Near perfect existence

[DaisyDay]

In my opinion, honesty and objectivity go hand in hand. It takes an honest person to realize they can't be perfectly objective, they can only be honestly objective.

It's not wrong to assume there's honest objective atheists out there.

Answer me honestly - don't you think that the implication that you wouldn't be honest otherwise is a bit insulting?

 

[Chriliman]

Answer me honestly - don't you think that the implication that you wouldn't be honest otherwise is a bit insulting?

Only if you have something to hide.

If someone asks me to be honest I'm not going to be insulted because I always expect the same from others.

What I continue to discover however, is that athiest can't be honestly objective when talking about perfect beings, because God always comes up and they have already assumed God is not perfect.

 

[Freodin]

Only if you have something to hide.

If someone asks me to be honest I'm not going to be insulted because I always expect the same from others.

What I continue to discover however, is that athiest can't be honestly objective when talking about perfect beings, because God always comes up and they have already assumed God is not perfect.

God is always claimed to be "the perfect being"... by Christians. Don't you think atheists are aware of that? Don't you think that atheists are aware that this is always in the background when they talk with Christians?

Somehow I don't think you are honestly objective here.

(BTW, I tried to continue our previous conversation from yesterday. Are you still interested? My response is a few posts back.)

 

[Chriliman]

God is always claimed to be "the perfect being"... by Christians. Don't you think atheists are aware of that? Don't you think that atheists are aware that this is always in the background when they talk with Christians?

Somehow I don't think you are honestly objective here.

So why can't you assume God is perfect and then start questioning his perfection? Instead of assuming he's not perfect and then start questioning his perfection that you have already assumed is not perfect?

 

[Freodin]

So why can't you assume God is perfect and then start questioning his perfection? Instead of assuming he's not perfect and then start questioning his perfection that you have already assumed is not perfect?

Huh? Where do you get the notion that atheists don't do that?

Or rather, where do you get the notion that atheists didn't do that previously, came by their questioning to the conclusion that God is not perfect and now just don't go through the motions of repeating their conclusions every time this is mentioned?

 

[Chriliman]

Huh? Where do you get the notion that atheists don't do that?

Or rather, where do you get the notion that atheists didn't do that previously, came by their questioning to the conclusion that God is not perfect and now just don't go through the motions of repeating their conclusions every time this is mentioned?

I understand, but what if you think God is not perfect because you lack the full knowledge of God? Given enough time I can explain a lot about Christian theology and it would all make sense, but you still possibly would not believe because you've already assumed its wrong.

 

[DaisyDay]

Only if you have something to hide.

If someone asks me to be honest I'm not going to be insulted because I always expect the same from others.

What I continue to discover however, is that athiest can't be honestly objective when talking about perfect beings, because God always comes up and they have already assumed God is not perfect.

While I find that if someone assumes dishonesty in others as the norm, it is because he assumes other people are like himself - dishonest.

Most atheists of my acquaintance rather than assuming God is not perfect, assume God doesn't exist.

 

[Chriliman]

How can "truth" be a starting point? I agree that an ideal society would have a correct ethics, but the starting point is reason and evidence. The ethics of the nation would, presumably, be strongly justified by these.

I think it makes sense that the desire for truth must come before rational thinking and actions and rational thinking and actions will lead to moral actions that are in line with what is true.

In my society, people would be free to think and discuss ideas for themselves, and there would be no thought police. People with the right ideas would lead by example, and by good philosophical arguments. Falsehood would be dealt with by presenting good arguments as to why they are falsehoods. The law would only be present to maintain a free society, not enforced orthodoxy.

I think there's a difference between free thinking and deep thinking. Free thinking allows you to think whatever you want to think, but deep thinking requires you to deeply think about the meaning behind everything. I'd say free thinkers desire ideas that are inline with what they think, while deep thinkers desire truth.

Truth cannot be a starting point. Rationality would be the starting point. Truth would hopefully be one of the products of rationality, and largely for the sake of the primary end point, which is the flourishing of the citizenry.

This is where we disagree. Before someone can be rational they must first desire truth. I'd even say its impossible to think rationally without first desiring truth.

 

[Chriliman]

While I find that if someone assumes dishonesty in others as the norm, it is because he assumes other people are like himself - dishonest.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not perfectly honest, Jesus is getting me there though

Most atheists of my acquaintance rather than assuming God is not perfect, assume God doesn't exist.

Both cause problems in their reasoning.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think it makes sense that the desire for truth must come before rational thinking

This is the first that I'm hearing about a desire for truth. Yes, it may be so that a desire for truth is what motivates rational thinking.

I was talking about an epistemological starting point. A desire for truth isn't that. It is just what sparks an epistemological process.

I think there's a difference between free thinking and deep thinking. Free thinking allows you to think whatever you want to think, but deep thinking requires you to deeply think about the meaning behind everything. I'd say free thinkers desire ideas that are inline with what they think, while deep thinkers desire truth.

The term free thought implies a desire for truth. It has to do with not simply accepting what other people say is true, and instead using one's own reasoning processes to arrive at truth. It is about getting closer to what is true, not merely letting one's mind wander in a daydream.

As Bertrand Russell had said:

What makes a freethinker is not his beliefs but the way in which he holds them. If he holds them because his elders told him they were true when he was young, or if he holds them because if he did not he would be unhappy, his thought is not free; but if he holds them because, after careful thought he finds a balance of evidence in their favor, then his thought is free, however odd his conclusions may seem.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

I understand, but what if you think God is not perfect because you lack the full knowledge of God? Given enough time I can explain a lot about Christian theology and it would all make sense, but you still possibly would not believe because you've already assumed its wrong.

