First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
What if God was a skeptic?
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 9/29/08

mauz15 wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:
If you really think everything I said was false then why didn't you even give me a counter arguement? You kinda went politician there, accusing their opponent of being false. I really want to hear how everyone can be right in their own way when it comes to morals and ethics. If not, what else is out there that could oppose a set rule of morals or right-in-your-own-way morals?

As for your question, please rephrase it because I do not understand it.

I kind of forgot what we were talking about since I was away from my comp the entire weekend. I guess I was talking about whether there is only one truth for each moral rule or if there can be many. What I mean by many is that are there rules that can be in conflict with each other on the same moral rule? I have seen the grey areas for this question but I want to hear from you before I say more.



find me a link defining culturalistic philosophy because I have never heard of such term.

I'm too lazy to look up a link. Just find one yourself, sorry there. Basically it's political correctness (pc), anyone can be right in their own way because of the way their cultures do things. Like stoning people as a punishment can be okay for some people if their culture allows that but it doesn't have to be okay with us, but we shouldn't try to correct people according to our beliefs. That's how those pc people roll.



We are talking about ethics correct? then from the top of my head:


Well all these feilds concerning ethics but rather they are different perspectives around the same subject. For how can we walk around with different ethics and expect them to completely work with another? I'm a Kant fan, look up his catagorical imperative.



I have never heard of the idea of feminist philosophy and 'culturalistic' being the basic of anything.

Oh, when I said that, that was merely my opinion. I just know that they had something in common and that's what my professor pointed out. Don't think too hard about.

And I also searched the book you mentioned and found something that makes me doubt it. From Amazon.com one person who claims to be a professor gave it this review



" 10 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars Bias toward analytic philosophy, June 6, 2002
By A Customer
This review is from: Philosophy: A Text With Readings (Hardcover)

While this text is serviceable for introduction to philosophy classes, I haven't used it in the sections I teach. The reason is one all to common in current philosophy textbooks: the editorial slant is decidedly toward contemporary analytic philosophy. While this philosophical movement is certainly significant, those of us in the more traditional, realist tradition find the academic imperialism of analytic philosophy a bit troublesome. This has affected this particular text's treatment of Aquinas and natural law, for example. The study questions devoted to this section demonstrate a rather dismissive and superficial understanding of the related issues. Having graduated at the B.A. level from the institution where the author teaches, I am familiar with the institutional bias on campus toward ideological "multiculturalism," and other contemporary PC "isms." During my own doctoral studies in philosophy, I shed such trendy scholarly prejudices. Classical realism is, and always has been, what I find to be the most substantial approach to the discipline. Unfortunately, those swimming with the tide of scholarly fashion, like Velasquez, attract the majority of those teaching in the field today. In fairness, the book does have many strengths. The ample primary texts included are a definite plus. The slick illustrations and study aids should help attract the limited attention spans of today's students. But the overall editorial stance is one dimensional, and does not reflect any interest in academic "inclusiveness" or "tolerance" regarding other approaches to philosophical texts--other than that of the analytic school. The best policy, in any case, is to focus on a few complete primary texts rather than employing the shot-gun blizzard of scattered readings typical of an introductory text."


Philosophy is not about answering questions, but rather asking them. You can't make one conclusion and stick with it, the same way works for psychology which is a pretty much field science. Sure, people can disagree with Aquinus and mostly everyone doesn't like pc'ism. Heck, they talk about pragmatism and that whole field is fairly disagreed with. But the whole point of the book is to look into each philosophy and see from other people's perspectives. It's not like anybody's perspective is always right, in fact some are totally debunk, but it's important to see what the person was searching for, to see what they were trying to build up upon.
I'll have to agree with the last red highlight, being exposed to more stuff is good. And if you don't understand it, that's what your professor is for. Besides, the review was by "a customer". Is that a valid critique at all? You don't even know how old "a customer" is.


Lastly, in regards to the evidence=faith

Evidence is a support for the truth of a proposition
Faith is a voluntary act. I could have faith that 1+1=4 but the evidence says otherwise.
Just because reason and faith are related does not make them equal nor makes evidence of equal degree as faith.

<____< I really should just make a whole thread about the definition of faith. There's many definitions out there, look it up on dictionary.com or something. I think the word faith you're refering to is against those christians out there quoting the bible left and right and not even explaining what it's supposed to mean from a different perspective. Don't pair me with those guys, ever. At least we got to the point where we both agree that reason and faith are related, and ya it's hard to discern if reason or faith is higher than the other. It's just something to assume because of the nature of their relationship to each other. Long story really.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 9/29/08 , edited 9/29/08

Intranetusa wrote:

crunchypibb, since you keep pming me about how my definition of faith is incorrect, let's just discuss this in the forum topic.

The problem here is you're confusing the definition of faith with the term in everyday use as a figure of speech.

When you talk about "trust in you parents" - that's a decision based on prior experiences, and in a sense an educated guess. Trust in your parents is not faith, because you have actual reasons based on experience to believe what you believe.

As for "Faith is trust to be rewarded" - that's a very narrow perspective.
You don't need the promise of a reward to have faith. Those who believe in existence after death, but not in heaven, have faith in this afterlife.

