quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: The only reason I'm so confident is because C.S Lewis was a whole hell of a lot smarter than anyone on this message board and probably smarter than nearly anyone who lived throughout the 20th century, and he used pretty much unassailable arguments showing morality can only exist as absolutes. This idea of "self-serving morality" is realy just moral relativism.
...But I've got confidence in my borrowed arguments because of the immence intellect of those who made them.
I agree that C.S. Lewis was smart. I also think Penn Jillette is smart. And, for the record, I think we have some people in this very community who are smarter than you're giving them credit for. So, if two or more smart people make opposing arguments, I think we need something a little more conclusive than some abstract "my philosopher can beat up your philosopher" discussion to decide which is right.
In other words, maybe you should familiarize yourself with some of the more common logical fallacies before trying to support your claim on such an argument. Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Resh isn't asserting that his philosopher could beat up Tom's philosopher. He's asserting that his philosopher could beat up Tom. Which is even less convincing, to be sure.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Blackblade,
If the universe has no begining, or need of beginning, then what's with all the "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..."?
Those bibles are wrong, or they just don't get it or something?
I'm perfectly fine with the concept of a universe without beginning. I just don't see any particular God there, then. Certainly not the big three choices most of us have been given (Judeo-Christian-Islam). What are you offering?
Without a clarifying noun such as, "In the begginning of time, or the universe, or everything." We have to leave the word "beginning" found in Genesis 1:1 as ambiguous.
If it meant, "In the beginning of this earth." well that makes perfect sense.
Certainly when somebody says, "This is the end!" they don't necessarily mean, "This is the end of everything in the universe!" Though sometimes that claim is made, it has yet to be true. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I dunno, dead people can be quite nasty fighters. Without information on Tom's stock of holy water, garlic, shotguns, and relics, I don't think you ought to be setting any odds.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
You're basically invoking Sywak's Second Rule of Theological Debate.
Thank you for playing. Better luck next time!
No I'm not, when there is no clarification as to what beginning is being spoken of, assuming you know the answer does not a credible arguement make.
Or whenever you use the word beginning from now on, ought I to assume you mean "the beginning of all that is." from now on?
I certainly hope you have told nobody of the day, you BEGAN to have facial hair. Big Bang took place the same instant no less.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
You're basically invoking Sywak's Second Rule of Theological Debate.
Thank you for playing. Better luck next time!
And you know this, because you speak Biblical Hebrew fluently?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'll be courteous, and call your response disingenuous. Earlier, you spoke of a universe without a beginning, and so much theological discussion revolves around God "Creating the heavens and the Earth." That's a clear contradiction in concepts, regardless of how you wish to redefine "beginning."
Rivka,
Since you obviously speak Biblical Hebrew fluently (otherwise, what would make you automatically assume I was wrong), please tell me how Genesis really begins...
That is, if you understand what I mean by "begins"...
For reference:
quote:RULE 2: Never actually define what it is you mean by "God" or "Heaven," etc. If you define it, then it can be refuted. After all, you've already established that He exists (see RULE 1). Also, if challenged, you can always say, "That's not what I meant," or "I never said that He could do that..."
quote:This might not be easy on the head, but throw away the assumption that there was a beginning to the universe and try to imagine that it has always existed, there is no beginning. If you can grasp that, you are closer to environment God works in. The rules were not created, they have always been thus.
Rivka, if your deep understanding of Biblical Hebrew allows you to read this concept into "Genesis", then I'll apologize. But let's not be contorting ourselves such that your ankle is rubbing against your ear, your elbow pressing against your anus, or any such thing. Agreed?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Rivka, if your deep understanding of Biblical Hebrew allows you to read this concept into "Genesis", then I'll apologize. But let's not be contorting ourselves such that your ankle is rubbing against your ear, your elbow pressing against your anus, or any such thing. Agreed?
Am I the only one that thinks that sounds kind of hot? Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The word is "b'reishis," and it doesn't really have a good translation into English. "In the beginning" is common, but not terribly accurate.
