Morality Poll

[ManRay]

I wrote a response to this mistake two posts ago [edit: post 35]. If someone kills righteously in the Old Testament, it is in accordance with God’s law.

Also the Bible is very clear that many many of its teachings have layered meanings and that interpretation is key. Jesus-Christ makes this point many times in the Gospels.

I often find that anti-religious people know many obscure Old Testament quotes, but have rarely read, let alone study the Gospels. The Gospels are the beating heart of the Bible and hold the key to understanding the other books.

I’ve read the bible. I’ve read the Qu’ran…and at the possibility of destroying my brain, I’ve read the Gita. I consider myself a proponent of objectivism. I believe that there is reality outside of our consciousness…but with consciousness I can inductively perceive, and come to the truth - even if the truth at the time would be admitting to myself that I don’t know. A theist isn’t capable of saying that they don’t know…and what they don’t know they can always just point to the church. That freaks me out. The problem I have with theism can be nicked right from this catholic website.
ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/hahn_mitch_ss_aug05.asp

The Catholic Church makes mighty claims for the Bible, and our acceptance of those claims is essential if we are to read the Scriptures and apply them to our lives as the Church intends. So it is not enough merely to nod at words like “inspired”, “unique”, or “inerrant”. We have to understand what the Church means by these terms, and we have to make that understanding our own. After all, what we believe about the Bible will inevitably influence the way we read the Bible. The way we read the Bible, in turn, will determine what we “get out” of its sacred pages.

1. Why would anyone who didn’t have the pre inclination to what a church intended ever care of what the church intended? I certainly don’t? I wasn’t taught to accept things from an authority that basically gave itself the authority - outside of claiming that god gave it to them (which is meaningless for me)
2. I don’t have to understand what a church means, in order to ascertain what the objective reality is. That is subjective, and dishonest thought in my opinion.
3. What you believe about something determining what you get out of something is more meaningless, and subjective nonsense in my opinion.

I guess this is the difference between the theistic mind, and the non theistic mind. Something happens inside your brain that allows you to come to an objective conclusion that isn’t based in any objective reality. There has been too much inconsistency in religion - whether it be the canonization of the bible, papal infallibility, protest reformation, the inquisition, the childrens crusade…contradictory writings from church doctors and fathers ad nauseum. (and that’s just christianity!) At this point I am starting to “objectively” come to the conclusion that there is a clear divide in how our two brains digest information. There have been a few studies regarding liberal people versus conservative people, and it seems to be more of the same. I experience it everyday. There is a clear difference in the way we digest information, and I would reason that it is at the root of most modern problems whether it’s global warming, abortion, gay marriage or whatever. When I retire at the end of the day it inspires me that I tried to understand subjects based on known merits, tenets, particulars whatever, and not based anything on some tradition, dogma, or what was ultimately just assigned to it. Poor Galileo…I know how he must have felt.

This is the nutshell that I always refer to, and the theist just sidesteps it, and doesn’t really ever meet it head on.

IT IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY…A CONCEPTUAL ABSURDITY TO CLAIM THAT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND SOMETHING THAT EXISTS OUTSIDE OF THE PARAMETERS OF ANY KNOWN UNDERSTANDING. The only truly honest answer is to state that you don’t know.
I mean seriously even going back to design…you argue that everything that exists must have a cause -THAT"S AS FAR AS THE LOGIC GOES>>>IT DOESN’T GO ANY FARTHER.!!! To state, but wait - oh well…I’m so intellectually starved for some type of explanation that obviously this original cause just can’t have a cause… WE’LL NEAT!!! REALLY.???.THAT’S IT.??? That is a giant waving of the hand…That’s total majic. There is no known physical phenomena that we know of that has existed without a cause - so you can’t use your brain to comprehend something like that. There is NO INDUCTIVE REFERENCE POINT. It’s completely meaningless. It’s Jive talk!!! I know, I know…it was revealed to you buy god, and around and around we go.

 

[pnewton]

I Poor Galileo…I know how he must have felt.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

On simply does not do apologetics backward lest we make St. Thomas very angry.

