Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Theli · 01-11-2002, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bgponder:
 <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Jesus, theo. Can't you think at all outside that CP box? Can't you just answer one question straight, without backhanded Reformed/Calvinist preaching? Answer Theli's question about why there are no more revelations, even if it's with chap-verse like "when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part shall be done away..."--but lose the Party Line!! Show some originality, anyway!! You really are beginning to sound like a recording.

Peace, non-CP cornbread Barry

That's nice... But I'm still looking for an answer. Not cryptic songlyrics... Can't anyone give me a straight answer?

Theli · 01-11-2002, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus:


Thank you for demonstrating my point. You assert "thinking" as the means by which we decide right from wrong. But thinking cannot "decide" anything unless it has some standard, so "authority" by which to evaluate it. Thinking can't decide which actions are right and which are wrong unless it is first established that there is a basis for such concepts. Thinking alone, cannot justify morality or ethics.
You may want to assert a pragmatic system like Utilitarianism, and decide right and wrong on that basis. But that is mere preference.

I didn't mean only ethics... BTW, where did you get ethics and morality from? Wasn't the question about the existance of god? Right and wrong is not always a question of morality. And did you forget the word "reason"?

By the way, what excacly do you mean by "authority"?

theophilus · 01-11-2002, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bgponder:
 <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Jesus, theo. Can't you think at all outside that CP box? Can't you just answer one question straight, without backhanded Reformed/Calvinist preaching? Answer Theli's question about why there are no more revelations, even if it's with chap-verse like "when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part shall be done away..."--but lose the Party Line!! Show some originality, anyway!! You really are beginning to sound like a recording.

Peace, non-CP cornbread Barry

To answer theological questions without first establishing a frame of reference is an exercise in futility. I do not argue theology with unbelievers because that would be to acknowledge their position as legitimate, i.e., they can arrive at truth without first submitting to God's word as authoritative.
However, for the cause of peace...

And about "Revelation"... If you are talking about stories recorded in the bible, it's nothing really that makes that more true than any other fiction.

This requires no answer than "question begging."

BTW, the bible is packed with miracles and revelations. Why does nothing like that happen now?

Again, that's an unproven assumption on your part. There are Christians testifying to miracles all over the world. Wheter they are true or not in any given case, I don't know.

Theologically, there is no more revelation because God's purpose has been fully realized in his Son. "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spokento us by His Son, who he has appointed the heir of all things." Heb. 1: 1 & 2.

If you are talking about any personal revelation, there is no reason for me to believe that something like that ever happened to you.[/QUOTE]

Whether or not God may give a "word" to an individual today is a point of dispute among Christians. There is no more need and, therefore, no possibility for the kind of revelation contained in scripture.

I will not debate this answer, thank you very much.

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: theophilus ]

theophilus · 01-11-2002, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Theli:


I didn't mean only ethics... BTW, where did you get ethics and morality from? Wasn't the question about the existance of god? Right and wrong is not always a question of morality. And did you forget the word "reason"?

By the way, what excacly do you mean by "authority"?

I got it from your message: "reason is the way we decide right and wrong."
Right and wrong are inherently moral terms. If you mean "correct" and "incorrect," that is a different issue.
I didn't forget "reason," I showed that it is not sufficient to establish knowledge.
Authority = "standard."

Theli · 01-11-2002, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus:


I got it from your message: "reason is the way we decide right and wrong."
Right and wrong are inherently moral terms. If you mean "correct" and "incorrect," that is a different issue.
I didn't forget "reason," I showed that it is not sufficient to establish knowledge.
Authority = "standard."

Thank you, I was just going to say this. "Standard" IS a much better word to use than "Authority".
But about right and wrong... Those words can have many meanings. Like if I were to claim that 1 + 1 = 2. Now that's correct, but you can also use the word "right". But ok, if you like correct and incorrect better we can use that.
"reason is the way we decide right and wrong."
hmmm... I might rephrase this abit saying
"Reason is a standard from we can decide right from wrong."

