the right religion

[AmbiguousGuy]

I thought me and the other poster had dismissed this tautology issue previously.

OK, man. If you don't want to talk, you certainly don't have to talk.

 

[1robin]

We have resorted to lying it appears.

If you wish any discussion with me you will not make accusations of lying. I just do not have the time for that crap. What I said is a well known fact of history. This must be the day for saying something is wrong but not even attempting the slightest effort at proving it so. I have no the slightest idea what you would even contend with what I said.

I never said Christianity was violent in Russia I clearly said it brought about harm (not i the physical sense) to the new government. It brought about ignorance and social division.

This was a discussion that began concerning forced conversion I believe. Are you actually claiming the USSR became an improved intellectual society, a more just society, and a more moral one than existed previously because religion existed?

But the religion has been disproven or invalidated (depending on Christian interpretations). In your case it is disproved.

That is not only wrong but impossible. Christianity is not a concept that can be disproven. This is abjectly absurd.

Again with the lying it seems. I never claimed to agree with anyone yet alone the USSR which butchered Communism.

I will allow the accusation one last time because it is in he same post. One more time and I am done with you. I do not care enough about what you think to bother lying. Not that countering your claims even necessitates it. My comment was in the form of od a relationship based on your comments. I could not have known what your specific stance was therefor lying was impossible. How many impossible claims are you going to further? I have very good reason to assume what I did but even if inaccurate it was a false assumption and not a lie. Get a grip.

Also you fail to mention the fact that so many Christian charitable establishments exist because there are more Christians

That was all taken care of by my pointing out that the most charitable demographic on Earth is Christian conservatives.

You left that part out as well with the fact there are atheist hospitals as well but we just call them "Government run clinics" and that most medical care centers are founded for reasons.

How do you found a hospital based on the non-belief in God? Even if that insane motivation was true why would I have had the slightest burden to mention it? None of the rest of your comments are any more applicable or relevant.

 

[1robin]

OK, man. If you don't want to talk, you certainly don't have to talk.

This response is like saying 2 + 2 = cheese. I do not wish to keep dealing with things that have been very easily dispensed with by several people. My presence in a debate forum indicates your comment is just weird.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I do not get this. If you track back the chain of claim and counter claim you wind up back at the original context. I do not see the practicality or precedent for restating the context each line of discussion began from in each additional input. Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying.

I'm saying that I can grant your claim, and still fail to see what it amounts to in the context of our discussion- if you had the patience to track the line of discussion to figure out what your original point was, please enlighten me because I've simply forgotten.

Ok then it (realism as you have defined its use here) does not exist without God. Your replies seem to be that they claim otherwise. I do not doubt someone claims it. I instead claim they are wrong.

Right, but since you admittedly have no familiarity with these claims, your out-of-hand proclamation that they're mistaken is worth very little...

Since I can't get a single example of what besides God objective values are based on I maintain that all the study possible will never turn up one.

You've already mentioned one yourself- "natural law", which is one variety of non-divine command moral realism.

I have asked for something far simpler than all this and something you should know very well given your claims. On what foundation besides God can moral absolutes be justified? I am not going to spend days or weeks looking for something than is a theoretical impossibility especially since you claim to know it. I have already spent hundreds of hours in research (regardless of your opinion of that research) and never even heard an attempt beyond one's atheists admission of assuming the foundation within atheism for moral absolutes.

I told you already that its not a position I subscribe to; I don't think there are such a thing as moral "absolutes" or "objective" moral values- ultimately, I find the argument for ANY sort of moral realism, divine-command variety or otherwise, extremely problematic... So I'm not going to be able to give you any knockdown argument for moral absolutes not based on the will of God- in my estimation there is no such argument, because there are no such things as moral absolutes.

At best I could summarize the positions of some of those who do argue for moral realism, but I couldn't do any better and could probably do far worse than many sites on the web- stanford's online encyclopedia of philosophy, hell even wikipedia.

If you're really interested in what sorts of foundations ethicists use to ground moral realist theories, Google "moral realism", "ethical rationalism", "deontology", or any of the specific thinkers I've mentioned (Kant, Mill, Parfit, Moore).

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

This response is like saying 2 + 2 = cheese.

Your last response to me said that 2 + 2 equalled cheese. I assumed you sent me word salad on purpose because you don't want to talk, but maybe you're just not able to follow what I'm saying. Who knows.