 

[thewanderer]

I’ve read the bible. I’ve read the Qu’ran…and at the possibility of destroying my brain, I’ve read the Gita. I consider myself a proponent of objectivism. I believe that their is reality outside of our consciousness…but with consciousness I can inductively perceive, and come to the truth - even if the truth at the time would be admitting to myself that I don’t know. The problem I have with theism can be nicked right from this catholic website.
ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/hahn_mitch_ss_aug05.asp

The Catholic Church makes mighty claims for the Bible, and our acceptance of those claims is essential if we are to read the Scriptures and apply them to our lives as the Church intends. So it is not enough merely to nod at words like “inspired”, “unique”, or “inerrant”. We have to understand what the Church means by these terms, and we have to make that understanding our own. After all, what we believe about the Bible will inevitably influence the way we read the Bible. The way we read the Bible, in turn, will determine what we “get out” of its sacred pages.

1. I wasn’t taught to accept things from an authority that basically gave itself the authority - outside of claiming that god gave it to them (which is meaningless for me)
2. I don’t have to understand what a church means, in order to ascertain what the objective reality is. That’s is subjective, and dishonest in my opinion.
3. What you believe about something determining what you get out of something is more meaningless, and subjective nonsense in my opinion.

I guess this is the difference between the theistic mind, and the non theistic mind. Something happens inside your brain that allows you to come to an objective conclusion that isn’t based in any objective reality. There has been too much inconsistency in religion - whether it be the canonization of the bible, papal infallibility, protest reformation, the inquisition, the childrens crusade…contradictory writings from church doctors and fathers ad nauseum. (and that’s just christianity!) At this point I am starting to “objectively” come to the conclusion that there is a clear divide in how our two brains digest information. There have been a few studies regarding liberal people versus conservative people, and it seems to be more of the same. I experience it everyday. There is a clear difference in the way we digest information, and I would reason that it is at the root of most modern problems whether it’s global warming, abortion, gay marriage or whatever. When I retire at the end of the day it inspires me that I tried to understand subjects based on known merits, tenets, particulars whatever, and not based on some tradition, dogma, or what was ultimately just assigned to it. Poor Galileo…I know how he must have felt.

You know what? There’s something your missing, and thats the idea that someone could be led to believe in a religion because of their objective search for the truth. When this happens how are you to determine which of you are correct? You have each gone on a mission to search objectively for the truth but have come to different conclusions as to what that truth is. I’m sorry, but you don’t get to lord the “I’m being objective so I’m clearly right” line over people of religion. There are many people, theist and atheist, who believe what they do because of objective reasoning and there are many who hold their positions for other reasons without being willing to take a step back and seriously examine their own preconceived notions of reality. This is not an easy win for Atheists as you seem to think.

 

[clem456]

I’ve read the bible.

I’ll just take one point:

1. I don’t have to understand what a church means, in order to ascertain what the objective reality is. That’s is subjective, and dishonest in my opinion.

So then you pretend to divine the meaning of things you do not understand.
You can read any piece of literature then, and understand it without help from scholars, is that correct?
You truly are very fundamentalist in your beliefs.

 

[ManRay]

You know what? There’s something your missing, and thats the idea that someone could be led to believe in a religion because of their objective search for the truth. When this happens how are you to determine which of you are correct? You have each gone on a mission to search objectively for the truth but have come to different conclusions as to what that truth is. I’m sorry, but you don’t get to lord the “I’m being objective so I’m clearly right” line over people of religion. There are many people, theist and atheist, who believe what they do because of objective reasoning and there are many who hold their positions for other reasons without being willing to take a step back and seriously examine their own preconceived notions of reality. This is not an easy win for Atheists as you seem to think.

You didn’t even read - or comprehend my post!!!

I guess this is the difference between the theistic mind, and the non theistic mind. Something happens inside your brain that allows you to come to an objective conclusion that isn’t based in any objective reality.

I’ll reiterate. The fact that you claim to have come to an objective conclusion in regards to something that exists outside of any known parameter that we use to come up with conclusions in the first place is absurd. The theist ultimately reverts back to the…Oh well god exists outside of time, outside of space, and logic…Yada yada yada…Like that could possibly lead anyone to anything that they weren’t already bound and determined to believe in the first place. That isn’t objectivity. Not even close. I’m not trying to prove there isn’t a god. I never claimed there to be a god. Theists did. I’m stating that you cannot possibly know the things you claim to know. I would argue that it’s intellectually dishonest. But whatever.

