Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[Charismata]

Misery loves company

Misery loves company

Originally posted by ZroKewl to Charismata
Ignorance is bliss, that's why you're so happy. :up:

To which I respond in kind:

Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in "another" or "better" life.
from Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy
p.23, Walter Kaufmann transl.

You're miserable because you have no hope.

Philosophically, post-modernism seems to consist largely of two claims.

1) "Justice" is only power.

This was introduced by Thrasymachus and, after being resisted for two millennia, revived very effectively by Nietzsche.

2) "Truth" is nothing but perspective.

This, too, appeared in the ancients, especially with Protagoras, was held at bay, and then came roaring back to life, again, thanks to Nietzsche.

These two statements comprise the post-modern attack on traditional ethics and epistemology.

To take the post-modernistic view leaves us just as Nietzsche prophesied. We are left with a humanism that hates itself but cannot let go of itself.

You are left with yourself and there is no remedy for all of your failings. You think you are heading the way of the "ubermensch" but you know better. That is the ultimate irony. There is no age of aquarias for you in your future. Nihilism is your ultimate destination. If you haven't figured it out...you will.

Regarding the rest of your post. Well let's just say I haven't seen such a long winded reply to a yes/no question in quite some time.

Regarding the ad hominem. I have better things to do. If you can't play nice I won't play.

 

[heusdens]

On the issue of consciousness:

Another part of the debate how, considering already existent biological material (like DNA, RNA, enzymes, etc) consciousness could arise out of this biological stuff.

The last post of Bob Enyart challenges Zakarth on this issue.

This issue is another example of the struggle/relationship between being and thinking, matter and mind.
For the relationship between matter and mind, only two possibilities exist. Either matter and mind have always existed, or one of them is the primary thing, and the other the secondary.
Did mind (in the form of a Deity) "create" the material world, or was there in first instance a material world, which lead to the formations of living organisism, which became consciousness.
And the alternative would be that both matter and mind were always there.

Materialism reflects on this by claiming that matter is the primary stuff, and mind is secondary. We can for instance not seperate our mind from our material body and brain.
Idealism on the other hand claims that the world in first/primary instance exists in a mindly way, and that reality is based on a fundamental principle or absolute idea (such as the notion of a Deity).
"Mind" in the vision of idealists "created" matter.

However from all available data we have, we have not detected any form of mind outside of it's biological/material context, which makes a strong argument for the fact that consciousness has material / biological origin, and can not be taken apart from that context.

Providing the very mechanisms, and all of the billions and biliions of evolutionary steps through which biological life forms from simple one-celled organisms evolved into organisms with consciousness in billions of years, is a totally different story.

To explain consciousness, requires a lot more then the biological compounds as DNA, RNA and enzymes, since one needs to consider all factors working in the evolutionary context, which includes the environemental changes that took place.

To some extent, explenations can be satisfactory given, but the point of view taken in by Bob Enyart, which is to say if Zakarth can not succesfully explain consciousness on a material basis in a more or less complete way, then he - Bob Enyart - is entitled to reject the idea that all forms of consciousness are based on a material / biological context, is a rough point of view.

But that is the normal theist approach: unless you explain it all and completely in all detail with convincing evidence, I am not taking any of your statement/assumptions. It's the all-or-nothing approach.

 

[Charismata]

Originally posted by huesdens
The error in the reasoning is this. Causality tells us that everything has a cause.

Again I guess you have never heard of the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

Only things that begin to exist need a cause.

Cause and effect governs temporal issues, not eternal.

 

[Soulman]

Christian "Confusion"

An occasional observation made by non-Christians -- and usually offered as a kind of “proof” against the absolute nature of the Christian God -- is the diversity of opinion and doctrine held by allegedly equally spirit-filled, born-again believers. Which is to say, why is the Christian God “understood” (or misunderstood) by so many Christians in so many different (and often contradictory) ways? That is, if the one true God IS the one true God, why the confusion?

An explanation. Seven years ago I had a sixth grader physically developed way beyond her years. She dwarfed the “normal” kids in the class and was gangly, too tall, too “big” for her age, too loud, and too everything, and because of it she was an easy target. She was, in a way, a tragic figure. So I’m sitting in a restaurant the other night, and this very attractive young woman waves in my direction. I didn’t want to flatter myself by thinking she was waving to me (or risk making an *** of myself if I was mistaken), so I didn’t wave back, but as she and her friend picked up to leave, she came over and sat down. “Mr. Rodgers,” she said, “don’t you remember me? I’m Ashley.” Of course, the moment she said her name I recognized who she was. The transformation was -- inspirational. That gangly, goofy-looking, insecure, argumentative, over-developed sixth grader had finally grown into herself and was now a beautiful, confident, mature young woman.

