discovery versus jesus

[pianofrieak2]

Ok, here we go: First off, I was talking about the scriptures of the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus during my post. All of those, at least on a basic message level, are relatively consistant. I wasn't really going to dive into the new testament/old testament conflicts, but I personally believe in the morals of the teachings of Christ. Undoubtably someone will call me unchristian for some kind of statement or other i have/will make, so let me first off say I'm not claiming to be completely Christian.

 

 

 

So what exactly are you? You believe in some things but not others? How do you know which principles to take and which ones not to take?

 

 

 

It sounds pretty relativist (whatever I want) to me.

 

 

 

Anyway... I go by reasoning guided by the morals I believe to be true, and by the way Jesus might have reacted to things. For example, I personally believe some of the punishments in the Old Testament are a little harsh, and thus would not want someone who does any work on the Sabbath to be killed. How many people have mowed the lawn or done homework on it? So help me G-d, but I have.

 

 

 

The Old Testament seems harsh because it is the pre-requisite to the New Testament. In the Old Testament, they judged your actions alone. But in the NT, God judges the heart. In the OT, there was no grace and harsh punishments (i.e. Saul made one mistake and was taken off as Israel's king) but in the NT, there is an abundance of grace.

 

 

 

The OT is there to point us to our need for God. 10 Commandments anyone? It shows how sinful we are and how in need of God we are.

 

 

 

I believe that some things can be taken an modified according to what I personally believe to be right, what I personally believe to be the will of G-d. And who am I to tell you what is right and what is wrong? No one.

 

 

 

And you say you're not a relativist? You must have no idea what one is. A relativist says that there is no absolutes so you can't tell me what to do. As you said, "no one" can tell you what is right or wrong.

 

 

 

I have my beliefs. You can have yours. Don't attack mine.

 

 

 

I was saying you're a relativist which goes against all of Christ's teachings. Christ said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father (heaven) except through Me." That leaves out all relativistic teachings, which I have already proven are self-contradictory in my other post.

[Kewl_Sabre]

So what exactly are you? You believe in some things but not others? How do you know which principles to take and which ones not to take?

 

 

 

It sounds pretty relativist (whatever I want) to me.

 

 

 

Ok, I spent the whole post explaining WHY I said there are some things to follow and others not to follow.

 

 

 

For example, the Bible says that slavery is ok, good even. I disagree with that because I believe it to be morally wrong. If you call that relativist, fine with me. I call it going by my own moral compass, and what I believe many would agree with.

 

 

 

The Old Testament seems harsh because it is the pre-requisite to the New Testament. In the Old Testament, they judged your actions alone. But in the NT, God judges the heart. In the OT, there was

 

no grace and harsh punishments (i.e. Saul made one mistake and was taken off as Israel's king) but in the NT, there is an abundance of grace.

 

 

 

The OT is there to point us to our need for God. 10 Commandments anyone? It shows how sinful we are and how in need of God we are.

 

 

 

Ok... but what does that have to do with the debate? It's still in the bible, and I still disagree with it.

 

 

 

 

 

And you say you're not a relativist? You must have no idea what one is. A relativist says that there is no absolutes so you can't tell me what to do. As you said, "no one" can tell you what is right or wrong.

 

 

 

As mentioned, I don't really care what you call me. Those lines were in response to the "Who are you to tell me what right and wrong is." My point was that I wasn't telling you anything in that post, so basically I was agreeing with your statement that others can't tell others what to believe.

 

 

 

And what the bloody hell does relativism have to do with anything???

 

 

 

I have a set of morals that I apply to life AND to the teachings of the bible. I don't necessarily believe in a completely literal translation of the Bible, which is very simple. As for picking and choosing, I do it based on what I believe to be right.

 

 

 

Have you never done ANYTHING on the Sabbath? I could be wrong, but most people have. I don't think that we should still kill the people who do things on it. That type of thing is the only thing I disagree with in the bible.

 

 

 

If you disagree with that, fine. But my beliefs have solid grounding in what I see is right. I fail to see how any of that goes against the teachings of Christ.

[insane]

 

I have a set of morals that I apply to life AND to the teachings of the bible. I don't necessarily believe in a completely literal translation of the Bible, which is very simple. As for picking and choosing, I do it based on what I believe to be right.

 

 

 

So your set of morals is completely irrelevent to the Bible. You don't "pick" and "choose" from the Bible, you just agree with the Bible when it's convenient to your thought process. So it's more like the Bible agreeing with you on some points, not you agreeing with the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

For example, the Bible says that slavery is ok, good even.