 

[Bradski]

You use this belief to underpin your arguments on this issue, despite the fact that Catholics do not believe that “God kills Children” or “orders others to kill children”.

OK, I’ll go with that.

God’s will was to kill these people, so it was good to do it.

No, hang on. I’ll go with that instead.

There is a difference between murder and killing, eg. legitimate defense.

Unless it was self-defence, I guess. In which case you could hardly call it an atrocity.

…has consistently produced a book for 2 thousand years that details these atrocities.

OK, OK, I’m ‘quote mining’. But there does seem to be a difference of opinion that is worth noting.

And in passing, in relation to a moral code, can anyone suggest a workable morality (pretty much what we have now) that couldn’t be worked out by any reasonable person that didn’t have any pre-conceived notion of Christianity?

 

[ManRay]

I’ll just take one point:

So then you pretend to divine the meaning of things you do not understand.
You can read any piece of literature then, and understand it without help from scholars, is that correct?
You truly are very fundamentalist in your beliefs.

You are a classic manipulator. It’s very offensive. I understand language. If I read something - I will go to the source (meaning the individual who wrote it). If that cannot be done, then I defer to experts…if there are differing opinions from said experts then that is where I objectively jump ship. I DON"T WAVE MY HAND AND CLAIM NO NO NO - THIS GROUP IS THE AUTHORITY - THIS GROUP CLAIMS THEY RECEIVED IT FROM SOME GOD - THIS GROUP YADA YADA YADA. Don’t manipulate my words so that you can have an argument with yourself. Try actually reading through a post also because I already addressed this…

 

[thewanderer]

You are a classic manipulator. It’s very offensive. I understand language. If I read something - I will go to the source (meaning the individual who wrote it). If that cannot be done, then I defer to experts…if there are differing opinions from said experts then that is where I objectively jump ship. I DON"T WAVE MY HAND AND CLAIM NO NO NO - THIS GROUP IS THE AUTHORITY - THIS GROUP CLAIMS THEY RECEIVED IT FROM SOME GOD - THIS GROUP YADA YADA YADA. Don’t manipulate my words so that you can have an argument with yourself. Try actually reading through a post also because I already addressed this…

And your claim that all theists are essentially being intellectually dishonest and deceiving themselves is also very offensive. Do you not realize there are people that bellieve that some group is an authority because they have tried to objectively consider and reason about reality and have come to this conclusion. To claim that they are of necessity being unobjective is ridiculous and shows an extreme amount of condesension towards all theists. Perhaps you should correct your own misconceptions about theists before trying to come on here and tell theists where they have all gone wrong.

 

[thewanderer]

You didn’t even read - or comprehend my post!!!

I’ll reiterate. The fact that you claim to have come to an objective conclusion in regards to something that exists outside of any known parameter that we use to come up with conclusions in the first place is absurd. The theist ultimately reverts back to the…Oh well god exists outside of time, outside of space, and logic…Yada yada yada…Like that could possibly lead anyone to anything that they weren’t already bound and determined to believe in the first place. That isn’t objectivity. Not even close. I’m not trying to prove there isn’t a god. I never claimed there to be a god. Theists did. I’m stating that you cannot possibly know the things you claim to know. I would argue that it’s intellectually dishonest. But whatever.

You know what’s missing??? The fact that you claim to have come to an objective conclusion in regards to something that exists outside of any known parameter that we use to come up with conclusions in the first place. The theist ultimately reverts back to the…Oh well god exists outside of time, outside of space, and logic…Yada yada yada…Like that could possibly lead anyone to anything that they weren’t already bound and determined to believe in the first place. That isn’t objectivity. Not even close. I’m not trying to prove there isn’t a god. I never claimed there to be a god. Theists did. I’m stating that you cannot possibly know the things you claim to know. I would argue that it’s intellectually dishonest. But whatever.