"b'" can mean in, for, on and several other prepositions. "Reishis" is a form of "rosh" -- head, beginning, of most importance, leader, etc.
So, can it be translated as it most commonly is? Yes. Is that a complete or accurate translation, when excluding all other possibilities?
Nope.
Do I believe that God created the universe? Yes, although I don't necessarily think the creation account is literal. Was there a time at which time began? Maybe. But since God is outside of time, I don't why it maters much.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What does it mean that God is outside of time. That's one of the many ideas that I've never really been able to make sense of. Is this a Biblical reference, or something that people have come up with as a way to work out some God stuff?
How does a being outside of time interact with a world inside of time?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka--are there any other commonly accepted translations? Or even any other reasonable translations. So far, you're just helping me make my case. But that's fine.
Obvioualy, everyone's welcome to their own theological belief. Thousand names of God and all. I just think that BlackBlade may have found the 1001st, though...
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: [QB] BlackBlade,
Your statement was:
[QUOTE]This might not be easy on the head, but throw away the assumption that there was a beginning to the universe and try to imagine that it has always existed, there is no beginning. If you can grasp that, you are closer to environment God works in. The rules were not created, they have always been thus.
I do not interpret, "Heavens and the earth" as meaning, The universe. I think it means heavens and earth. The universe for me entails ALL OF SPACE. Earth can be a small planet with heavens spanning trillions of light years across, or more. The stars and the planets in this expanse all have a beginning. That does not mean the universe had a beginning.
IMO thats not a vague definition of universe, earth, and heavens. And it's my definition, if it turns out thats not how things are, I can be wrong, but don't pretend I am going to keep redefining the words I use to avoid having my stance on the matter locked down.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: What does it mean that God is outside of time. That's one of the many ideas that I've never really been able to make sense of. Is this a Biblical reference, or something that people have come up with as a way to work out some God stuff?
How does a being outside of time interact with a world inside of time?
I imagine (read, have a usefull analogy) of dimensions. As a three dimensional person would deal with a "two dimensional" picture. Only more.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Rivka--are there any other commonly accepted translations?
Yes. Bishvil Yisrael, she'nikrah Reishis. On behalf of, Yisrael (i.e., the Jews), who are called "Reishis" (first born).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: All Jews are Israelites but not all Israelites are Jews?
I'm assuming Yisrael = People of Israel.
The two are synonyms. Once the Jewish monarchy of the tribe of Yehuda was established (with David), the Yisraelim (Israelites) also became known as Yehudim, Jews.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: All Jews are Israelites but not all Israelites are Jews?
I'm assuming Yisrael = People of Israel.
The two are synonyms. Once the Jewish monarchy of the tribe of Yehuda was established (with David), the Yisraelim (Israelites) also became known as Yehudim, Jews.
Just taking the Q/A thread and dominating all other threads with it.
What about when Solomon died and 10 tribes said, "We have no part with David" and left. Were they ever after classified as belonging to the tribe of Judah? You can answer this in this thread or the Q/A thread I suppose, I don't want to be rude.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know too much about Mormon theology to be willing to start answering questions about the Ten Tribes.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
To your knowledge, are there many accepted translations of Genesis that presume "the heavens and the earth" include only a local group of planets and stars, placed in a larger, pre-existing universe?
Or is BlackBlade probably interpreting things from a Mormon point of view--where each person may eventually become a God and create his/her own planet and local group of stars within a larger, pre-existing group, and rule over them?
BlackBlade...care to comment?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But these atheists are not likely to engage anyone in a debate defending their belief (dis-belief) and so the only atheists that I engage in a debate with end up revealing their underlying condescension torwards people of faith.
Edit: Obviously, my post is now a moot point, since others said this already. Ignore, ignore. some day, I'll learn to read an ENTIRE thread before replying to a single post near its middle, but I haven't learned yet.