As for saying you have to have faith in reason, again, you're confusing the term 'trust' with the term 'faith' used in religions/spirituality. Sure, in the layman's everyday use of the words, faith is interchangeable with trust. When you actually start to get technical in the full definitions of each term, the terms trust and faith are quite different.

Also, when you say Buddhism and Christianity are the similar in terms of morality, there are some similarities, but there are also huge differences. Judeo-Christianity-Islam has a strict definition of morality - good vs evil, determined by the Abrahamic God and passed down through the commandments. In Buddhism, there is no central God, and morality becomes subjective. There is no good vs evil in Buddhism and other philosophies such as Daosim - because they are a part of the same whole.

As for cherry picking Kantian articles and biblical texts for your definition of faith, that's a bit 'preaching to the choir.'


We've kind of pmed about this already but I'm really not inclined to stoop to your level. <__<
I will say this about "your" definition about faith. Of course believing in something that has NO evidence whatsoever is dumb. But I seriously can't think of one subject that's like that. There's always some sort of evidence, it's just some are sketchy. So with your defination of "evidence", technically we're all faithless since there's always some sort of evidence, sketchy or not, about something. Does that make sense to you now?
Can you for once think in my perspective for a change and make your arguements from there?
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/29/08 , edited 9/29/08

"Well all these feilds concerning ethics but rather they are different perspectives around the same subject. "


that's no the point, the point is you said this "is right in their own way or that there is only one right answer to each moral question" which is limiting ethics considerably. Many of the ethical theories go beyond those two things.

the domains of morality are:

1. Actions, the act
Evaluative terms : right, wrong, permissible ***
2. Consequences
Evaluative terms : Good, bad, indifferent
3. Character
Evaluative terms : Virtuous, vicious
4. Motive
Evaluative terms : Good will, evil (bad) will

you are focusing on half of point number one.


"I'm too lazy to look up a link. Just find one yourself, sorry there. Basically it's political correctness (pc), anyone can be right in their own way because of the way their cultures do things. Like stoning people as a punishment can be okay for some people if their culture allows that but it doesn't have to be okay with us, but we shouldn't try to correct people according to our beliefs. That's how those pc people roll."


I did, found zero.

"anyone can be right in their own way because of the way their cultures do things"

that's cultural relativism. and it is at best the most flawed ethical stance.



"<____< I really should just make a whole thread about the definition of faith. There's many definitions out there, look it up on dictionary.com or something. I think the word faith you're refering to is against those christians out there quoting the bible left and right and not even explaining what it's supposed to mean from a different perspective. Don't pair me with those guys, ever. At least we got to the point where we both agree that reason and faith are related, and ya it's hard to discern if reason or faith is higher than the other. It's just something to assume because of the nature of their relationship to each other. Long story really."


Kierkegaard the Christian existentialist who argued in favor of faith said faith was voluntary. He maintained that the 'movement of faith is up to each individual and his or her personal relationship with the impossible. He believed that what many people called "faith" was actually "hope" because with hope there is a probability for something to be true, whereas true faith is believing in something even though one knows it is impossible and there is no reason for one to believe in it.'

and I agree with him. People many times confuse faith with hope.


"Of course believing in something that has NO evidence whatsoever is dumb. But I seriously can't think of one subject that's like that. There's always some sort of evidence, it's just some are sketchy."


I am God. There is evidence of this, it's just you know; sketchy.

the point I'm trying to make is that just because you can't think of it is no evidence that there isn't, a lot of claims have no evidence backing them up.

such as

I have no specific evidence that anyone has ever said "kumquats are delicious".

"right now I believe that as I am typing this there is not a huge and terrifying monster behind me about to chew off my head. I believe this on the basis of faith, since I am looking at the screen. When I turn round I shall confirm my faith on the basis of evidence. (not as evidence nor equal to but On the basis of ) This is the approach of many religious thinkers, and seems eminently reasonable."


"So with your defination of "evidence", technically we're all faithless since there's always some sort of evidence,"


Nope, you are the one linking evidence with faith somehow, not me.
and that is not 'my definition of evidence' it is from here

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/index.htm
http://www.ditext.com/runes/e.html
and here
http://books.google.com/books?id=ALdwgLMzTkIC&printsec=frontcover page 233

I also dont see anything supporting the claim of evidence=faith here
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/
nor here
http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evidence.htm

Neither was 'my definition of faith" it is what I gather from sources similar to the ones I have just listed.

example:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ALdwgLMzTkIC&printsec=frontcover page 248.

And I will let this end here. I dont have time to argue about this, as you can see from my amount of quoting and hyperlinks. Sorry.
Posted 9/29/08

mauz15 wrote:

I did, found zero.

"anyone can be right in their own way because of the way their cultures do things"

that's cultural relativism. and it is at best the most flawed ethical stance.


Wait, how? All laws and everything else are based on culture.
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/29/08

dmitsuki wrote:

Wait, how? All laws and everything else are based on culture.


well because if anyone can be right in their own way then I can be right in saying it is false to say anyone can be right in their own way and by the logic of that I will be right which goes against the logic of that view in the first place. sure, language, laws, etiquette are based on culture but that does not mean it also applies to what constitutes 'right' and 'wrong' or 'justice' or what the number 6 is.

if anyone can be right in their own way then Hitler did nothing wrong for he was right in his own way so why did we go to war with him? because we knew he was doing something wrong.

