Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
To the presuppositionalist, there are only two options: theism or epistemic and moral nihilism.That is absurd. Even if you were right that impersonal causes are "arbitrary and unsupported", so are theistic causes, and theism would be just as absurd. You can't support one option by knocking down another.
Your approach is self-defeating. It is the nuclear option that involves selecting the most useless epistemology in order to defeat one truth claim, and then to pretend that it doesn't simply nuke all other truth claims. It is a completely vapid form of philosophy that really should be called sophistry.
Thanks. Given that all logical arguments rest on unproven and unprovable assumptions, and all your assumptions are tentative, it follows that all your conclusions are likewise tentative, which amounts to universal skepticism. This illustrates my original point (post #10), viz., that there is no logical stopping point between theism and universal skepticism or solipsism.
One might argue more people in jail are theists, because they are looking for redemption. That doesn't make them immoral, in fact I'd say that's a good thing.
Another thing that bothers me about your tone: people in jail are not merely guilty, they are often victims of various forms of oppression and injustice long before they wind up there. Saying they are examples of "bad morality" is naïve and dehumanizing.
I think evidence would be a logical stopping point.
But accusing people who don't believe in your god of being inherently unable to be moral is fine?
And theists do?I don't think I've argued that. What I do believe is that atheists have no ultimate, objective ground for their morality.
I think Hitchens got it right in saying that it's quite the opposite: religion steals what is good from humanism and claims it as its own.Secular humanism lives off the corpse of religious sentiments. From there it is a slippery slope to the will to power.
I think Hitchens got it right in saying that it's quite the opposite: religion steals what is good from humanism and claims it as its own.
Modern humanism only emerged from a culture heavily shaped by Christianity.
And yet it sought much of its inspiration from pagan philosophers
Hmmm... that would seem to concede my point then?I would say it's less inspiration and more intellectual engagement with antiquity. And that's nothing new. It was really only new for western European civilization. But the Christian east had been interacting with pagan thought for centuries. They called it "pillaging the treasures of the Pharaoh".
Hmmm... that would seem to concede my point then?
I don't recall saying "paganism."The philosophical engagement was not because the Christians believed the Gospel was empty of content, but because some people needed a bridge between the Greek and Jewish ways of thinking.
Hitchens is wrong, however... Christianity is not simply raiding the best of paganism and dressing it in religious garb.
You'll need to elaborate more precisely on the character of this "radical call for equality and justice."The heart of the Torah stands in stark contrast to the paganism of the time. There is a radical call for equality and justice that is there from the beginning that was absent in the Canaanite culture when it was dominated by Egypt.
Bollocks. Equality and justice are not conceptually tied to Christianity. You are once again showing how perilously close to nihilism you are.That is the contribution of Judaism and Christianity to our culture. When Christianity is thrown out, equality and justice will eventually fade away and be replaced by the will to power. Which will mean whatever the strong want it to mean.
I don't recall saying "paganism."
You'll need to elaborate more precisely on the character of this "radical call for equality and justice."
"...intellectual honesty demands recognition of the fact that what passes as “secular,” “western” principles of basic human rights developed nowhere else than out of key strands of the biblically-rooted religions."
Can you summarise the contents? I'm not always inclined to read links in full, given that this is a discussion forum after all.
Can you summarise the contents? I'm not always inclined to read links in full, given that this is a discussion forum after all.
we have some residual capacity to reason, to will, and to love that is given to us as an endowment that we did not achieve by our own efforts. And while every one of these areas of human life is at least imperfect, often distorted by sin, obscured by false desires or corrupted by exterior influences in sinful circumstances, the dignity conferred on us by the gift of the “imago” demands both a personal regard for each person, and a constant drive to form and sustain those socio-political arrangements that protect the relative capacities to reason, to chose, to love that are given with this gift
Thus, human rights are seen as a matter of socio-historical context. While some lament that more universal principles cannot be found, many celebrate the fact, making diversity, multi-culturalism, and religious distinctives themselves universally positive moral values, although on their own grounds it is difficult to see how they could defend the view, except as a cultural preference
I don't think I've argued that. What I do believe is that atheists have no ultimate, objective ground for their morality.
Secular humanism lives off the corpse of religious sentiments. From there it is a slippery slope to the will to power.
That seems plainly false. What was the punishment for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Were the people free to practice another religion or to worship a different god? What was the punishment for blasphemy or speaking freely against dogma? Did women have the same rights as men? Was slavery forbidden?You asked a very technical question... a summary of which would not do it justice. But I did attempt one. Our concepts of human rights are grounded in the belief in divine revelation to the Jewish people about what God commands owing to our nature as being created in the image of God.
Struggling to see the relevance of this quote given what is actually recorded in the Bible.From that second article by Dr. Max Stackhouse:
That seems plainly false. What was the punishment for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Were the people free to practice another religion or to worship a different god? What was the punishment for blasphemy or speaking freely against dogma? Did women have the same rights as men? Was slavery forbidden?
Struggling to see the relevance of this quote given what is actually recorded in the Bible.
It directly refutes your claim. You are, quite simply, wrong. Our concept of human rights isn't grounded in the Bible. In fact, it is deeply anathema to several biblical teachings. In response to this, however, you can only bleat about the cultural setting of the time and place. Well, if cultural setting is so important, then why not acknowledge that our concept of human rights arose in the context of the Enlightenment, which questioned the very teachings you claim our rights are based on.That has less to do with universal principles and more to do with a cultural setting in a particular time and place.
It directly refutes your claim. You are, quite simply, wrong. Our concept of human rights isn't grounded in the Bible. In fact, it is deeply anathema to several biblical teachings.
then why not acknowledge that our concept of human rights arose in the context of the Enlightenment, which questioned the very teachings you claim our rights are based on.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?