I won't delete it, though, because I hate when people delete posts.
(end of edit)
Really? Have you considered, then, that maybe your attitude brings out the condescension in them? I mean, honestly, the only people of faith with whom I ever *debate* get pretty condescending to me. Perhaps it's the debate itself that is the problem. I have never had any issues *calmly discussing* or *sharing ideas* with people of faith, and I've never heard them complain about me in such situations, either.
If you want to talk about religion/atheism, maybe you should try changing your tack. You might find atheists to be pretty nice people if you don't get all snotty on them.
Oh yeah, the other exceptions are atheists who are condescending to faith but not to me because they know me and know that I am not one to be condescended to.
posted
Boothby171: I'm not dabbling into the whole, man becoming a God shtick. But yes I believe that.
There's nothing local about it, God has worlds without number, which might mean infinite, or it might be beyond numbering, take your pick, I am not sure.
My purpose was merely demonstrating that yes some of believe there were pre existing rules that God followed to become God. Its not a widespread idea, call it fringe if you want.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I know too much about Mormon theology to be willing to start answering questions about the Ten Tribes.
Take your answer to the Q/A thread, and I promise not to challenge anything you say on the matter.
It's not a question of challenging or not. I'm just not going to have that discussion. *shrug* Feel free to see if someone else will, over there.
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: To your knowledge, are there many accepted translations of Genesis that presume "the heavens and the earth" include only a local group of planets and stars, placed in a larger, pre-existing universe?
Or is BlackBlade probably interpreting things from a Mormon point of view--where each person may eventually become a God and create his/her own planet and local group of stars within a larger, pre-existing group, and rule over them?
To answer your first question, there probably are. In fact, I think there's at least one book with such a premise (although I think it's nonsense -- the whole book, not the specific premise). To answer your second question, I'd be surprised if that were not the case.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: And you guys wouldn't be doing it unless you thought it was fun too, right? I just hope your idea of fun isn't just to cut down all the theist's arguments.
Dude, seriously, where did you get all the atheist-hate from? Did an atheist kill your uncle? Did atheists push you down and steal your milk money when you were eleven?
I'm so, so glad that all the theists here aren't leaping to conclusions about the atheists and painting them all with one big, fat, totally useless brush. So, to all you folks of faith with whom I've had so many lovely conversations, whether about religion or no, THANK YOU. I am reminded more and more in this thread why I like you guys and don't particularly care for others.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Just checking: The Mormon faith, then, does not claim to know how the universe came about. It's one of those things (well...the thing) that's just always been there.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I'm glad you're ignoring them. They should be ignored.
I think they are different because I believe the argument can be reasonable made that atheism is inherently elitist whereas the most judeo-christian traditions in fact have a humbling effect on the practitioner. Love your enemy, worship God and recognize how inferior you are, all that.
That would be awesome if Judeo-Christians actually felt that way. When you're on the other side of the fence, mi amigo, it often looks like being humble and loving your enemy is the furthest thing from their minds. No intention of insulting any of the good Christians and Jews here, you understand - it's just a total fallacy to believe that because one is Christian, one is humble. Just as it's a total fallacy to believe that because one is not Christian, one thinks one is better than others.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should just stop responding to you. You have all of us pegged SO wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: An atheist, however, need only look at his enlightened view of existence and realize that he is in fact superior than all those poor brainwashed saps who still believe in somthing as silly as God despite all the unassailable evidence to the contrary.
quote: This is where my superiority complex takes over when I start thinking, "how could someone let himself be convinced by a theory as ridiculous as macro-evolution? Open your eyes! The evidence is only there because it's what you want to believe!"
Not even going there.
quote:[/qb] And so we're pretty much two sides of the same coin, really. [/QB]
Know thyself, and all that. What is your complaint against atheists, again?
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: If anything, atheism mimics true religion.
How?
quote:Because what is reason without a reason? Nothing.
The reason is the reason itself. I believe this concept may be beyond you, but I have a feeling the more reasonable theists here might get what I'm saying.