Well that depends on what you mean by “know” and by “outside of any known parameter that we use to come up with conclusions in the first place”.

I certainly do not claim that we can scientifically prove God’s existence. However I also do not hold to the idea that we cannot know (nor are we allowed to hold any opinions as knowledge) without scientific evidence.

If you are going to be honest (and objective) here you need to recognize that your position that no knowledge of any sort is possible without scientific evidence for it then you need to recognize that this is based on certain philosophical axioms about the world around you that are not held or accepted by all, whether theist or not. In saying this you are already assuming that your conclusion about the world around us is correct as opposed to anyone elses in such a way that it is impossible that anyone else be honest with themselves in their search for an understanding about the universe. This, to be quite frank, is unbelievably condesending. I assume you do not appreciate it when people make claims that your lack of belief in God clearly shows that you are just not being honest with yourself about reality, well that goes both directions sir and you need to recognize that.

 

[thewanderer]

Let me rephrase

Basically, you are assuming (admittedly based on your reasoning and past experiences in life) that it is dishonest to have certainty about something which is not scientifically demonstrated.

Others, many of whom are very intelligent, have also thought about what certainty is and when it is and is not applicable and have come to a different opinion than yourself.

How then do you solve this dilemna as to who is correct on this matter? Each man must investigate the arguments on each side to the best of his ability (ie, to the extent that he has spare time, etc) and do his utmost to look honestly at reality and avoid allowing his preconceived notions about reality to influence him in his conclusions.

Are you seriously trying to claim that since other people have a different opinion than you on this matter they just clearly must not have been honest with themselves and were clearly just blinded by their preconceived notions? Because that is most certainly what it sounds like.

 

[Robert_Caritas]

1. I wasn’t taught to accept things from an authority that basically gave itself the authority - outside of claiming that god gave it to them (which is meaningless for me)
2. I don’t have to understand what a church means, in order to ascertain what the objective reality is. That’s is subjective, and dishonest in my opinion.
3. What you believe about something determining what you get out of something is more meaningless, and subjective nonsense in my opinion.

I guess this is the difference between the theistic mind, and the non theistic mind. Something happens inside your brain that allows you to come to an objective conclusion that isn’t based in any objective reality. There has been too much inconsistency in religion - whether it be the canonization of the bible, papal infallibility, protest reformation, the inquisition, the childrens crusade…contradictory writings from church doctors and fathers ad nauseum. (and that’s just christianity!) At this point I am starting to “objectively” come to the conclusion that there is a clear divide in how our two brains digest information. There have been a few studies regarding liberal people versus conservative people, and it seems to be more of the same. I experience it everyday. There is a clear difference in the way we digest information, and I would reason that it is at the root of most modern problems whether it’s global warming, abortion, gay marriage or whatever. When I retire at the end of the day it inspires me that I tried to understand subjects based on known merits, tenets, particulars whatever, and not based on some tradition, dogma, or what was ultimately just assigned to it. Poor Galileo…I know how he must have felt.

Thanks for answering. Since you didn’t respond to my point about absolute morality, and how God does not contradict himself in Scripture, I will consider that you have accepted it.

I can address some of the core arguments in your post now. These are what I see as the most important ones.

" I wasn’t taught to accept things from an authority that basically gave itself the authority - outside of claiming that god gave it to them (which is meaningless for me)"

I believe profoundly that the only fully legitimate authority comes from God, and you concede that this point his coherent – given the criteria of faith. Your consideration is missing this criteria. Now, speaking to an atheist friend about very similar things, I had to say to him: if you consider Christianity without faith, of course it makes no sense at all – that is one of its core building blocks. It is a general rule that if you do not consider a core building block of a philosophy or worldview, it will not be coherent. As a Christian I believe that faith is a supernatural quality. So you cannot reach out and grab it, God has to judge you ready to have it, and it is much much more than simply saying that you believe.

If faith were just believing in difficult things, there would be no difference between someone who believes through faith, and someone who believes through brainwashing, and I can tell you that Thomas Aquinas and George Lemaitre were certainly not brainwashed.

“I guess this is the difference between the theistic mind, and the non theistic mind.”