I do not wish to keep dealing with things that have been very easily dispensed with by several people.

Right. So we are different. Even though many people have easily dispensed with the silly notion of the Christian God, still I will engage 1robin on the existence of the Christian God.

I enjoy debate.

 

[yoda89]

 

[1robin]

I'm saying that I can grant your claim, and still fail to see what it amounts to in the context of our discussion- if you had the patience to track the line of discussion to figure out what your original point was, please enlighten me because I've simply forgotten.

If you have forgotten how do you know my points are deficient in any way. It was generally the relative success of Bible criticism. I think anyway. I half hoped you would do the work to make sure.

Right, but since you admittedly have no familiarity with these claims, your out-of-hand proclamation that they're mistaken is worth very little...

Is the fact that no one on Earth has the slightest idea what gravity is or why it works mean we can't say it exists? No God, no transcendent standard, no standard absolutely no chance objective moral foundations exist whether I know the definition of any term you cough up or not. BTW we only know how to describe gravity's effects and what it depends on but that has no relevance.

You've already mentioned one yourself- "natural law", which is one variety of non-divine command moral realism.

Natural law can only state what is. It can't possibly tell us what should be.

I told you already that its not a position I subscribe to; I don't think there are such a thing as moral "absolutes" or "objective" moral values- ultimately, I find the argument for ANY sort of moral realism, divine-command variety or otherwise, extremely problematic... So I'm not going to be able to give you any knockdown argument for moral absolutes not based on the will of God- in my estimation there is no such argument, because there are no such things as moral absolutes.

Then why are we contending it at all? I believe they do but I also believe they can't unless God does and you agree apparently with at least the latter.

At best I could summarize the positions of some of those who do argue for moral realism, but I couldn't do any better and could probably do far worse than many sites on the web- stanford's online encyclopedia of philosophy, hell even wikipedia.

I want a sentence from the person I am debating concerning a concept they introduced. Do professional debater's refer each other to Wikipedia.

If you're really interested in what sorts of foundations ethicists use to ground moral realist theories, Google "moral realism", "ethical rationalism", "deontology", or any of the specific thinkers I've mentioned (Kant, Mill, Parfit, Moore).

I can barely keep up with only the thread on is the US a Christian nation. I have no time to look up the foundations for concepts you introduced. Especially since in my view they do not exist nor can they.

 

[1robin]

Your last response to me said that 2 + 2 equalled cheese. I assumed you sent me word salad on purpose because you don't want to talk, but maybe you're just not able to follow what I'm saying. Who knows.

That statement was in repose to your claims I did not want to talk. It did not cause the statement it was in response to did it?

Right. So we are different. Even though many people have easily dispensed with the silly notion of the Christian God, still I will engage 1robin on the existence of the Christian God.

I enjoy debate.

Ok.

 

[1robin]

That is very funny even though I have no idea why.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

If you have forgotten how do you know my points are deficient in any way.

I didn't say your point was "deficient", I said I fail to see what it amounts to, what the import is, what the "therefore...such-and-such" is supposed to be.

Is the fact that no one on Earth has the slightest idea what gravity is or why it works mean we can't say it exists? No God, no transcendent standard, no standard absolutely no chance objective moral foundations exist whether I know the definition of any term you cough up or not.

Needless to say, this is not an appropriate analogy.

Natural law can only state what is. It can't possibly tell us what should be.

Well, but that's precisely what natural law supposedly does- tell us what should be the case.

I don't believe there is any such thing, but you can't simply dismiss serious intellectual positions with a wave of the hand, as you seem to think.

Then why are we contending it at all? I believe they do but I also believe they can't unless God does and you agree apparently with at least the latter.

No, not at all. I don't think there are such a thing as moral absolutes, nor do I think the argument that the only possible basis for moral absolutes is the existence of God is any good.

I want a sentence from the person I am debating concerning a concept they introduced. Do professional debater's refer each other to Wikipedia.

Good grief... Which of us are professional debaters? Neither of us? And are we actually having a debate? No?

Ok then. And you're the one "introduced the concept" anyways; I simply responded to your claim that God is the only basis for absolute moral truths by pointing out that prima facie this is false, since there have been plenty of other proposed foundations for objective morality over the centuries.

I can barely keep up with only the thread on is the US a Christian nation. I have no time to look up the foundations for concepts you introduced. Especially since in my view they do not exist nor can they.