 

 

 

Back then slavery was an alternative to being homeless. It wasn't "hey, I want to oppress someone and get free labour". Taking on a slave meant taking on a member of the family, and saving them from a life of poverty. Slaves were sometimes treated so well they returned to their masters as bondservants, willingly. Being a slave wasn't considered socially low back then, you're applying today's definitions to yesterday's principles.

[pianofrieak2]

 

For example, the Bible says that slavery is ok, good even. I disagree with that because I believe it to be morally wrong. If you call that relativist, fine with me. I call it going by my own moral compass, and what I believe many would agree with.

 

 

 

How does the Bible say slavery is ok?

 

 

 

The Old Testament seems harsh because it is the pre-requisite to the New Testament. In the Old Testament, they judged your actions alone. But in the NT, God judges the heart. In the OT, there was

 

no grace and harsh punishments (i.e. Saul made one mistake and was taken off as Israel's king) but in the NT, there is an abundance of grace.

 

 

 

The OT is there to point us to our need for God. 10 Commandments anyone? It shows how sinful we are and how in need of God we are.

 

 

 

Ok... but what does that have to do with the debate? It's still in the bible, and I still disagree with it.

 

 

 

It has everything to do with the debate! Our debate, at least to me, is over relativism and how you pick and choose which principles to use. How do you pick them? Ghost has already talked about utilitarianism/pragmatism, leaving you with only two others. Selfishness or nihilism.

 

 

 

 

 

As mentioned, I don't really care what you call me. Those lines were in response to the "Who are you to tell me what right and wrong is." My point was that I wasn't telling you anything in that post, so basically I was agreeing with your statement that others can't tell others what to believe.

 

 

 

I think that the Bible tells others how to live. That simple. When you pick and choose, you are being a relativist. Which is self-contradictory and which is what this whole debate is over.

 

 

 

I have a set of morals that I apply to life AND to the teachings of the bible. I don't necessarily believe in a completely literal translation of the Bible, which is very simple. As for picking and choosing, I do it based on what I believe to be right.

 

 

 

Relativism anyone?

 

 

 

OK, since you must have missed my point on relativism, let me tell you why it is self-contradictory.

 

 

 

Option A=Murder is wrong.

 

Option B=Murder is right.

 

 

 

Relativism says A and B are both equally valid if you sincerely believe in them to be true. This violates the Law of Self Contradiction. But, to go one step further, who are you to say that relativism actually is a valid viewpoint. :?:

 

 

 

You can't enforce your relativistic beliefs (i.e. your morals of good and bad) on me because you can't enforce anything on me. Which makes relativism self-contradictory. You can't argue for relativism because relativism can't argue. Period.

 

 

 

But my beliefs have solid grounding in what I see is right. I fail to see how any of that goes against the teachings of Christ.

 

 

 

To be honest, I don't know what your specific morals are. And, to be perfectly clear, it doesn't matter. I am merely arguing that morality has to be defined by something other than yourself. Essentially, God. You keep going back to your point of morality being determined by yourself, though most of it is Scriptural.

 

 

 

I am saying that's not good enough. It has to be entirely Scriptural.

 

 

 

Do we understand each other? :)

[bearofthunder]

 

 

 

Do you study philosophy? I encourage you to not argue with me on this subject.

 

 

 

Pragmatism, like skepticism, is a philosophical method. That means that there is nothing about pragmatism that forces anyone to know the truth about anything.

 

 

 

John Dewey, for instance, is a very well known pragmatist. His methodolgy is revealed in his works such as How we think. However, skepticism is another philosophical method used by many great philosophers including Socrates.

 

 

 

If you are going to try and use pragmatism as a methodology, you are going to run straight into people with very epistemological mindsets who are going to disagree with everything you say based on the uncertainty that exists when dsicussing what you can actually know.

 

 

 

Basic point: pragmatism doesn't prove anything. It's merely one method people use to arrive at their own personal philosophical ideas.

 

 

 

What I said in my post is that one's belief of right and wrong can be based on practical reasoning instead of biblical reasoning. If you think "people with very epistemological mindsets" would disagree with the examples I listed in my previous post, then I'd like to know what their alternative reasoning would be.

 

 

 

For example:

 

 

OK, since you must have missed my point on relativism, let me tell you why it is self-contradictory.

 

 

 

Option A=Murder is wrong.

 

Option B=Murder is right.

 

 

 

Relativism says A and B are both equally valid if you sincerely believe in them to be true.