You are slightly mistaken here. The Christian mind and the non-believing mind are the same. The difference lies in the heart. My rationality works the same if I am Christian or not. I consider that two arguments that are solidly linked together are rational, and that two propositions that have a vague or fuzzy link probably do not follow. The difference is how I approach life and the meaning that it has – and this difference is rooted in faith and gives me a tremendous amount of different parameters. I believe that God is objective and real! I would be irrational if I believed otherwise and proclaimed that he exists.

So I am afraid that I can’t tell you how to find faith without asking God personally. But I can definitely show you that every single human being uses faith, whether they believe in God or not. One can only accept something as knowledge through an act of faith. This paper on the philosophy of logic by Lewis Carrol (who besides being a writer was a brilliant mathematician) demonstrates it pretty clearly: courseweb.stthomas.edu/KWKemp/Logic/R/Tortoise.pdf I highly recommend reading it. I am in the middle of some course work and don’t have the time to do the demonstration myself, and Carrol’s argument is very clear (and surprisingly so for such an eccentric argument style-).

In Carrol’s argument, you’ll see that one decides to believe something because they accept the proof to be appealing to their standards. After a long struggle I was blessed with faith, and little by little with this faith, I examined the bible and the history of religion (and the Koran, and the Gita, etc), and I learned to accept the tenets of Catholicism. With a tiny help from God, what was formerly impossible became possible. Catholic dogma has become appealing to my new standards. With the objective criteria of faith added to my world view, accepting dogmas becomes very rational. Actually, given what I have been lucky enough to experience, it would be dishonest for me to not accept them.

Also, to respond to one more of your points – as with the previous paradox that you pointed out and that I showed was not a contradiction if you look at it in a fuller context, many many apparent discrepancies in religion and religious history disappear on close investigation. There is actually much much more contradictions to be found in the history of politics and science, than there are to be found in religion – which is something that anti-religious people are often shocked to learn.

 

[ManRay]

Well that depends on what you mean by “know” and by “outside of any known parameter that we use to come up with conclusions in the first place”.

I certainly do not claim that we can scientifically prove God’s existence. However I also do not hold to the idea that we cannot know (nor are we allowed to hold any opinions as knowledge) without scientific evidence.

If you are going to be honest (and objective) here you need to recognize that your position that no knowledge of any sort is possible without scientific evidence for it then you need to recognize that this is based on certain philosophical axioms about the world around you that are not held or accepted by all, whether theist or not. In saying this you are already assuming that your conclusion about the world around us is correct as opposed to anyone elses in such a way that it is impossible that anyone else be honest with themselves in their search for an understanding about the universe. This, to be quite frank, is unbelievably condesending. I assume you do not appreciate it when people make claims that your lack of belief in God clearly shows that you are just not being honest with yourself about reality, well that goes both directions sir and you need to recognize that.

More manipulation, and straw man action. I never said any of that. I’m simply claiming that stating that everything has a cause - which can be deduced through logical induction via known characteristics and things* in the physical world* (TIME,SPACE,LOGIC ETC), and then in the same breath pretending that everything EXCEPT THAT INITIAL CAUSE (WHICH EXISTS OUTSIDE OF TIME, SPACE, AND LOGIC etc…is a total LARK!!)…it’s some kind of magical logical duct tape. There is no frame of reference for that in our realm of knowledge. It’s an absurdity. I feel much more comfortable stating that we just don’t have the answers at this time. When people start talking about god - It seems like you can just logically punch holes in it all day - the only way the theist can handle it is to use some more of that magical duct tape…you know - the one that has no reference to any demonstrable reality in time, and space…

 

[thewanderer]

More manipulation, and straw man action. I never said any of that. I’m simply claiming that stating that everything has a cause - which can be deduced through logical induction via known characteristics and things* in the physical world* (TIME,SPACE,LOGIC ETC), and then in the same breath pretending that everything EXCEPT THAT INITIAL CAUSE (WHICH EXISTS OUTSIDE OF TIME, SPACE, AND LOGIC etc…is a total LARK!!)…it’s some kind of magical logical duct tape. There is no frame of reference for that in our realm of knowledge. It’s an absurdity. I feel much more comfortable stating that we just don’t have the answers at this time. When people start talking about god - It seems like you can just logically punch holes in it all day - the only way the theist can handle it is to use some more of that magical duct tape…you know - the one that has no reference to any demonstrable reality in time, and space…

