Why you believe what you believe II

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

and now rÃ*an's gonna sum me up in a nutshell ...

What's that? I think you're a nut?

Nah!!

OK, here's my "nutty" summation
(sorry it took so long, had some things come up in RL - the nerve!)
(not that you've been waiting with bated breath or anything!)

You said if you had to pick some type of label, "agnostic" would be the closest. However, it looks like you're living your day-to-day life basically as an atheist; would you agree? (IOW, you're not reading the Bible, praying, going to church, etc.) So I think practically speaking, you're living an atheistic life (altho open to the possibility of God existing).

I see you're online, so I'll wait for a bit to see if you agree with this.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What's that? I think you're a nut?

Nah!!

OK, here's my "nutty" summation
(sorry it took so long, had some things come up in RL - the nerve!)
(not that you've been waiting with bated breath or anything!)

You said if you had to pick some type of label, "agnostic" would be the closest. However, it looks like you're living your day-to-day life basically as an atheist; would you agree? (IOW, you're not reading the Bible, praying, going to church, etc.) So I think practically speaking, you're living an atheistic life (altho open to the possibility of God existing).

I see you're online, so I'll wait for a bit to see if you agree with this.

yes and no... i don't give an awful lot of thought to god or a creator on a daily basis... but then again, if there is a god he might very well be more of an observer... maybe all these books, prayers, institutions, etc. are just human creations and there is a god, but he's never communicated with us at all

the way i see it, a believer is sure there is a god... an atheist is sure there is not a god... the agnostic says, maybe yes, maybe no, maybe it's one of we've already defined or maybe its something completely different... maybe there's even more than one

or maybe god isn't all that concerned about humans on earth at all and he sees other things in the universe as much more impressive creations

but basically, yes... it doesn't effect me one way or another much day to day

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i don't give an awful lot of thought to god or a creator on a daily basis...

with the somewhat HUGE exception of my posts here almost every day

[inked]

nor to mention the active evangelisation of a - gnosis. For a person who claims not to be able of knowing, brownjenkins sure is positive in his assertion of a - gnosis.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

nor to mention the active evangelisation of a - gnosis. For a person who claims not to be able of knowing, brownjenkins sure is positive in his assertion of a - gnosis.

not 100% sure... just haven't heard a convincing counter argument yet

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

the way i see it, a believer is sure there is a god...

Well, I think you would call me a "believer", and I'm not sure there is a god. I think that the available evidence points that way more than the other way, tho, and it points that way strongly enough for me to choose to follow the tenets of Christianity. And the more I've lived, the more the evidence piles up, IMHO, for Christianity's being true, and other worldviews being false. But I could very well be wrong.

with the somewhat HUGE exception of my posts here almost every day

LOL!

[Rían]

wow - how to sum up ...

I have two problems with your stated beliefs, brownie. One is in the realm of the head, and one in the realm of the heart. I don't see how you've explained them away, either. I think they still exist, and I'll try to point them out here, and see if you agree. If you agree, you'll either have to ignore them or adjust your worldview.

1. Head : I continue to have problems with your idea of change being an absolute. Besides the obvious logical flaw contained in that statement (i.e., if change is an absolute, then the very statement "change is an absolute" must be subject to change), you've still come up with what you think are absolutes - e.g., that we need to act for the good of society.

I've mentioned various heinous acts, and am sad to see that you don't react with moral outrage (altho I suspect that you do inside, because you mentioned you'd prob. kill someone that hurt your kids), but at least you DO say that they're not right because they're not good for society. This, of course, implies that you think society is good for some reason. What is your reason? If we have come about thru completely natural processes without any intent on the part of a creator, what makes our existence good? If we just vanish when we die, why is it bad to kill someone for selfish gain? They won't know any different, and those that love them will end up vanishing, too, so their pain doesn't matter.

You tried to remove even the idea that killing (for selfish gain) was wrong, but were only able to do this by saying that could only be the case if somehow scientists were able to do away with death. However, as Lizra's siggy says, let's "live in the real world!" Let's assume that death is final. And why is death bad, btw? If a person dies, then apparently you think they're just gone. So how is death bad?

I'm going to quote some passages from R. C. Sproul:

Those philosophers who came after Kant, most notably Friedrich Nietzche (1844-1900), understood Kant's point: that nearly all of those who do not affirm the existence of God nonetheless try to live according to some ethical standard and so are actually living on borrowed capital (that of the theists). Kant's heirs - the nihilists - rightly saw this fault in the "man on the street," and they argued, as did Kant, that we cannot have both. We either have God and meaningful morality and meaningful lives, or we have no God, and all of life is meaningless, without any trace of hope.

What do you think about this? Do you agree that a person that doesn't believe in God but yet has a moral standard is living on "borrowed capital" (i.e., morality is NOT a LOGICAL deduction from a worldview that does NOT have God).

(note that I'm talking about a LOGICAL deduction. I don't deny that people are moral! But that is easily explained by the Christian worldview )

Here's a second quote:

It is not enough to live "as if" God exists, said Nietzsche. That's like Alice in Wonderland. The fact that the alternatives to theism are grim (no justice, no absolutes, etc.) is no reason to assume the existence of God. ... As Nietzsche fully understood, once God is seen to be dead, natural rightsl, morality, and the idea of progress become total shams. ... The greatest contribution of the nihilists is their pointing out the clear-cut consequences of what life would be without the existence of God. They reject half-hearted, compromise positions that hesitate to embrace either full-orbed theism or total nihilism.

Do you agree with Nietzsche's position?