 

 

 

How would option B ever be justified in the practical sense? I might be able to misquote the bible to prove it, but I wouldn't be able to prove it pragmatically.

 

 

 

 

Being a slave wasn't considered socially low back then, you're applying today's definitions to yesterday's principles.

 

 

 

But that's what the point is. You say that the we can't "pick and choose" from the bible, but the bible approves of slavery. So wouldn't following the bible completely mean applying today's definition to yesterday's principles?

[Kewl_Sabre]

I'd quote all that I'm going to respond to, but my post would probably be about five pages long. So...

 

 

 

First off...

 

 

Do we understand each other? :)

 

 

 

Actually, I think we do. You think that morals set forth should be intirely scriptural, as you have stated. I believe that they can be altered by people. On this, I think we are clear.

 

 

 

And I accept what you are saying. So, we're good. :)

 

 

 

However, there are still a few things I want to say.

 

 

 

Insane's quote (since i can't get it to work)

 

Being a slave wasn't considered socially low back then, you're applying today's definitions to yesterday's principles.

 

 

 

Really? So that's why the Israelites were so keen on STAYING IN EGYPT AS SLAVES, eh? I'm sure Moses would agree with you. ; )

 

 

 

And as bearofthunder said;

 

 

 

But that's what the point is. You say that the we can't "pick and choose" from the bible, but the bible approves of slavery. So wouldn't following the bible completely mean applying today's definition to yesterday's principles?

 

 

 

The whole argument Insane was making was based on the fact that Yesterday's Principle's CAN be applied to today's definitions, which is really the cornerstone of this debate.

 

 

 

I guess my overarching point of view is that there are some things in the Bible that just CAN'T be applied to today's standards. Let's face it, the world is different than it was around 2000+ years ago.

 

 

 

There are things in the Bible I find hard to believe anyone would follow. For example...

 

 

 

It sets forth guidlines for slavery. This has been discussed, and is decidely a bad thing. It is also stated that "the slave is the owner's property", and also states that they can indeed be struck.

 

 

 

Exodus 22.25 states that you can't extract interest from poor people. Looks like we've got some bankers to stone.

 

 

 

One that I have particular issue with... "You shall not revil god(not a problem), or curse a leader of your people (freedom of speech, dude)."

 

 

 

Another BIG one... "The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me... seven days it shall remain with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to me."

 

 

 

There are also several farming regulations, that you don't harvest every seven years.

 

 

 

Apply those to today and you might have a problem. I accept that picking and choosing does inteed cause trouble as many have slightly... off sets of morals, but at some point...

 

 

 

I have heard arugments, in fact by some in this discussion, that these were set forth for only the Israelites. But that would be picking and choosing, and these are all from the same place as the ten commandments.

 

 

 

Although I AM open to new points about these things. This, however, is my current and longstanding set of opinions.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

Do you study philosophy? I encourage you to not argue with me on this subject.

 

 

 

Pragmatism, like skepticism, is a philosophical method. That means that there is nothing about pragmatism that forces anyone to know the truth about anything.

 

 

 

John Dewey, for instance, is a very well known pragmatist. His methodolgy is revealed in his works such as How we think. However, skepticism is another philosophical method used by many great philosophers including Socrates.

 

 

 

If you are going to try and use pragmatism as a methodology, you are going to run straight into people with very epistemological mindsets who are going to disagree with everything you say based on the uncertainty that exists when dsicussing what you can actually know.

 

 

 

Basic point: pragmatism doesn't prove anything. It's merely one method people use to arrive at their own personal philosophical ideas.

 

 

 

What I said in my post is that one's belief of right and wrong can be based on practical reasoning instead of biblical reasoning. If you think "people with very epistemological mindsets" would disagree with the examples I listed in my previous post, then I'd like to know what their alternative reasoning would be.

 

 

 

What you said was that each one could be justified pragmaticallly. My point is that in philosophy, pragmatism is only one way of thinking about it, and several well known philosophers disregard pragmatism completely. You might use pragmatism to justify it for yourself, but pragmatism doesn't prove anything.

 

 

 

EDIT: If you don't believe me, this is what you said:

 

 

 

How do I know? Easy. I use common sense. Take a look at the messages in the bible about what is right and what is wrong. Each one can be easily justified by pragmatism.

 

 

 

My point is that YOUR common sense based on pragmatism, is only one method of philosophy that not everyone supports.