Here’s the moral of the story. The sanctification and maturity of the Church is progressive and a process. If we view the Church as still somewhat young and inexperienced, we can appreciate that the Church is “screwed up” the same way teenagers are “screwed up.” But teenagers will not always be teenagers (thank goodness), and, over time (hopefully), they’ll “grow out of it.” It would be unfair to conclude that the relative immaturity and “growing pains” of the Church is permanent, the same way it would have been unfair (and short sighted) to mistake Ashely’s growing pains as a sixth grader as a permanent condition, or all Ashley would ever be. In other words, the Church is “growing” into the Bride of Christ. Teenagers think they know everything, and will argue about anything. If Christ came for his Bride today, all He’d find is an immature, argumentative, pimply-faced teenager. If we expand our view of the Church (our eschatologies have a lot to do with this) we’ll see that the Church has all the time she needs -- thousands of years, if necessary -- to develop and mature into a suitable, beautiful Bride. Just because we argue like teenagers today does not mean we will always BE teenagers.

This is not a perfect analogy, but might explain why we disagree and argue so much.

Soulman

 

[Charismata]

Soulman, I really enjoyed reading that post.

 

[RogerB]

This is not a perfect analogy, but might explain why we disagree and argue so much.

Very nearly perfect!

 

[cthoma11]

Originally posted by Zakath
I never indicated the use of force was necessary. Consider the following metaphor: humans, with the exception of those born blind, can all see light. As such, the existence of light can be considered as absolute statement for the vast majority of humans. As a function of light, humans can see rainbows. The pattern of a rainbow is unvaryingly the same: red-orange-yellow-green-blue-indigo-violet. I am merely proposing that it is within the capability of an extremely powerful (since Pastor Enyart does not believe in divine omnipotence) being to demonstrate his required moral code to the entire race in an equally clear, unequivocal fashion as he or she allegedly does with the rainbow.
The situation we have currently in the earth is a bit like the deity(ies) as teacher(s) giving a pop quiz to the human race without clearly telling them which questions they have to answer to pass the quiz. The outcome of this quiz of particular importance since religionists of various types claim that humans will be judged in some fashion for how well they adhere to these principles or laws.

Thus my premise does not involve forcing knowledge on people, merely making available to the entire race across the entire span of history on an equal access basis. Something that no religion with which I am familiar has managed to demonstrate thus far...

Hi,

Thanks for the response. Hat's off to you, your in the debate and keeping up with this thread.

The bible in Romans states that God has indead made himself clearly known to man (known apart from the bible.) However, without forcing the knowledge on you, you are free to reject it or explain it away. This is documented even in the exodus of the bible. The children of Israel had the miracles, the pillar of fire and the cloud yet they still rejected God and still did not believe. You have evidence in the form of the bible and explain the bible away as being false (At least I am presuming you think the bible is not true). Looking at your sight example, someone can willingly close their eyes to the light, but doesn't mean that the light is not there.

Thus regardless of the evidence presented, you will be free to subjectively say that it is not clear enough, and hence I think my original objection to your second premise is still valid.

Thanks again for responding to my thoughts.

 

[tenkeeper]

Soulman, it is true, 'the Church' is growing and maturing but, much that passess itself off as 'Christianity' does not even come close to being scripturally based or backed up. The scripture plainly says, 'that there should be 'no division' among you' and yet, division is everywhere, even in my own neighborhood, there seems to be a church on every corner, i have never seen so many half filled churches filled with idolatry, gambling, and just the pure love of gain. To an analytical, objective mind that has thoroughly read and studied the scriptures, the obvious conclusion would be, 'great hyprocracy'. To God, it has to be abomination,abomination, abomination! God's heart has to be broken for His sheep have gone astray. They have refused good, honest doctrine, and they say, 'prophecy unto us deciet, prophecy unto us smooth things, they say, let us fear God, but let us do our 'own' thing".
Judgment comes with a whirlwind. Nations rise and nations fall and all soon comes to it's conclusion. Every man shall reap what he sows so be not decieved, God is not mocked. He finds favor with those who love Him and keep His Commandments, and woe be to those that teach otherwise!