Hm... could it not also be that I could explain a lot about the reasonable doubts and criticisms atheists have towards Christian theology, and it would all make sense, but you still possibly would keep on believing because you've already assumed its true?

Wouldn't it be better to simply present your arguments, have them discussed, have them analysed... instead of just accusing your opponent of discarding them from the start?

And another problem here, for exactly this argument: if we start from the assumption that "God is perfect"... what would we have gained that helps us for a logical argument? You would have defined your conclusion into existence!

Wouldn't it be better to start from the assumption that God isn't perfect, and then showed by a line of logical conclusions that even starting from this assumption, he still would have to be perfect?

 

[bhsmte]

I understand, but what if you think God is not perfect because you lack the full knowledge of God? Given enough time I can explain a lot about Christian theology and it would all make sense, but you still possibly would not believe because you've already assumed its wrong.

You are filled with too many assumptions, all designed to protect your personal faith belief.

This is why, you get tripped up so easily, when critically questioned.

 

[Chriliman]

Hm... could it not also be that I could explain a lot about the reasonable doubts and criticisms atheists have towards Christian theology, and it would all make sense, but you still possibly would keep on believing because you've already assumed its true?

Wouldn't it be better to simply present your arguments, have them discussed, have them analysed... instead of just accusing your opponent of discarding them from the start?

And another problem here, for exactly this argument: if we start from the assumption that "God is perfect"... what would we have gained that helps us for a logical argument? You would have defined your conclusion into existence!

Wouldn't it be better to start from the assumption that God isn't perfect, and then showed by a line of logical conclusions that even starting from this assumption, he still would have to be perfect?

I'd actually argue that we try not to assume anything and just objectively observe and ask questions in order to find the actual truth. Truth being the motivation behind everything.

 

[Chriliman]

You are filled with too many assumptions, all designed to protect your personal faith belief.

This is why, you get tripped up so easily, when critically questioned.

You're free to make your assertions, just remember your assertions have no affect on whats true.

 

[bhsmte]

You're free to make your assertions, just remember your assertions have no affect on whats true.

What you write in you're posts, is a big clue and it is there for all to see.

 

[Chriliman]

What you write in you're posts, is a big clue and it is there for all to see.

A clue to what exactly?

 

[Peacefulways]

I caught the beginning of this tread then I left because I was at work like I am now. However it is not a mystery what Chrilli was doing, it was easy from the beginning that's why I didn't speak anymore.

I will let you know this from the truth and I might get kick out from saying this. If you think you are perfect then your life and everything else about is perfect and you won't see the bad things that around you. Some people thinks they world is ok because they lives is ok.

Self thought about self perception about things around them have to do with what they feel about their life and how they see things. If one person see truth they will say what I wrote down because they see the truth and suffering in other people lives. People who see the truth sees that the God is out of this world, not one person knows about perfect love. If you too self absorb in your own life how can you offer to help anybody.

The vision that I had which I share takes a look at myself and the things around me. I have to make a change to bring better not to myself but to others. I am not the one to lead you to the truth for you already knows the truth by the world I had in my mind. The only way we can make my dream a reality is amid that you are not perfect and living in a mess up world.

How to change is to help each other with love and forgivingness. Tell you more later my friend is waiting for me.

 

[Freodin]

I'd actually argue that we try not to assume anything and just objectively observe and ask questions in order to find the actual truth. Truth being the motivation behind everything.

Is that why you asked atheists "So why can't you assume God is perfect..."?
Because you don't want to assume anything?

I'd say that you know for yourself that, while starting from an objective observation would be nice, it is quite impossible. You even said that people "can't be perfectly objective", and you are also aware that you can't even do a "honestly objectively" observation of the perfection or imperfection of God.

So we are left with assumptions again. Which one should it be?

 

[Chriliman]

Is that why you asked atheists "So why can't you assume God is perfect..."?
Because you don't want to assume anything?

I'd say that you know for yourself that, while starting from an objective observation would be nice, it is quite impossible. You even said that people "can't be perfectly objective", and you are also aware that you can't even do a "honestly objectively" observation of the perfection or imperfection of God.

So we are left with assumptions again. Which one should it be?

All I can say for myself is that I've honestly sought out the truth and have tried to be as objective as possible when thinking about God and I've come to the conclusion that He must be perfect because only a perfect God can explain why we're all here. Of course it wasn't that simple, it was a real spiritual warfare and the only way I got through it was by placing my trust in Jesus.

 

[Freodin]

All I can say for myself is that I've honestly sought out the truth and have tried to be as objective as possible when thinking about God and I've come to the conclusion that He must be perfect because only a perfect God can explain why we're all here. Of course it wasn't that simple, it was a real spiritual warfare and the only way I got through it was by placing my trust in Jesus.

Well, I can say for myself that I, too, have honestly sought out the truth, have tried to be as objective as possible when thinking about God... and I have come to the conclusion that such a being does not exist. It wasn't simple me me either, no way... but I dare to say that if you chose to describe that process as "real spiritual warfare" and won by "playing your trust in Jesus", you have lost your objectivity quite early... and most likely your honesty as well.

In that case, the case of objectivity and honesty... I find it very interesting that in response to a post where I showed that your own claims towards honesty and objectivity are rather inconsistent, you chose to post something that isn't anything but a renewed claim of your own integrity and loyality to an assumption.

Could you not at least stand up to the mistakes you made?