Oops, was I being condescending?
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Like I said, I had just woken up and wasn't think very clearly. Addressing the comments about th top 10 most smartest people ever and all that, I read a lot and I make the judgments for myself whose arguments hold water and whose do not. I'm pretty sure most everyone else does who is not a scholar/philosopher himself. So really, what we have is "my source is better than your source."
This is not entirely true either. Man, I'm getting tired.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: As for a system of morality, there is none without religion. What you have is sophistry. And might-makes-right.
Congratulations: You have just insulted me more in this one post than in all of your other posts combined. You win, I guess.
Have you ever heard of the "golden rule?" I'm not talking about Phi. I'm talking about "Do unto others as you'd have done unto you." That, contrary to popular belief, is not a necessarily religious belief, and it is the most important belief in any moral society. In any set of morals anywhere, the golden rule is first and foremost, almost without exception.
That includes atheism, sir.
I don't steal. I don't lie. I don't murder. I don't cheat on my husband. I don't let jealousy control me. I don't walk by a person on the street who's in need without giving him something, anything I can, even just a smile and a kind word. I don't hold the dollar sacred above all else. I don't believe that the force of numbers should rule anything other than true democratic process. I don't hold any of my money back for myself - I give it to charities. I don't spend my free time idly whenever my sanity permits it - I volunteer to help those who can't help themselves.
Why do I behave this way? Please tell me, because since I am devoid of religion, then clearly these actions cannot be founded in morality. You must surely have a pat explanation for my apparently moral behavior even though I'm a morall bereft atheist.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Nobody today can explain the creation of the universe, and I never said it was a matter of chance. 'Chance' or 'luck' is the label we give to reasons which are too tedious or complex to explain. Maybe the real story of the creation of the universe is less glamorous and profound than Genesis. Who knows.
And I believe that human beings are biochemical machines. So if in your definition that precludes any notion of free will, then I don't believe we have any. Though to me, the ability of our biochemical minds to rationally weight the consequences of our actions and form a decision based on criteria of our own choice, is free will. I'll give you an idea of what I believe - if there was a computer powerful enough to take into account every iota of matter and energy and all of their properties at a given point in time, I believe that that computer could calculate what the future will bring, exactly. [Edit: unless physics research into the critical state indicate otherwise]
To me that doesn't make life any less beautiful or meaningful.
And speaking of purposes, here is the purpose of my morality: life on earth.
Euripides, you rock so very much. You sum up my beliefs so perfectly here. Thank you for being eloquent and RAD.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Just checking: The Mormon faith, then, does not claim to know how the universe came about. It's one of those things (well...the thing) that's just always been there.
The only thing Mormons can say without hesitation is that God has a father, who has a father etc, and that He was not always God. The nature of the universe is not very well covered, suffice to say no man can comprehend its boundaries.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: What does it mean that God is outside of time. That's one of the many ideas that I've never really been able to make sense of. Is this a Biblical reference, or something that people have come up with as a way to work out some God stuff?
How does a being outside of time interact with a world inside of time?
It means He never participates in daylight savings. Kind of like Arizona.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Libbie: Oops, was I being condescending?
yeah, but I think we're all past that.
quote:Know thyself, and all that. What is your complaint against atheists, again?
After all this, none really.
quote:originally posted by Baron Samedi: agree that C.S. Lewis was smart. I also think Penn Jillette is smart. And, for the record, I think we have some people in this very community who are smarter than you're giving them credit for. So, if two or more smart people make opposing arguments, I think we need something a little more conclusive than some abstract "my philosopher can beat up your philosopher" discussion to decide which is right.
Placing C.S Lewis and Penn Jillete in the same intellectual category is going to require some explanation. And I think I'm giving people here credit for their intelligence, simply by trying to address their arguments as honestly as possible. And I don't know how poor an assumption it is to credit Socrates/Plato and Lewis with greater intellect than anybody I can ever expect to meet. But then, I haven't read everything anybody else has written over and over again, like those two, particularly Lewis. Not even Mr. Card. I've probably read 95% of his work, but not much more that once.
