrannical. I can prove to you through logic and reasoning that individual liberty is better than collectivism. I can't prove to you that my religious beliefs are anymore right or true than yours. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!

I think the title of the thread is HILARIOUS considering all the religious people in here debating madly. They fail to see the irony.

Are you tired of Atheists ranting about how stupid religion is? So am I. I'm also fucking tired of Theists doing the exact same thing.

I believe in an impersonal creator who has no bearing on our individual lives and upon death we ascend and can explore the multiverse and gain knowledge for eternity. Prove that I'm wrong. I'm not trying to convince you all that I'm right, thus I must have more faith in my beliefs than anyone else in this thread.

[osan]

The Church is a collective that controls its members and does all its thinking for them. The Church acts as a go-between for man and Christ, which is direct violation of Christ admonishment "No man can come to the Father except through me!" Jesus said "I am the way!" The Scriptures are a product of men dictating to other men what G-d expects of those who wish to worship Him. Peter, Paul, James and John all have their own opinions and couldn't agree with each other. They didn't "get it".

Whoa there cowboy... The "church" is not a monobloc affair. As much as I thoroughly despise the catholic church and the morbidly childish and incalculably harmful dogma it peddles, I must also acknowledge that not all catholics are stooges. Consider Jesuits, as an example. Most of those with whom I have become acquainted reject much, sometimes most, and in some cases ALL of the imbecile pagan dogmatic bullshit the mundane church vomits unto their membership. They cannot, therefore, but lumped into your somewhat overreaching statement.

Bear also in mind that "church" may be taken in more than one way. There is the formalized institution as represented by the buildings and clergy - what is perhaps the more commonly taken meaning of the term. Then there is the more, erm... "religious" sense (lack of a better word at the moment) wherein the "church" exists within every individual and as such there are at least that many different churches in existence. Each man a church of God, so to speak. Given that understanding, your statement is way off the mark. My only point here is to take some caution in what you say and how. I agree, BTW, that what you accuse the "church" of is often precisely so, but let us not overstate the case.

We can also speak of the protestant churches, of which there are many. Some of those really suck ass, but some are pretty reasonable, as christian thought goes. Far more so than the catholic church. Many of the protestants I know are eminently intelligent, well reasoning, self-reliant people. To imply they are mindless imbeciles being lead by their noses at the hands of their churches in every aspect of their lives is simply unsupportable.

Everyone is an INDIVIDUAL. We of all people should be immediately and perpetually cognizant and mindful of that. Everyone is different. Religion, from any goven POV can be great or it can suck. What appears as shit to me is purest sustenance to another. Go figure, but that is the way things are and we should be rather circumspect on this point. It is difficult to do. I just took a swag at the catholic church. We're all guilty of this at one time or another. Nature of the human beast. :)

[YumYum]

No YumYum. Jesus said "Thy word is truth". God's word is truth.

Jesus is the Word of God in bodily form. The word spoken or the word written is the same truth.

If you deny the Scriptures, you deny God. There is no way to twist out of that.

Jesus said "My sheep will hear my voice and will follow me." He didn't say "they will read a book". Don't you understand what it means to worship in "spirit and truth"?

As far as denying the scriptures, which scriptures do you want me to follow? The authors of the New Testament all had different takes on how to worship; James was about works, Paul was about faith, John was about love, etc..

These were imperfect men. They argued, just like you want to argue with me. They argued about circumcision. Should a gentile who accepts Jesus get circumcised? They had a great debate over this in Jerusalem. How can men, who were inspired by G-d, word for word, to write their books, and yet could not with the aid of Holy Spirit, come to an agreement over something as silly as "circumcision"?

Jesus made it clear that only a very few people would gain salvation. The majority of people who would profess to be His followers would be destroyed. The apostasy began with the Apostle Paul, twisting what Jesus taught and he did it to control the new sect of the Nazarene. The New Testament is more about Paul than Jesus. That is why I study the gospels for inspiration, along with meditation and prayer. I have reason to believe that Paul worked for the Roman government to get his followers under his control so that they would be submissive. Paul founded Christianity; not Jesus or the other apostles. That is why I follow Jesus and not Paul. It looks like to me you follow Paul.

So, getting back to the OP's statement, is it true, the more you doubt, the more you try to convince others? :)

[BlackTerrel]

Jesus said "My sheep will hear my voice and will follow me." He didn't say "they will read a book". Don't you understand what it means to worship in "spirit and truth"?

As far as denying the scriptures, which scriptures do you want me to follow? The authors of the New Testament all had different takes on how to worship; James was about works, Paul was about faith, John was about love, etc..

These were imperfect men. They argued, just like you want to argue with me. They argued about circumcision. Should a gentile who accepts Jesus get circumcised? They had a great debate over this in Jerusalem. How can men, who were inspired by G-d, word for word, to write their books, and yet could not with the aid of Holy Spirit, come to an agreement over something as silly as "circumcision"?

Jesus made it clear that only a very few people would gain salvation. The majority of people who would profess to be His followers would be destroyed. The apostasy began with the Apostle Paul, twisting what Jesus taught and he did it to control the new sect of the Nazarene. The New Testament is more about Paul than Jesus. That is why I study the gospels for inspiration, along with meditation and prayer. I have reason to believe that Paul worked for the Roman government to get his followers under his control so that they would be submissive. Paul founded Christianity; not Jesus or the other apostles. That is why I follow Jesus and not Paul. It looks like to me you follow Paul.

So, getting back to the OP's statement, is it true, the more you doubt, the more you try to convince others? :)

You're being an ass on purpose. You aren't serious.

[YumYum]

You're being an ass on purpose. You aren't serious.

Why am I not serious? You claim to be a Christian and you will defend Christianity. I don't doubt that you are being serious. Have you ever read the Bible?