 

 

 

And to answer your question about how people with espistemological mindets would disagree with you...they might say that you have no way of actually knowing what is right and wrong, and that your definition of knowing what is right and wrong is only based on your beliefs, and therefore your opinion. If it is your opinion, then it is hardly universal.

[cotamatias]

Just because you can't explain it, doesn't mean it can't be done. I've walked across water several times.

 

Oh really? that sounds very facinating. message me in my inbox and i will tell you my email. I wish to see this.

 

Anyway onto the topic at hand. Look i agree with a person earlier on who said that science is not against religion, although i get the feeling that religion is almost always out to bit science. I think that it makes all perfect sense. I hope every one know the Darwin was a religious man who came up with a very plausible theory. All the science people want is to here the religious people say " yes that is possible." I thnk that many scientists are religious as well, we need to have science to advance humans farther into the future. As for walking on water... Well it may have happened or might not. I think the Bible is not concerned with historical facts but more with religious facts. Perhaps walking on water is all just a metaphor for a teaching of his and not a historic fact.

[Guest GhostRanger]

You all need to understand that science, religion, and philosophy are three different fields, and have nothing to do with each other. Adler once said that "trying to scientficially prove the existence of God is like trying to theologically prove the structure of an atom." They are completely unrelated to each other.

[insane]

Insane's quote (since i can't get it to work)

 

Being a slave wasn't considered socially low back then, you're applying today's definitions to yesterday's principles.

 

 

 

Really? So that's why the Israelites were so keen on STAYING IN EGYPT AS SLAVES, eh? I'm sure Moses would agree with you. ; )

 

 

 

Slavery isn't talked as being good in reference to the Israelites in Egypt. Show me a verse that does. The slavery that is not looked down upon is an Israelite taking a fellow Israelite as a "slave", or "servant". In fact, every seven years slaves are to be set free, and all people that owe debt become debt free. I think this is called the year of Jubilee, I might be wrong on that name. But either way you're taking things out of context.

 

 

 

But that's what the point is. You say that the we can't "pick and choose" from the bible, but the bible approves of slavery. So wouldn't following the bible completely mean applying today's definition to yesterday's principles?

 

 

 

Hmm...

 

 

 

Principles was a bad word, I shouldn't have used it. I should have said applying today's definitions to yesterday's definitions. Since I believe moral principles never change, I shouldn't have said that. Must have had a mind slip.

 

 

 

My point was, is that back then, having slaves wasn't a bad thing - the slaves didn't think it was so bad! (I'm referring to the Israelite servant type slavery that isn't looked down upon, not the out-of-context slavery that the above quoted poster used). The principle remains the same for today, and for back then. I believe moral principles remain the same, but can be applied differently.

 

 

 

Let's use cussing as an example.

 

Some people believe it is wrong, and some people don't believe it is wrong. But what keep the principle from being relative is that the principle isn't based on cussing, it's based on general speech. I would vouch that the principle in question in this situation is "Always speak kindly to each other". Some people believe cussing is not speaking kindly, others differ. But they all hold the principle that speaking kindly is better than speaking unkindly. Cussing is just a way of applying it - people can apply the principle in different ways, but the principle remains intact.

 

 

 

 

 

So the principle relating to slavery might be to "always treat your fellow man with respect and honour". Back then, slavery upheld that principle - since slaves were given decent wages, and a good quality of life. They could go free every seven years, with provisions given so they could get a new start! But today, slavery isn't like that; or seen as such. Slavery doesn't uphold the principle today, so it isn't condoned. But that is because slavery is an application of a more general principle that will always remain intact.

[bearofthunder]

 

 

 

What you said was that each one could be justified pragmaticallly. My point is that in philosophy, pragmatism is only one way of thinking about it, and several well known philosophers disregard pragmatism completely. You might use pragmatism to justify it for yourself, but pragmatism doesn't prove anything.

 

 

 

EDIT: If you don't believe me, this is what you said:

 

 

 

How do I know? Easy. I use common sense. Take a look at the messages in the bible about what is right and what is wrong. Each one can be easily justified by pragmatism.

 

 

 

My point is that YOUR common sense based on pragmatism, is only one method of philosophy that not everyone supports.

 

 

 

And to answer your question about how people with espistemological mindets would disagree with you...they might say that you have no way of actually knowing what is right and wrong, and that your definition of knowing what is right and wrong is only based on your beliefs, and therefore your opinion. If it is your opinion, then it is hardly universal.

 

 

 

Basing my judgment on practical consequences is a bad thing to do?