Also, my arguments are my own when I mess them up, and the are someone elses when I get them right.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh - I don't think it's such a far cry to put them both in the same category. They were/are both very smart men, very articulate, and made very good points for their "side." Edited to add: It may even be tricksy to give Lewis more credence just because he had a bunch of stuff published. In this day and age, TV and radio reach more people than publication does (in most cases). Penn Jillette is an airwaves kind of guy, Lewis was a print kind of guy. They still both have/had relevant, intelligent things to say.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
About these 'arguments'; when are you going to make any? So far all I've seen is "Lewis disagrees with you" and "Evolution is stupid!"
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: As for a system of morality, there is none without religion. What you have is sophistry. And might-makes-right.
Congratulations: You have just insulted me more in this one post than in all of your other posts combined. You win, I guess.
I'm sorry. I didn't mean that as an insult. I'm not sure how you took it that way.
quote: Have you ever heard of the "golden rule?" I'm not talking about Phi. I'm talking about "Do unto others as you'd have done unto you." That, contrary to popular belief, is not a necessarily religious belief, and it is the most important belief in any moral society. In any set of morals anywhere, the golden rule is first and foremost, almost without exception.
That includes atheism, sir.
I don't steal. I don't lie. I don't murder. I don't cheat on my husband. I don't let jealousy control me. I don't walk by a person on the street who's in need without giving him something, anything I can, even just a smile and a kind word. I don't hold the dollar sacred above all else. I don't believe that the force of numbers should rule anything other than true democratic process. I don't hold any of my money back for myself - I give it to charities. I don't spend my free time idly whenever my sanity permits it - I volunteer to help those who can't help themselves.
Why do I behave this way? Please tell me, because since I am devoid of religion, then clearly these actions cannot be founded in morality. You must surely have a pat explanation for my apparently moral behavior even though I'm a morally bereft atheist.
Why do you behave that way? I'll say that it's because you are a moral person. My statement wasnt that atheists have no morals. It is that atheism does not provide for morals. Why would it? What would it benefit? Why should it benefit? There is no reason. To whoever (I don't remember)said something about me not understanding reason is the reason for itself, that wasn't very nice. I understand it, and I understand why it makes no sense. Do you?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What would it benefit? Why should it benefit? There is no reason.
As several posters have pointed out, everybody benefits from people being moral, including the moral person. What part of this concept are you having difficulty with?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Why do you behave that way? I'll say that it's because you are a moral person. My statement wasnt that atheists have no morals. It is that atheism does not provide for morals.
Wrong. Your statement was that without religion, there is no morality. That directly implies that people without religion are also without morals.
quote: Why would it? What would it benefit? Why should it benefit? There is no reason.
It benefits society. In a world where no one behaves morally, society falls apart, and survival becomes difficult. There is plenty of reason. If we all deal with one another in a moral manner, life is easier for everybody. No religion is required. No threats of going to hell, no promises of stockpiling a glorious future in heaven. Simple logic: If we all treat each other with kindness and consideration, we all enjoy life more.
quote: To whoever (I don't remember)said something about me not understanding reason is the reason for itself, that wasn't very nice. I understand it, and I understand why it makes no sense. Do you?
That was me, and I don't believe you understand it at all. You implied that "reason" as in "logic" must have a "reason" as in "ultimate purpose." That, in turn, implies that an "ultimate purpose" is some kind of final goal, master plan, reward, etc. That in itself is illogical - or it strikes me so, anyhow.
My quote implied ("Reason is the reason," that is) that the pursuit of logical explanation is its own purpose. It doesn't require any hidden nugget of reward or any "ultimate purpose" or "reason," to use your defintion, other than better understanding the world around you.