I'm not saying cultural relativism is false, it is true that cultures have relative things they value but when this relativism expands to morality then it runs into problems, that's why I said it was a flawed ethical stance not a flawed cultural theory.
805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 9/29/08 , edited 9/29/08

crunchypibb wrote:
We've kind of pmed about this already but I'm really not inclined to stoop to your level. <__<

You're not exactly stooping to any level if you're already at the bottom of the hill. Your defunct arguments don't even make any sense. The issue here is you're using the wrong dictionary definition of faith. We're talking about religious faith, not faith as in trust/confidence used in everyday speech.


crunchypibb wrote:
I will say this about "your" definition about faith. Of course believing in something that has NO evidence whatsoever is dumb.

Faith is dumb? So I suppose you think blind faith is better?

Belief in the afterlife is faith because it can't be proven or disproven.
Literal interpretation that the entire world flooded for 40 days is blind faith because it has already been disproven.

Religious faith is a choice to believe in something that has no proof - a choice that gives hope and comfort. There is nothing dumb about that. Blind faith is dumb because it flies in the face of evidence.


crunchypibb wrote:
But I seriously can't think of one subject that's like that. There's always some sort of evidence, it's just some are sketchy. So with your defination of "evidence", technically we're all faithless since there's always some sort of evidence, sketchy or not, about something. Does that make sense to you now?
Can you for once think in my perspective for a change and make your arguements from there?


The problem is that you're attributing to the evidence to the wrong aspects. The question is 'evidence for what?'

Finding sea shells on top of mountains is evidence for tectonic plates colliding, transforming coastlines into mountain ranges. It is not evidence that the entire world flooded as in Noah's Ark.

Evidence is pointless if all people do is use and distort it to support a preconceived notion without examination.
805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 9/29/08

dmitsuki wrote:

Intranetusa wrote:
This is what makes Pascal's Wager flawed. He tries to apply it to the realm of reason, but it is full of holes. The God he describes isn't particularly omnipotent or omniscient. And a God that is vain certainly doesn't fight the criteria of almighty.
In the end, Pascal's Wager is just a 'failed' attempt to promote the worship of the Abrahamic God through reason.

Because I refuse to read that much , and noticed this in particular, I'm just going to say YEAH I've been saying it was a flawed wager sense forever ago.


lol, yeh I kinda got carried away with the massive text.
But I'll agree with your statement even though I think we differ on 'what part is flawed.'
2669 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Right there
Offline
Posted 9/29/08
but if he doesnt you would have tottally wasted your life suporting ideals you dont like, going to church and being an ass kisser

if he exist and he wants to send me to hell cuz im not kissing his ass and fearing him, i dont really care.... he just be proving he just uses ppl as a tool for making his will true and he simply rejects those who just wanna do good with any worshipping
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 9/29/08 , edited 9/29/08

Intranetusa wrote:



This bull is annoying the shiz out of me. I'm so pissed I don't feel like replying to what you said, I have a life but this debate is annoying cause we can't even speak on the same level. Let's just keep talking about the word "faith" here.
http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-341676/What-does-the-word-faith-mean-to-you.html
Having a debate with you is like talking to rock, nothing ever gets through.
805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 9/29/08

crunchypibb wrote:


Replied via PM
1034 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / new york
Offline
Posted 10/1/08
this shouldnt even be up for discussion god is not a dam skeptic period...
805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 10/2/08

diazragu08 wrote:

this shouldnt even be up for discussion god is not a dam skeptic period...


So says you, who has met God himself and asked him personally?
Posted 10/2/08
If there is a god ...than im sure that he wouldn't apprectiate someone believing in him as a safe option, just in case he does exist...
Posted 10/29/08
wooah..? that wud be devasting to the human race..
so ppl who have faith will go to hell if there is..
i cant imagine how is god gonna judge ppl..
then scientists should be saint then if that were to happen..
i like what pascal's said.. thanks i learned something useful today..
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 10/29/08 , edited 10/29/08

leviathan343 wrote:

Pascal didn't think it through, as shown by the two huge errors he fails to address in his wager (because he took an inherently biased assumption that it was either the Christian God or nothing; in reality it is [the set of all possible deities] vs. nothing).
And where do you live? It's 3:00 in the afternoon here.


On top of that, making a consequentialist argument for belief in God is, in some religions, contrary to the point. Would there truly be any faith, and would that faith even be spiritually valid if it existed, if one held it so that he could be happy in the afterlife?

Yet another gnostic religious argument fails to convince, and this problem continues today. Most supposed "proofs" I see of the existence of a particular deity only affirm some kind of initial cause that might have intelligence, which means nothing if no other traits of such a deity (including what its moral standards are and if it even has any) can be established.

I guess Pascal's Wager has been torn apart enough now. Should that be the end of the thread, or is there actually some value in discussing a skepticism-rewarding God who is no more provable than others?


First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.