 

Also, when I said how people with epistemological mindsets would disagree with me, I didn't mean just their claim that my views are not universal. I meant for you to show me how these people would justify things like murder and polygamy in order to prove that my views are not universal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So the principle relating to slavery might be to "always treat your fellow man with respect and honour". Back then, slavery upheld that principle - since slaves were given decent wages, and a good quality of life. They could go free every seven years, with provisions given so they could get a new start! But today, slavery isn't like that; or seen as such. Slavery doesn't uphold the principle today, so it isn't condoned. But that is because slavery is an application of a more general principle that will always remain intact.

 

 

 

How do you know the general principle isn't "always treat authority with respect and honour"?

 

Oops, I think you just used common sense to decide how you feel about an issue.

[cotamatias]

Mod please get rid of this post, it was a mistake. deleate it.

[cotamatias]

 

I have a set of morals that I apply to life AND to the teachings of the bible. I don't necessarily believe in a completely literal translation of the Bible, which is very simple. As for picking and choosing, I do it based on what I believe to be right.

 

 

 

So your set of morals is completely irrelevent to the Bible. You don't "pick" and "choose" from the Bible, you just agree with the Bible when it's convenient to your thought process. So it's more like the Bible agreeing with you on some points, not you agreeing with the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

For example, the Bible says that slavery is ok, good even.

 

 

 

Back then slavery was an alternative to being homeless. It wasn't "hey, I want to oppress someone and get free labour". Taking on a slave meant taking on a member of the family, and saving them from a life of poverty. Slaves were sometimes treated so well they returned to their masters as bondservants, willingly. Being a slave wasn't considered socially low back then, you're applying today's definitions to yesterday's principles.

 

I agree with the firts thing ansane said. about moral compass.

 

Well i took the liberty of bolding the key word, sometimes. Well im guessing that there were people who yes, got well treated. But i think that for every slave from then that was well treated there were two or three mistreated.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

I have a set of morals that I apply to life AND to the teachings of the bible. I don't necessarily believe in a completely literal translation of the Bible, which is very simple. As for picking and choosing, I do it based on what I believe to be right.

 

 

 

So your set of morals is completely irrelevent to the Bible. You don't "pick" and "choose" from the Bible, you just agree with the Bible when it's convenient to your thought process. So it's more like the Bible agreeing with you on some points, not you agreeing with the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

For example, the Bible says that slavery is ok, good even.

 

 

 

Back then slavery was an alternative to being homeless. It wasn't "hey, I want to oppress someone and get free labour". Taking on a slave meant taking on a member of the family, and saving them from a life of poverty. Slaves were sometimes treated so well they returned to their masters as bondservants, willingly. Being a slave wasn't considered socially low back then, you're applying today's definitions to yesterday's principles.

 

I agree with the firts thing ansane said. about moral compass.

 

Well i took the liberty of bolding the key word, sometimes. Well im guessing that there were people who yes, got well treated. But i think that for every slave from then that was well treated there were two or three mistreated.

 

 

 

You think that for every well treated slave there were two or three that were mistreated? Please provide your source.

[insane]

 

So the principle relating to slavery might be to "always treat your fellow man with respect and honour". Back then, slavery upheld that principle - since slaves were given decent wages, and a good quality of life. They could go free every seven years, with provisions given so they could get a new start! But today, slavery isn't like that; or seen as such. Slavery doesn't uphold the principle today, so it isn't condoned. But that is because slavery is an application of a more general principle that will always remain intact.

 

 

 

How do you know the general principle isn't "always treat authority with respect and honour"?

 

Oops, I think you just used common sense to decide how you feel about an issue.

 

 

 

That's why I said it "might" be. I was more throwing out the idea that slavery is an application of a higher moral principle, not a principle itself, and therefore can be morally okay in one situation but not in another - because it's not a principle in itself.

[Anesthesia]

You all need to understand that science, religion, and philosophy are three different fields, and have nothing to do with each other. Adler once said that "trying to scientficially prove the existence of God is like trying to theologically prove the structure of an atom." They are completely unrelated to each other.

 

 

 

Surely that's just saying "just believe what I say and don't question it" - for those who have no desire to know what is actually true.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Do you study philosophy? I encourage you to not argue with me on this subject.

 

 

 

Pragmatism, like skepticism, is a philosophical method. That means that there is nothing about pragmatism that forces anyone to know the truth about anything.

 

 

 

If you are going to try and use pragmatism as a methodology, you are going to run straight into people with very epistemological mindsets who are going to disagree with everything you say based on the uncertainty that exists when dsicussing what you can actually know.