 

[Soulman]

Tenkeeper said,

Soulman, it is true, 'the Church' is growing and maturing but, much that passes itself off as 'Christianity' does not even come close to being scripturally based or backed up.

But, part of the “teenage argument” going on is trying to determine what is and is not “Scripturally based.” What we’re trying to understand is how two earnest believers (possibly representing the majority view of their respective churches) can come to two radically different conclusions when they’re both using the same Book!

To an analytical, objective mind that has thoroughly read and studied the scriptures, the obvious conclusion would be, 'great hypocrisy'.

I’m not so sure there’s such thing as an “objective mind,” but I know what you mean. Maybe it’s hypocrisy, but maybe it’s just growing pains. To defer back to the analogy with Ashley, I don’t think she was being “hypocritical,” I think she was being true to who she was at the time as a gangly sixth grader. As we mature, we will become less and less argumentative and more “comfortable” with who we are. There IS hypocrisy and sin in the Church, but this, I think, is a sign of our immaturity. In time, we will “grow into” ourselves, with the divisions we see in the Body of Christ today progressively “healing” like a bad case of acne. I think what “the long view” does is to make us more patient and less judgmental and more forgiving of one another’s theological-developmental “shortcomings.” I am not talking about obvious departures from the fundamentals of the faith, but of divisions over relatively minor issues that, in the overall scheme of things, are no more than honest differences of opinion between combatant “teens.”

As a side note -- something I’ve mentioned before -- there is another possible explanation for the “division” we see in the Body of Christ. Take the Arminian-Calvinist controversy. Both sides are dug in pretty good, and frankly, as far as the novice is concerned (and most of us are not professional theologians), both sides make "convincing" arguments. It’s difficult to conceive of a Arminian-Calvinist “meeting of the minds,” but I would suggest that, in a way that is not entirely clear to us now, both positions are telling us something important about God, and about the way God communicates with us.

Soulman

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by Soulman If we view the Church as still somewhat young and inexperienced, we can appreciate that the Church is “screwed up” the same way teenagers are “screwed up.” But teenagers will not always be teenagers (thank goodness), and, over time (hopefully), they’ll “grow out of it.”

Yeah, but don't you think two THOUSAND years is a long time to be a snotty adolescent? Could it be that the problem is built into the religious doctrine itself and so will likely never go away?

 

[Soulman]

PureX said,

Yeah, but don't you think two THOUSAND years is a long time to be a snotty adolescent? Could it be that the problem is built into the religious doctrine itself and so will likely never go away?

Spoken like a true parent! The Church wasn’t “born” an adolescent, virtually the entire New Testament was written to “baby” Christians who couldn’t seem to do anything right. So, at least we’re not pooping our pants anymore. The “story” of the Church isn’t over. This is asking for a sharp stick in the eye, but what will the Church look like in another two thousand years? What will we look like as “twenty-somethings”?

Is division “built into” religious doctrine? Maybe. Which means we need to give more latitude to those we disagree with. When honest, born-again, spirit-filled believers disagree, no one has the right to “put their foot down” and declare themselves the winner. At least we’re not burning “heretics” anymore, which is a step in the right direction.

Soulman

 

[Scrimshaw]

Questions for Atheists....

Questions for Atheists....

I have often wonder what the Atheist's end game is. From what I can see - they have none. They're belief system leads to total meaninglessness. If atheism is true, why do atheists bother debating? Why do they bother caring about what other people think or believe?

If atheism is true, it would be irrelevant whether or not people believe in God, or in any other myth for that matter. We would have no reason to care about other people. After all, if there is no absolute moral law, then any moral decisions we make are arbitrary. It would be arbitrary whether or not you cause pain and suffering to others. It would be arbitrary whether or not you contribute to the welfare of mankind, because mankind itself would be arbitrary. Why should we care about mankind? After all, what would mankind be except an arbitrary by-product of a cosmic accident? Indeed, mankind's existence would be as arbitary as any asteroid belt. Mankind would be nothing but a collection of molecules.

Does it really matter if someone murders another human?? Does the universe care whether or not one set of molecules (a human) cancels out another? Does "premature" death really matter when death itself is inevitable?

Save the earth? Why? In a matter of time, our sun is going to burn up and explode, causing the entire planet and solar system to die anyway. Move to another solar system? Why? The entire galaxy of Andromeda is heading our way and is on a collision course with our galaxy. When the two galaxies collide, nearly every solar system in both galaxies will be torn to shreds.