Because, thinking is no standard, it's just a way of reaching a conclution based on the standard at hand. But reason is very much a standard, just as morality. Although it's not an inherited standard, or something you can learn from a book, such as mathematics.
Do you think morality can't be reached by oneself?
Does it need some sort outside influence?

bgponder · 01-15-2002, 03:06 PM

O, theophilus!! Thank You for straying ever so slightly from the path!! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

See there, I am not a totally ungrateful heathen--though heathen, nevertheless.

Peace & Cbd Barry

theophilus · 01-15-2002, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Theli:


Thank you, I was just going to say this. "Standard" IS a much better word to use than "Authority".
But about right and wrong... Those words can have many meanings. Like if I were to claim that 1 + 1 = 2. Now that's correct, but you can also use the word "right". But ok, if you like correct and incorrect better we can use that.
"reason is the way we decide right and wrong."
hmmm... I might rephrase this abit saying
"Reason is a standard from we can decide right from wrong."

I don't see how this helps. Reason is not a standard (as you observe), it is simply a process. We try to be "rathional," i.e., logical in our thinking. Reason cannot determine what is right or wrong unless it has some standard by which to evaluate courses of action. Reason cannot tell us that is is "wrong," i.e., morally unacceptable, to kill. We must first have some standard which says "it is wrong to kill," and then determine how that standard applies to the course of aciton under examination.

Because, thinking is no standard, it's just a way of reaching a conclution based on the standard at hand. But reason is very much a standard, just as morality. Although it's not an inherited standard, or something you can learn from a book, such as mathematics.

I can only assume you mean "logic" here rather than "thinking," and, yes it is a standard. But there is nothing compelling about logic unless we first have a standard that says we "ought" to be logical; we should not try to use bad logic to decieve.

Do you think morality can't be reached by oneself? Does it need some sort outside influence?

One can certainly have standards which are of value to oneself. However, these do not meet the classical definition of morality which requires an obligation, i.e., an "ought."
We "ought" not kill because it is wrong, not because of any temporary pragmatic/utilitarian purpose.
The only foundation for such a system is religion.

Theli · 01-15-2002, 04:00 PM

If you think of the word "reason" as a verb then it's ofcourse not a standard. It's a way to reach a conclusion based on the standard "reason".

If you touch fire you get hurt and won't do it again. If someone lights another fire and tell you to touch that, you can out of reason assume that the new flame will hurt as well. You don't need any knowledge about the fire to know it will hurt (only that it is there). So reason could of course also be called logic.

Quote:

But there is nothing compelling about logic unless we first have a standard that says we "ought" to be logical; we should not try to use bad logic to decieve.

If you need a another standard to back the logic up then wich standard would you use in the example above?

theophilus · 01-16-2002, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Theli:
If you think of the word "reason" as a verb then it's ofcourse not a standard. It's a way to reach a conclusion based on the standard "reason".

If you touch fire you get hurt and won't do it again. If someone lights another fire and tell you to touch that, you can out of reason assume that the new flame will hurt as well. You don't need any knowledge about the fire to know it will hurt (only that it is there). So reason could of course also be called logic.

If you need a another standard to back the logic up then wich standard would you use in the example above?

You use the standard of assuming the reality of your experience, the reliability of your senses in perceiving the fire, the assumption that the fire will produce the same effect in subsequent encounters. None of these are based on reason and are, in fact, the foundation for reasoning.

Theli · 01-16-2002, 04:39 PM

"None of these are based on reason and are, in fact, the foundation for reasoning."

I never said that standards such as experience was based on reason. You missenterpret what I meant. I fully agree with the above statement you made, only I used a different way to express it.

A child doesn't have much ability to reason and can be fooled into doing or believing something much easier than an adult.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-15-2002, 03:06 PM	#76
bgponder Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 156	O, theophilus!! Thank You for straying ever so slightly from the path!! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> See there, I am not a totally ungrateful heathen--though heathen, nevertheless. Peace & Cbd Barry

01-16-2002, 04:39 PM	#80
Theli Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,567	"None of these are based on reason and are, in fact, the foundation for reasoning." I never said that standards such as experience was based on reason. You missenterpret what I meant. I fully agree with the above statement you made, only I used a different way to express it. A child doesn't have much ability to reason and can be fooled into doing or believing something much easier than an adult.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.