 

 

 

Basic point: pragmatism doesn't prove anything. It's merely one method people use to arrive at their own personal philosophical ideas.

 

 

 

Do you study Philosophy of science? Better not question me in these areas as well :roll: Stop acting so childish, you arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t the end all of knowledge.

 

 

 

Pragmatism much like any other philosophical method (relativism, absolutismÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ), canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t actually prove anything since philosophy is a belief system. There is nothing about any philosophical system that forces anything to know the truth of anything; itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s all a belief and nothing more.

 

 

 

If you are going to try and use epistemology as a methodology, you are going to run straight into people with very pragmatic mindsets who are going to disagree with everything you say based on the certainty that exists when discussing what you can actually know.

 

 

 

Basic point: epistemology doesn't prove anything. It's merely one method people use to arrive at their own personal philosophical ideas.

 

 

 

The idea of pragmatism is that we can derive values from real phenomena (pragmatism is a very vague term, it could mean a lot of things), this is a perfectly fine way of thinking, it works within its realm (otherwise people wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t use it). It is just as ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâsureÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ as any other philosophical theory.

 

 

 

(I originally lost this post in some copying and pasting, but then I realised I may as well use your post as a template)

 

 

 

 

Relativism anyone?

 

 

 

OK, since you must have missed my point on relativism, let me tell you why it is self-contradictory.

 

 

 

Option A=Murder is wrong.

 

Option B=Murder is right.

 

 

 

Relativism says A and B are both equally valid if you sincerely believe in them to be true. This violates the Law of Self Contradiction. But, to go one step further, who are you to say that relativism actually is a valid viewpoint. :?:

 

 

 

You can't enforce your relativistic beliefs (i.e. your morals of good and bad) on me because you can't enforce anything on me. Which makes relativism self-contradictory. You can't argue for relativism because relativism can't argue. Period.

 

 

 

That logic is rather circular, you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t believe in something relativistic because it is relativistic?? Relativism explains relativistic phenomena, philosophy is relativistic therefore it is best explained by relativism.

 

 

 

Referring to your example, Relativists either believe in option A or option B. They base that belief on the fact that it is as valid as the other belief and that there is no absolute truth, hence we can only be as right as the next person.

 

 

 

Physics is a perfect example of a relativistic system. Physics appears differently from person to person, yet it manages to explain why it is different for each person. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t enforce the laws of physics on someone, it just is (it is the very nature of this world). Relativism explains why some people believe in option A and some believe in option B, simple. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t enforce relativism on someone because it occurs naturally.

 

 

 

Do you study history/philosophy of science? You better not argue with me on this subject :roll: Really, do we need to act this childish?

 

 

 

What is stopping us from using a philosophical method to explain philosophical phenomena? Why can't we use pragmatism, relativism, absolutismÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ to support philosophical arguments? Just because we encounter opposition to our methodology doesn't invalidate it. Pragmatism doesn't prove anything, much in the same way any other philosophical method doesn't prove anything.

 

 

 

Philosophy lives in the domain of belief; there is no right or wrong philosophy. Any notion of right or wrong philosophy is a result of what you perceive to be right and wrong and not anyone elseÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Back then slavery was an alternative to being homeless. It wasn't "hey, I want to oppress someone and get free labour". Taking on a slave meant taking on a member of the family, and saving them from a life of poverty. Slaves were sometimes treated so well they returned to their masters as bondservants, willingly. Being a slave wasn't considered socially low back then, you're applying today's definitions to yesterday's principles.

 

 

 

This sounds exactly like the factories of the 3rd world, they might be respected and honoured by the company they work for (they get paid relatively well, good working conditions etc.) but that doesn't mean they aren't being taken advantage of.

[Purepehmo]

Let's see:

 

 

 

There is proof that Jesus existed, there is no proof of God, there is no proof of that Jesus walked on water, cured the sick just like *SNAP*.

 

 

 

This might sound ruff but:

 

I think people who believe in God/Jesus being the creators, and the only purified people of Earth with no sins.. are totally mental.

 

 

 

and what comes to the Bible, I think it's full of cabbage.

 

For one, I can't remember the King's name or w.e, but The king died when he was around 30, and his son, who was about 20 years old took the old king's spot as a king. Now is it really possible that a 10 year old kid could 'seed' and grew up a kid of his own.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Do you study Philosophy of science? Better not question me in these areas as well :roll: Stop acting so childish, you arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t the end all of knowledge.