The point is....if atheism is true, we live in a universe that doesn't give a rat's a$$ about our survival or our existence. Trying to survive, or prolong one's arbitrary existence would prove to be futile in the end, one way or the other, sooner or later.

So in the light of these hypothetical truths, why in the blue blazes would we care whether or not our fellow specks of dust (fellow humans) believe in a God? Why should an atheist waste time caring about what theists say or think? Heck, if atheism is true, why waste your precious little arbitrary life "caring" about ANYTHING at all?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Re: Questions for Atheists....

Re: Questions for Atheists....

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
I have often wonder what the Atheist's end game is. From what I can see - they have none. They're belief system leads to total meaninglessness. If atheism is true, why do atheists bother debating? Why do they bother caring about what other people think or believe?

Because deep down inside they know that God is real, and they hate being reminded of it. I think on a psychological level, they believe if they can get everybody to turn their backs on God, that He'll somehow go away.

Of course, I expect virtually atheist on the board to deny this, but that's my theory, and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by PureX
Could it be that the problem is built into the religious doctrine itself and so will likely never go away?

Or perhaps the problem is built into the imperfect state of the human condition. The snottiness does not come from Christian doctrine. It comes from the human condition.

From a pragmatic perspective...the world would not be a better place without religion only different...because humanity doesn't use logic as a whole....and they would still seek power...the strong would still attempt to rule the weak...and people would still be barbaric. When one is discussing religion and the tragedies that have been comitted in it's name...all we are really talking about is one group using philosophy and politics to achieve power over others.....what would be different if the majority of the world was atheistic? Nothing. Even amongst atheist there is no consensus as to the correct philosphical approach to life and living. In fact, atheists really would have no reason for living at all since their very existence would be considered an accidental by-product of a hostile universe.

 

[quip]

Re: Questions for Atheists....

Re: Questions for Atheists....

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
If atheism is true, why do atheists bother debating? Why do they bother caring about what other people think or believe?

I ask this of the believer: Is one's faith in God so weak and insecure that the challenge of such a simple and 'meaningless' atheistic conviction should elicit so much trepidation and feverish hostility from the devout?

 

[Lion]

So in the light of these hypothetical truths, why in the blue blazes would we care whether or not our fellow specks of dust (fellow humans) believe in a God? Why should an atheist waste time caring about what theists say or think? Heck, if atheism is true, why waste your precious little arbitrary life "caring" about ANYTHING at all?

That is exactly the thought process Jeffrey Dahmer went down before he started drugging, lobotomizing, raping and murdering other specks of dust. See the atheists do have something to look forward to, once they recognize where their worldview really leads.

 

[Charismata]

Originally posted by quip
I ask this of the believer: Is one's faith in God so weak and insecure that the challenge of such a simple and 'meaningless' atheistic conviction should elicit so much trepidation and feverish hostility from the devout?

Talk about a loaded question.

I don't believe in little blue men that land from planet kolob.

I don't define myself by that notion nor do I spend my time on threads challenging kolob believers as an antagonist.

The opposite of belief isn't antagonism...it's apathy. :think:

 

[One Eyed Jack]

You know, if a question contains the word 'and' several times, it's probably loaded.

 

[quip]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike check...is this thing on?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike check...is this thing on?

Originally posted by ZroKewl
You are assuming that something can be equal to something else. Heck, even if you had said that "A=A" and left it at that, you would be assuming the law of identity is true. A thing is equal to itself. We say this is true *by definition*. What is a definition, but something that we have stated as being true. This is circular, and is therefore something you are just presupposing. ............... We all use presuppositions. You have to.....

Yes, this is true yet some things can be ostensibly defined and thus objectly demonstrated (like A=A) with a high probability to be (pragmatically) accurate.

Now a presupposition toward the existence of God does not quite qualify in this instance. (Not that this is your positon on the matter of God.)

 

[Scrimshaw]

Re: Re: Questions for Atheists....

Re: Re: Questions for Atheists....

Originally posted by quip
I ask this of the believer: Is one's faith in God so weak and insecure that the challenge of such a simple and 'meaningless' atheistic conviction should elicit so much trepidation and feverish hostility from the devout?

It has nothing to do with insecurity of faith. If we believe in a higher power that will morally judge all mankind, we will have an invested interest and reason for engaging atheists and caring about what other people believe in. The atheist has no such grounding or conviction, for everything they think or believe is as arbitrary as star dust.