Look, if you want to assume that all theists believe what they do because they are simply avoiding an absurdity which if they examined more closely and honestly they would see then there is nothing I am going to be able to say to change your mind. You have already decided it and have closed your mind to any other possibility so trying to discuss it with you really isn’t going to get anywhere. I am just trying to point out that depending on what each person takes up as a first principle they will reach different conclusions as to whether or not having certainty in the existence of a god without being intellectually dishonest or inconsistant. Now, to you it seems as though all theists are clearly being dishonest, but that is only because of the principles, arguments etc that you have already accepted as true. To someone who has not accepted those as true, but instead has started with different first principles the position of the theist is not an absurdity. This discussion will always ultimately come back to some first principle which one person accepts and another rejects. How are you going to be able to decide which of the first principles are correct? Who are you to claim that someone who holds different first principles than you is deceiving himself and being intellectually dishonest in his taking up of first principles? Perhaps you do not intend to say such a thing, but I can see no other conclusion except this from the other things you have said on here.

ps I should also note that it is quite possible that our definition of a theist is different and that could be an explanation for the confusion between us.

ETA: I should also add that our use of the word ‘knowledge’ is probably being used equivocally, as well as who knows what else. Those would need to be addressed before being able to reach any sort of understanding.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You didn’t even read - or comprehend my post!!!

I’ll reiterate. The fact that you claim to have come to an objective conclusion in regards to something that exists outside of any known parameter that we use to come up with conclusions in the first place is absurd. The theist ultimately reverts back to the…Oh well god exists outside of time, outside of space, and logic…Yada yada yada…Like that could possibly lead anyone to anything that they weren’t already bound and determined to believe in the first place. That isn’t objectivity. Not even close. I’m not trying to prove there isn’t a god. I never claimed there to be a god. Theists did. I’m stating that you cannot possibly know the things you claim to know. I would argue that it’s intellectually dishonest. But whatever.

What you don’t seem to understand is that believers do not have to prove anything to you. Indeed, it is pretty clear that no one could, your mind seems made up. So you think little of us. That is also clear. So what is the whole point of your being on this forum. Since showing up you have done nothing but trumphet how silly and foolish believers are and that none of us could possibly have valid reasons for believing the way we do. Do you perhaps get some kind of mental sadistic kick of continually poking your finger in our eyes?

 

[ManRay]

Good stuff. I have a real hang up when it comes to words such as “belief”, and “faith”. I understand that people in a certain sense use faith everyday or they would probably never leave the house…but I would argue that this is a different sort of faith than what a theist subscribes to - or at least they have maybe a different definition than I. I have faith that I will make it to work in the morning, but if I were to be honest (intellectually honest) I would have to admit that I really had no idea if I would or not. Heart attacks, car crash, maybe even a meteor will put an end to any plans I had that day. This to me is what objective reality is- that in spite of mans dreams, hopes, or petty wishes, or fears - there is an underlying reality that defines our existence. Faith does not equate to truth. Belief doesn’t either. Things are true whether or not you have faith in them…whether or not you believe in them. I try not to have faith or believe in anything in that sense - I either know- or I don’t know. So I don’t really know what you mean by faith having a supernatural quality. I believe that this whole word supernatural can be logically busted also. So we part ways there.

One can only accept something as knowledge through an act of faith.

I don’t reason this to be true. At all. I would argue that a thing can be demonstrated. I would argue that it is one if not the only means of determining truth, and that these concepts of true and false are only meaningful in reference to the demonstrated reality. And yet it must be validated, as this validation is the likely the final means of determining the truth. One of the validation methods would have to be the law of identification. This is simply why I cannot reason that a cellular organism is a person. It doesn’t pass muster. It breaks with the law of identity, and non contradiction.

I can address some of the core arguments in your post now. These are what I see as the most important ones.