 

 

 

Pragmatism much like any other philosophical method (relativism, absolutismÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ), canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t actually prove anything since philosophy is a belief system. There is nothing about any philosophical system that forces anything to know the truth of anything; itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s all a belief and nothing more.

 

 

 

If you are going to try and use epistemology as a methodology, you are going to run straight into people with very pragmatic mindsets who are going to disagree with everything you say based on the certainty that exists when discussing what you can actually know.

 

 

 

Basic point: epistemology doesn't prove anything. It's merely one method people use to arrive at their own personal philosophical ideas.

 

 

 

The idea of pragmatism is that we can derive values from real phenomena (pragmatism is a very vague term, it could mean a lot of things), this is a perfectly fine way of thinking, it works within its realm (otherwise people wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t use it). It is just as ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâsureÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ as any other philosophical theory.

 

 

 

(I originally lost this post in some copying and pasting, but then I realised I may as well use your post as a template)

 

 

 

I guess you misunderstood my point. I wasn't defending either side of it, my entire point was that using either doesn't prove anything. My response was specifically to the person who was trying to do such a thing - it had no reference to you.

 

 

 

But you helped prove my point. Neither skepticism (such as people with epistemologicial mindsets) nor pragmatism can prove anything. I agree with you 100%.

 

 

 

Just to re-emphasize: I never said one philosophical method was anymore "sure" than another. I was pointing out that they don't PROVE anything, they are just a way of thinking. Not quite sure why you reacted the way you did.

 

 

 

Surely that's just saying "just believe what I say and don't question it" - for those who have no desire to know what is actually true.

 

 

 

Religion does not need to be "proven" because the idea is that it's based on a different level than science. It's not a matter of blindly accepting it either, for those you will talk to believe what they do because of something they feel.

 

 

 

The most involved in their religion are questioning it more than anyone else. But they don't question what is scientifically possible because that's completely irrelevant to theologogy, they question the theological concepts presented in their Holy Book. What do they mean. Does this idea contradict another idea? How should we go about fulfilling this?

 

 

 

It's not a matter of "blindly accepting" something because you don't accept it unless you truly feel something inside of you. It's also not a matter of trying to prove to be scientifically accurate, because science and theology are on two seperate levels.

[bearofthunder]

 

 

 

Religion does not need to be "proven" because the idea is that it's based on a different level than science. It's not a matter of blindly accepting it either, for those you will talk to believe what they do because of something they feel.

 

 

 

The most involved in their religion are questioning it more than anyone else. But they don't question what is scientifically possible because that's completely irrelevant to theologogy, they question the theological concepts presented in their Holy Book. What do they mean. Does this idea contradict another idea? How should we go about fulfilling this?

 

 

 

It's not a matter of "blindly accepting" something because you don't accept it unless you truly feel something inside of you. It's also not a matter of trying to prove to be scientifically accurate, because science and theology are on two seperate levels.

 

 

 

What if I want to create a new religion called Bushianity, centered around George Bush? I feel something inside of me and I think he has supernatural capabilities. Would that be okay? After all, I don't need to subject my belief to any external laws.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

Religion does not need to be "proven" because the idea is that it's based on a different level than science. It's not a matter of blindly accepting it either, for those you will talk to believe what they do because of something they feel.

 

 

 

The most involved in their religion are questioning it more than anyone else. But they don't question what is scientifically possible because that's completely irrelevant to theologogy, they question the theological concepts presented in their Holy Book. What do they mean. Does this idea contradict another idea? How should we go about fulfilling this?

 

 

 

It's not a matter of "blindly accepting" something because you don't accept it unless you truly feel something inside of you. It's also not a matter of trying to prove to be scientifically accurate, because science and theology are on two seperate levels.

 

 

 

What if I want to create a new religion called Bushianity, centered around George Bush? I feel something inside of me and I think he has supernatural capabilities. Would that be okay? After all, I don't need to subject my belief to any external laws.

 

 

 

Then power to you. Who am I to question your feelings? I might believe that your religion is wrong, but who am I to question what you feel inside of you? I might think your feelings are crazy, and I have the right to, just as you have the right to believe I'm crazy for being a Christian, but that fact is that if you feel like you have had divine intervention in your life and it's your job to spread this religion, I'm not going to say that you have to prove it. Religion is clearly something that can't be proven.

[pianofrieak2]

 

Then power to you. Who am I to question your feelings? I might believe that your religion is wrong, but who am I to question what you feel inside of you? I might think your feelings are crazy, and I have the right to, just as you have the right to believe I'm crazy for being a Christian, but that fact is that if you feel like you have had divine intervention in your life and it's your job to spread this religion, I'm not going to say that you have to prove it. Religion is clearly something that can't be proven.