Ignorance is bliss, I guess. Whatever floats your boat- just don't forgot that your "view" here is based on nothing if you haven't actually ever bothered to look at the positions your view is concerning (i.e. moral realists who do not posit the existence of God).

But maybe I should ask first, what makes you think there are such things as moral absolutes in the first place? I mean, if there are no such things as moral absolutes then it doesn't matter what does or does not constitute an acceptable basis for positing moral absolutes, yes?

So perhaps you should say exactly what you mean by "moral absolute" as well as your reason for supposing there are such things.

 

[yoda89]

That is very funny even though I have no idea why.

Things were starting to get heated there. Thought it might make someone laugh. Glad you did.

 

[ZooGirl02]

I believe that the Catholic Church is the one and only completely true religion.

 

[anshu]

I believe that the Catholic Church is the one and only completely true religion.

I am afraid most of the time the catholic church dont follow what the Holy Bible has to say.

 

[ZooGirl02]

I am afraid most of the time the catholic church dont follow what the Holy Bible has to say.

Can you give me some examples please?

 

[Kalidas]

I believe that the Catholic Church is the one and only completely true religion.

Then explain the Pope saying that all people can go to heaven even atheists if their good people?

Mind you when I heard him say that it was the first time EVER I was happy with the Vatican, and I do mean EVER

 

[yoda89]

I believe that the Catholic Church is the one and only completely true religion.

For a doctrine that promotes charity and giving up all worldly possessions they sure do have quite of financial assets in Vatican City. Acquired through bloodshed and lying to priests. Denying them children so they could inherit their wealth also. Although the hundreds of statues are very beautiful. Most beautiful museum/religious place I've ever been. Although I thought the Sistine Chapel was overrated compared to the long hallways of art and statues.

You also seem to be all over the place with the forums. You may want to take a break and reflect on what you really personally believe.

 

[Ingledsva]

For a doctrine that promotes charity and giving up all worldly possessions they sure do have quite of financial assets in Vatican City. Acquired through bloodshed and lying to priests. Denying them children so they could inherit their wealth also. Although the hundreds of statues are very beautiful. Most beautiful museum/religious place I've ever been. Although I thought the Sistine Chapel was overrated compared to the long hallways of art and statues.

You also seem to be all over the place with the forums. You may want to take a break and reflect on what you really personally believe.

Actually a lot of the things they do come from the ancient Hebrew practices.

The Tanakh says to bring gold, and silver, and jewels, and fine material, for the temple and priests. It tells us tables were covered in the stuff, and candelabra were solid gold, etc.

Praying to special people to intercede with God, is also an ancient Hebrew practice. They prayed and asked passed relatives and patriarchs to intercede for them, etc.

*

 

[Kalidas]

Actually a lot of the things they do come from the ancient Hebrew practices.

The Tanakh says to bring gold, and silver, and jewels, and fine material, for the temple and priests. It tells us tables were covered in the stuff, and candelabra were solid gold, etc.

Praying to special people to intercede with God, is also an ancient Hebrew practice. They prayed and asked passed relatives and patriarchs to intercede for them, etc.

*

That doesn't make his point any less true. For a Religion based on a man that says "the meek will inherit the Earth" or that "it is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle, then for a rich man to get into heaven", they certainly have a lot of wealth.

 

[1robin]

I believe that the Catholic Church is the one and only completely true religion.

Based on what? A very long track record of being very wrong on doctrine?

1. Is the sale of documents that forgive sin to pay for a cathedral the one true path?
2. Is crediting men who sit is special chairs and wear magic hats the proper standard for infallibility (even when they make infallible claims that contradict each other) the one true path.
3. Is waging wars that killed Jews, Christian's, and Muslims by the thousands for power, land, and money the right path?
4. Is demanding their word overturns God's word right?
5. Were the dark ages the way to go?
6. Is denying people the word of God in their own language correct especially when they substitute a language the Bible was not written in as the only thing available?
7. Was condemning Luther right? Burning witches, the inquisitions, the conquests, or having a number of nails from the true cross that could build a Church right?


Don't get me wrong the Catholic Church has done many things right but their errors are so despicable and grievous that they render your claim void. Christianity is write but the Church has not always been.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I believe that the Catholic Church is the one and only completely true religion.

That Catholicism is NOT the "one true religion" is about the safest bet we could make... Most of its theological claims are demonstrably false or incoherent.