" I wasn’t taught to accept things from an authority that basically gave itself the authority - outside of claiming that god gave it to them (which is meaningless for me)"

I believe profoundly that the only fully legitimate authority comes from God, and you concede that this point his coherent – given the criteria of faith. Your consideration is missing this criteria. Now, speaking to an atheist friend about very similar things, I had to say to him: if you consider Christianity without faith, of course it makes no sense at all – that is one of its core building blocks. It is a general rule that if you do not consider a core building block of a philosophy or worldview, it will not be coherent. As a Christian I believe that faith is a supernatural quality. So you cannot reach out and grab it, God has to judge you ready to have it, and it is much much more than simply saying that you believe.

If faith were just believing in difficult things, there would be no difference between someone who believes through faith, and someone who believes through brainwashing, and I can tell you that Thomas Aquinas and George Lemaitre were certainly not brainwashed.

“I guess this is the difference between the theistic mind, and the non theistic mind.”

You are slightly mistaken here. The Christian mind and the non-believing mind are the same. The difference lies in the heart. My rationality works the same if I am Christian or not. I consider that two arguments that are solidly linked together are rational, and that two propositions that have a vague or fuzzy link probably do not follow. The difference is how I approach life and the meaning that it has – and this difference is rooted in faith and gives me a tremendous amount of different parameters. I believe that God is objective and real! I would be irrational if I believed otherwise and proclaimed that he exists.

So I am afraid that I can’t tell you how to find faith without asking God personally. But I can definitely show you that every single human being uses faith, whether they believe in God or not. One can only accept something as knowledge through an act of faith. This paper on the philosophy of logic by Lewis Carrol (who besides being a writer was a brilliant mathematician) demonstrates it pretty clearly: courseweb.stthomas.edu/KWKemp/Logic/R/Tortoise.pdf I highly recommend reading it. I am in the middle of some course work and don’t have the time to do the demonstration myself, and Carrol’s argument is very clear (and surprisingly so for such an eccentric argument style-).

In Carrol’s argument, you’ll see that one decides to believe something because they accept the proof to be appealing to their standards. After a long struggle I was blessed with faith, and little by little with this faith, I examined the bible and the history of religion (and the Koran, and the Gita, etc), and I learned to accept the tenets of Catholicism. With a tiny help from God, what was formerly impossible became possible. Catholic dogma has become appealing to my new standards. With the objective criteria of faith added to my world view, accepting dogmas becomes very rational. Actually, given what I have been lucky enough to experience, it would be dishonest for me to not accept them.

Also, to respond to one more of your points – as with the previous paradox that you pointed out and that I showed was not a contradiction if you look at it in a fuller context, many many apparent discrepancies in religion and religious history disappear on close investigation. There is actually much much more contradictions to be found in the history of politics and science, than there are to be found in religion – which is something that anti-religious people are often shocked to learn.

 

[ManRay]

This discussion will always ultimately come back to some first principle which one person accepts and another rejects. How are you going to be able to decide which of the first principles are correct? Who are you to claim that someone who holds different first principles than you is deceiving himself and being intellectually dishonest in his taking up of first principles?

I’m arguing that we don’t have any possible way of conceptually understanding what this first principle is. Whether you be scientist or atheist - if you claim that you do - then I’m calling bunk. That’s all I’m saying. I don’t have a first principle nor do I really care, but when I’m surrounded by all of these people who have formed a whole world view on it, and melt into politics, and social arguments based on what I would call a nonsensical, and impossible position to maintain - I fear for the world, and am no longer surprised out how messed up it all is. When someone ask me about these things I usually just mutter…aaack - no…I don’t know…Can you please make me an old fashioned with a little umbrella?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Uhmmm - no it doesn’t. I’m arguing that very learned people from all walks of life have coherently broken down biblical text, and have come to differing conclusions. BUTTTT - If they aren’t a catholic, or studied in a catholic setting - then they can never be right - or have a quality point. Period. This the “just because” logic. There is no real authority. Your brain doesn’t contain some extra section of intellect pal. There isn’t some special theistic version of English. The reality is that the only way it doesn’t sound completely horrific when god kills children, is that you can always claim authority, and open up the pretty package of contextual twisting ness ness. Hehehe. The catholic church is right in this regard. Christianity would have withered away. I can logically prove big foot doesn’t exist all day, and thousands of people will explain to me how I’m wrong. Belief never equaled truth. Most people are dishonest and never even conscious of it.