 

 

 

Well, Ghost, I kinda agree with you. I would definately say that theology and science are on different levels, such as using science to prove God exists. However, I also believe that you can see God through the universe (i.e. science).

 

 

 

For instance, evolution v. intelligent design. I believe in intelligent design because the Bible supports the view of 7 literal 24 hour days (well 6 actually) to create the world. And science backs it up.

 

 

 

Oh, gosh, this is gonna be bad for flaming but please use the concept.

 

 

 

So, in a way, I agree with you Ghost in saying that science cannot prove theology and visa versa, but I also believe that science can point to truth in certain aspects of your theology.

 

 

 

 

 

Now, as for religion not being able to be proven...

 

 

 

Why would you become a Christian as compared to the tolerant Hindus or the radical Muslims? Or the, well most of the time, apathetic agnostic?

 

 

 

Surely you have your reasons why you are a Christian (assuming you are one based on your quote from above). Yet it seems as though you have no proof for being a Christian...

 

 

 

Please clarify! :wink:

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

Then power to you. Who am I to question your feelings? I might believe that your religion is wrong, but who am I to question what you feel inside of you? I might think your feelings are crazy, and I have the right to, just as you have the right to believe I'm crazy for being a Christian, but that fact is that if you feel like you have had divine intervention in your life and it's your job to spread this religion, I'm not going to say that you have to prove it. Religion is clearly something that can't be proven.

 

 

 

Well, Ghost, I kinda agree with you. I would definately say that theology and science are on different levels, such as using science to prove God exists. However, I also believe that you can see God through the universe (i.e. science).

 

 

 

For instance, evolution v. intelligent design. I believe in intelligent design because the Bible supports the view of 7 literal 24 hour days (well 6 actually) to create the world. And science backs it up.

 

 

 

Oh, gosh, this is gonna be bad for flaming but please use the concept.

 

 

 

So, in a way, I agree with you Ghost in saying that science cannot prove theology and visa versa, but I also believe that science can point to truth in certain aspects of your theology.

 

 

 

 

 

Now, as for religion not being able to be proven...

 

 

 

Why would you become a Christian as compared to the tolerant Hindus or the radical Muslims? Or the, well most of the time, apathetic agnostic?

 

 

 

Surely you have your reasons why you are a Christian (assuming you are one based on your quote from above). Yet it seems as though you have no proof for being a Christian...

 

 

 

Please clarify! :wink:

 

 

 

I have plenty of reasons to be a Christian, but no, I don't have "proof." I have "proof" that might suggest that some of the things I believe in happened. I don't believe that our universe can run so perfectly without having had divine creation. But does that prove the existence of a God? Certainly not. That's something I feel. I feel His presence when I pray and when I study scripture. If I could prove his existence, that would make Him so much less than He is.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

I guess you misunderstood my point. I wasn't defending either side of it, my entire point was that using either doesn't prove anything. My response was specifically to the person who was trying to do such a thing - it had no reference to you.

 

 

 

But you helped prove my point. Neither skepticism (such as people with epistemologicial mindsets) nor pragmatism can prove anything. I agree with you 100%.

 

 

 

Just to re-emphasize: I never said one philosophical method was anymore "sure" than another. I was pointing out that they don't PROVE anything, they are just a way of thinking. Not quite sure why you reacted the way you did.

 

 

 

 

It does prove the philosophical action to the person that believes in the method, if it doesn't prove anything then people wouldn't use the method. Opposition to a method doesn't make it any less valid (it doesn't prove anything), it just shows that there is more then one way to resolve a philosophical conflict; both methods are equally valid if they are self-consistent. They don't prove anything in the physical sense but they do prove things in the philosophical sense (otherwise people wouldn't use any specific method).

 

 

 

 

Well, Ghost, I kinda agree with you. I would definately say that theology and science are on different levels, such as using science to prove God exists. However, I also believe that you can see God through the universe (i.e. science).

 

 

 

For instance, evolution v. intelligent design. I believe in intelligent design because the Bible supports the view of 7 literal 24 hour days (well 6 actually) to create the world. And science backs it up.

 

 

 

 

Not to detract from the topic but No, science does not back up intelligent design. Anyone that believes in the intelligent design debate (and furthermore that intelligent design is a real, provable alternative) is either ignorant or mentally [developmentally delayed]ed; IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m guessing your just ignorant.