[Rían]

Here's more :

Rarely do philosphers embrace pure nihilism, opting instead for an intermediate position. But as they seek to find positions somewhere between theism and nihilism, they always borrow capital from one or the other pole. ... The secular humanist somewhat naively wants us to deny the existence of God, presume our beginnings to be a result of chaotic chance (rendering both our origin and our destiny meaningless), and yet still calls us to fight for human rights and dignity. ... Secular humanism rests on pure sentimentality; it merely feels good to protect human rights and dignity. But such persons are intellectual cowards. They don't have the stomach to go where their atheism drives them: full-fledged nihilism. ... What does human dignity matter if we are all cosmic accidents?

What do you think of this?

[Nurvingiel]

Just because we're accidents does not mean we don't matter! (Assuming for the sake of this argument, that we are.)

Why would life not have value in and of itself, just because it happened by chance?

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by Rian

I've mentioned various heinous acts, and am sad to see that you don't react with moral outrage (altho I suspect that you do inside, because you mentioned you'd prob. kill someone that hurt your kids), but at least you DO say that they're not right because they're not good for society. This, of course, implies that you think society is good for some reason. What is your reason?

Hmmm...I think "society" seems good to us (humans) because it is composed of humans. We want to protect ourselves. Society is not just plain "good"...we interpret it that way, because we ARE society.

Originally Posted by Rian

If we have come about thru completely natural processes without any intent on the part of a creator, what makes our existence good? If we just vanish when we die, why is it bad to kill someone for selfish gain?

Our existance isn't anymore "good" than anything else. We think it's "good" because we value our own life. Self preservation is an instinct for survival...not "goodness". It is bad to kill someone for selfish gain because that gives the message that it is ok for someone to kill YOU for selfish gain....and you wouldn't want that happening!

Originally Posted by Rian

Let's assume that death is final. And why is death bad, btw? If a person dies, then apparently you think they're just gone. So how is death bad?

Death isn't "bad"....it's sad...to those left behind. (And if someone dies that you read about and admire....even though you never knew them, you might think it sad.) But death is good! Our bodies wear out...we need to die. When we die young and unexpected, those who care are sad....but death is not a BAD thing...it is just the inevitable ending of life.

As far as that quote...I think it's a bunch of hooey! I can have morals without instruction/permission from some "GOD". As I see it...in the real world...there obviously is NO god...and yet....we have morals! Take it for what it's worth.
added...Those quotes are so much hot air! I'm too busy to bother with my interpretation right now (and you probably aren't interested...sorry! )
People do what is in their own best interest and we have come about our so called "morals" in a very long drawn-out, complicated, round-about way, over eons of time. Making up god stories is helpful for this...but it's not neccessary....IMO.

[hectorberlioz]

I would like to join this discussion if I had more time to use computers...maybe I'll write it out back home and bring it with me next-time. It'll be a slow session with me though...probably will have to wait ages before I reply.

Nurv and Rian (and anyone else willing to), I'd like you both to read a book called "Socrates meets Jesus" by Peter Kreeft. In it, Socrates doesnt actually meet Christ, its more of a journey with logic through the various views of christianity (and others, though not to such an extent.)
For instance, Socrates will discuss with people like Berth Broadmind who believe that Jesus died only "spiritually" at the cross etc...you may end up thinking this book is one-sided, I cant prevent that. But I got alot out of it.

[hectorberlioz]

As far as that quote...I think it's a bunch of hooey! I can have morals without permission from some "GOD". AS I see it...in the real world...there obviously is no god...we have morals...take it for what it's worth.

But, why can you have morals without a God? Why are morals here, do you think? Why and how do you think they came about?

[Lizra]

Hello Hector! How are you...you sweet young thing! (smooch!) We really DO need that kissy face smiley!!

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Lizra

Hello Hector! How are you...you sweet young thing! (smooch!) We really DO need that kissy face smiley!!

*evil, wheedling tone*My Dear, my dear, my dear...
I know you guys missed me...but actually I've been around a bit recently: at the Classical Music thread and BTW, Lizra , I sent you a pm which you never replied to.

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

But, why can you have morals without a God? Why are morals here, do you think? Why and how do you think they came about?

I just explained that...self preservation.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Lizra

I just explained that...self preservation.

Fine then, lets go deeper (seemingly...)
Why is self preservation so natural, so...human, so instinctive?

[Lizra]

Why is the sky blue, why is water wet, why does life live? Well, ...why not?
I know some of you like all answers to end in god...so suit yourself.

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

*evil, wheedling tone*My Dear, my dear, my dear...
I know you guys missed me...but actually I've been around a bit recently: at the Classical Music thread and BTW, Lizra , I sent you a pm which you never replied to.

Oh! He expects me to reply to all his pms! Ooooh! You are very clever for one so young! Honestly Mr President...with your style...you really should have a large throng of girlfriends by now!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Lizra

Why is the sky blue, why is water wet, why does life live? Well, ...why not?
I know some of you like all answers to end in god...so suit yourself.

ya know, if we were ancient greeks, we would say
"Why is the sky bronze?"

[inked]

Lizra,
In addition to all the charms you admit of HB, I must note that he is a very well-read, intelligent individual. I can tell that because he has read and recommended SOCRATES MEETS JESUS by Peter Kreeft (like yours truly has done though not on this thread nor to you, since you regard some of my recommendations as "sappy" without perusing them, but then I forget that you also don't want an artist's opinion either and so I console myself that perhaps HB's recommendation will get looked at for all the qualities you attribute to him) !

Way to go, HB!