You don’t realize how illogical you are. You accuse believers of being stupid and illogical and/or uneducated, and of course how brilliant you are, and you and your " educated brilliancies " have some sort of cornor on the truth. It does not seem to occur to you that the exact converse may be true as well. How indeed do you know inafallibly that you and your pals are correct. But just so you know ( and I’m sure you do, because you know everything), quite a few, perhaps the majority of brilliant minds in history have been believers. I know that is had to digest but the historical evidence is pretty strong. Cheers.

 

[ManRay]

What you don’t seem to understand is that believers do not have to prove anything to you. Indeed, it is pretty clear that no one could, your mind seems made up. So you think little of us. That is also clear. So what is the whole point of your being on this forum. Since showing up you have done nothing but trumphet how silly and foolish believers are and that none of us could possibly have valid reasons for believing the way we do. Do you perhaps get some kind of mental sadistic kick of continually poking your finger in our eyes?

Hey…you sound Jewish…I most certainly hold you in high esteem. I always seem to get at the core tenets of a persons position when I pick and prod. It’s served me well - Just look at these discussions!! Momma would be proud!!! Maybe I was having a moment of weakness, and wanted to make sure that I wasn’t losing the intellectual fight against my two selves…just kidding…cmon…dance with me.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hey…you sound Jewish…I most certainly hold you in high esteem. I always seem to get at the core tenets of a persons position when I pick and prod. It’s served me well - Just look at these discussions!! Momma would be proud!!! Maybe I was having a moment of weakness, and wanted to make sure that I wasn’t losing the intellectual fight against my two selves…just kidding…cmon…dance with me.

It wouldn’t be worth it. You see I do place a high value on truth. I’ll just check in from time to time to see how you are behaving. Chow.

 

[thewanderer]

I’m arguing that we don’t have any possible way of conceptually understanding what this first principle is. Whether you be scientist or atheist - if you claim that you do - then I’m calling bunk. That’s all I’m saying. I don’t have a first principle nor do I really care, but when I’m surrounded by all of these people who have formed a whole world view on it, and melt into politics, and social arguments based on what I would call a nonsensical, and impossible position to maintain - I fear for the world, and am no longer surprised out how messed up it all is. When someone ask me about these things I usually just mutter…aaack - no…I don’t know…Can you please make me an old fashioned with a little umbrella?

Haha, well it might help ease things if you realize that many theists agree with you in saying that we cannot fully comprehend this first cause, precisely because of those things you bring up, however they will still say that that does not mean that we cannot know (again, we really haven’t clarified exactly what we each mean by this word, so keep in mind we might be using it slightly differently)

You will probably still say that it is ridiculous to claim that anyone can know anything about it, but I ask, is that really true? I mean, do you really think that it is always impossible to learn things about a cause by looking at its effect? (or to evven be led to have reasonable assurance/certitude about it?) Because we most certainly can see the effects. See, the thing is that, while I understand and recognize that your reasoning and attempts at understanding the world around us has led you to believe that it is impossible to know anything about a first cause, other people’s reasoning has led them to the opposite conclusion. And so one would need to go back and look at the principles that all of these are based on to try and further understand why a person holds to be true that which they do.

As to the point about people forming a whole worldview on it, has it occured to you that this can sometimes be the other way around? I mean, I know in my case a very, very large part of the reason I am a Catholic is because the conclusions I have come to about the world when thought about without including the influence of Catholicism line up astonishingly well with the Catholic worldview. If, in thinking about reality I were to come to a point where I honestly could not reconcile some conclusion about the world with the Catholic worldview then I would most certainly take a step back and reexamine the two, first try and discover whether or not there is actually some other way of reconciling both opinions and then re-examining the two positions themselves until I was able to fix my own opinion so that it once again becomes consistant with reality as I perceive it. I know I am not alone in this, there are many theists with this approach, and that is why I particularly took offense at your accusation that all theists are essentially intellctually dishonest.