I knew you didn't understand. I'm not poking fun at you here. The problem in communication here is that you define "reason" very differently from how many of the rest of us define it - particularly atheists.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The biggest problem with Penn's essay is that he built a strawman of Faith in God and then used it to show how much he benefits from his belief that there is no God.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: What does it mean that God is outside of time. That's one of the many ideas that I've never really been able to make sense of. Is this a Biblical reference, or something that people have come up with as a way to work out some God stuff?
How does a being outside of time interact with a world inside of time?
It means He never participates in daylight savings. Kind of like Arizona.
I am SO stealing this!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Why do you behave that way? I'll say that it's because you are a moral person. My statement wasnt that atheists have no morals. It is that atheism does not provide for morals.
Wrong. Your statement was that without religion, there is no morality. That directly implies that people without religion are also without morals.
No no no no no. I am saying that morality is not independent of religion. It is because of religion that there is morality. That does NOT imply, as you say, that people without religion are without morals. Just because you don't believe in religion doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I guess I'm saying that, in a sense, irreligious people borrow their morals from religion. Now THAT you can debate.
quote:
quote: Why would it? What would it benefit? Why should it benefit? There is no reason.
It benefits society. In a world where no one behaves morally, society falls apart, and survival becomes difficult. There is plenty of reason. If we all deal with one another in a moral manner, life is easier for everybody. No religion is required. No threats of going to hell, no promises of stockpiling a glorious future in heaven. Simple logic: If we all treat each other with kindness and consideration, we all enjoy life more.
This is the point that seems to be most consistently misunderstood. I'm not going to try to explain it because so many have done it so much better than I ever could. But the point that is being missed is that if there is no reason or purpose behind everything, then there is no reason behind morality UNLESS it is beneficial to survival. But that isn't true existence. It's the same reasoning behind some evolutionary theorists that religion is a beneficial trait for humans, and that is why it developed as a cultural universal. That doesn't make religion real, and nor does it make morality real. It's just more survival of the fittest, might makes right, sophistry, all that. You see, there is a pattern to my reasoning, I'm not just making this up as I go along!
quote:
quote: To whoever (I don't remember)said something about me not understanding reason is the reason for itself, that wasn't very nice. I understand it, and I understand why it makes no sense. Do you?
That was me, and I don't believe you understand it at all. You implied that "reason" as in "logic" must have a "reason" as in "ultimate purpose." That, in turn, implies that an "ultimate purpose" is some kind of final goal, master plan, reward, etc. That in itself is illogical - or it strikes me so, anyhow.
No, back up. It doesn't imply an ultimate or final purpose. It implies an initial purpose. Whether god cares what happened since the creation is another subject, but without a purpose in the beginning there can be no purpose now. And reason can't be a reason for itself, no matter how much you wish it could be. This was established a long time ago by Thomas Aquinas, that an effect cannot be the cause of itself, unless it is The First Cause. So if you want to make reason itself The First Cause, go ahead. But how Reason could have made itself and then everything else after is just as mystifying to me as how God did it.
quote:My quote implied ("Reason is the reason," that is) that the pursuit of logical explanation is its own purpose. It doesn't require any hidden nugget of reward or any "ultimate purpose" or "reason," to use your defintion, other than better understanding the world around you.
I knew you didn't understand. I'm not poking fun at you here. The problem in communication here is that you define "reason" very differently from how many of the rest of us define it - particularly atheists. [/QB]
If you want to say the source of our misunderstanding is semantics you can, but it's not. I know what you were trying to say, and I think that any objective observer could see that.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
The two are synonyms. Once the Jewish monarchy of the tribe of Yehuda was established (with David), the Yisraelim (Israelites) also became known as Yehudim, Jews.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I mean, honestly, the only people of faith with whom I ever *debate* get pretty condescending to me. Perhaps it's the debate itself that is the problem. I have never had any issues *calmly discussing* or *sharing ideas* with people of faith, and I've never heard them complain about me in such situations, either.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
I am SO stealing this!
