When will Christians quit getting pushed around

[Spartacus FPV]

Not in the slightest my dear

If it's an objective reality, doesn't it exist objectively? I think the reality of God is an objective reality we cannot fully grasp. Are we agreeing here?:shock::mrgreen:

It existed before our capacity to perceive it if thats what you mean. If you're suggesting that the cosmos (all that is) = god, then I agree. But that is pantheism, not theism, and that use of the word god is not the same as the Christian omnipotent creator.

You're already generalizing the proposition without appreciating what it consists of. You are leaping ahead with assumptions concerning claims I haven't made. I seem to remember that from the PMs, too.

Which proposition have you made that I have generalized about. I have only generalized about how religious people tend to argue for their propositions (the 3 methods in the last post.)

The anthropic principle doesn't limit hypothesis, it merely acknowledges the limit of human ability of knowing only that which we know. It doesn't mean we can't come to know more through rational examination of what we already know and seek to know more about.

Have I asserted that it did?

Good thing I didn't say that "tripe!"

Good thing I didn't say that "tripe" either!

Don't take it personally, ideas and arguments can be tripe, you're a lovely person however. Its your ideas I find illogical.

I remember this lengthy onslaught of posing arguments against things I didn't ever claim and then getting frustrated when i sort-of sloughed off responding to points that are (perhaps unintentional) red herrings, from those PMs too. Are you gonna go down that road?

No, I will not. I will judge only the claims you make on their own logical merits. Let go of the past.

It really does waste time. I think you don't trust that I am intellectually honest and will remain so. You don't have to be on the offence.

I believe that you believe you have a good reason, but I also believe you do not accept the strict rigors of logic as valid. This is not being on the offense, but merely being on the defense. I am defending logic, primarily the validity of it.

I know I use barbed words, but its just my way, I am in fact genuinely interested, and harbor no misconceptions about your intellectual honesty.

EDIT!

That would be nice. Thanks.

On it! (Can only send one per minute)

Ohhh...did I step on toes already when i said they were (perhaps unintentional) red herrings. Let's start fresh. Gimme a question (one or two at a time please).

If you say alot, I have ALOT of questions. Its not fair to limit the scope of my inquiry! If you want to start from scratch, then we should disregard this and every post that came before it, and I will make a post listing my questions in bullet form.

 

[Felicity]

Re: Not in the slightest my dear

Which proposition have you made that I have generalized about. I have only generalized about how religious people tend to argue for their propositions (the 3 methods in the last post.)

So I can disregard your assumption concerning how people present their religious convictions? I am a "people" who is presenting her religious convictions...but I can assume you won't automatically assume such things about me and what I say even though you say your opinion is there're three ways people go about it? See... that's not coming in objectively and with an open mind. That's part of the paradigm of bias that contradicts an objective perspective. You admitted a non-objective perspective when you said, "I have a bias AGAINST religious practice." That makes it hard for me to believe I'm not just wasting band width.

If you say alot, I have ALOT of questions. Its not fair to limit the scope of my inquiry! If you want to start from scratch, then we should disregard this and every post that came before it, and I will make a post listing my questions in bullet form.

You edited again! :naughty :mrgreen:


I'm just trying to be practical. Bulleted questions assume bulleted response for each question. And when questions are posed, often they are on a faulty understanding of a particular issue. It seems more practical to go one thing at a time in my view--otherwise there has to be all kinds of untangling of miscommunication and misunderstanding of particular points made and it quickly becomes a jumbled boring mess of "I said, you said."

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Spin the wheel!

So I can disregard your assumption concerning how people present their religious convictions? I am a "people" who is presenting her religious convictions...but I can assume you won't automatically assume such things about me and what I say even though you say your opinion is there're three ways people go about it? See... that's not coming in objectively and with an open mind. That's part of the paradigm of bias that contradicts an objective perspective.

Like I said, a case by case basis. But if I identify a logical fallacy, do not confuse my identification with prior judgement (unless of course, its an argument that I have already heard before.)

You admitted a non-objective perspective when you said, "I have a bias AGAINST religious practice." That makes it hard for me to believe I'm not just wasting band width.

When I say I have a bias against religious practice, religion, dogmatic belief or faith, it means I have a bias against mysticism or superstitions of any kind.

I judge each claim on its own merits, but I will be skeptical.

You edited again! :naughty :mrgreen:

I'm just trying to be practical. Bulleted questions assume bulleted response for each question. And when questions are posed, often they are on a faulty understanding of a particular issue. It seems more practical to go one thing at a time in my view--otherwise there has to be all kinds of untangling of miscommunication and misunderstanding of particular points made and it quickly becomes a jumbled boring mess of "I said, you said."

Well then, feel free to reply to my last posts in a point by point manner; the quantity of questions be damned!

 

[Felicity]

Thanks for sending my responses to your PMs...I think it's great you saved them. I'll peruse them later. I gotta get my kids in bed.

EDIT: (now you got me doin' it)

I will be back...probably tomorrow.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Of course I did

Thanks for sending my responses to your PMs...I think it's great you saved them.

I always considered them to be important, and useful to compare my current method of debate to; to see how I've "grown."

I'll peruse them later. I gotta get my kids in bed.

I just re-read them, and man do I have a list of counter-arguments that I never thought to make back then...

EDIT: (now you got me doin' it)

"One far younger and more powerful!"

I will be back...probably tomorrow.

Tomorrow then

 

[jfuh]

Negative. It wasn't beacuse he was a Chrisitan. And I have stated this enough times for you and Kelzie to stop this charade. My posts are plain as day and here for all to read. I merely mentioned that he was a Christian. It's you that seeks to strip this away, because it doesn't allow you your views on Christianity. If the Christian movemernt stagnates society then why did a Christian lead the Civil Rights movement? If Christians do the pushing in society as you stated, then what does this mean about the society that pushed MLK during the Civil Rights Movment?

The above was exactly my argument against the Chrisatian bashers and so far no one has offered any kind of answer except for to strip the man of his religion.

Um, again, no one is stripping the man of his religion. That's a highly dishonest statement and response to me.
My response from the former post

It has been my argument and that of many others that irregardless of his religion MLK would've stood up and protested for civil rights like Malcom X because he was a minority, more specifically because he was a black man.

You're own post is self contradictory in that "you merely mention" that he was a christian and then you state that "it was A CHRISTIAN" whom led the civil rights movement.
The actions of a person simply because he is Christian do not necessitate that they are actions due to his religion. You haven't been able to give an honest statement from my above post with the example of Malcom X and MLK - both civil rights leaders and both religious men but of two different religions.
Let me make it as plain as possible here.
MLK and Malcom X led for civil equality because they were black men whom happened to be religious as well.

The Christian movement has stagnated society is simply inarguable. In your ideological representation you have a highly idealized viewpoint of what this movement entails, and yet you know damn well that when we speak of the Christian movement today, no one is referring to that idealized and pure version but rather the one that intermixes religious doctrine and government. This perverted religious movement is the movement that insists shoving bibles into public schools, teaching pseudo science, insisting that some people can not have the same rights as they simply because they are homosexual, a make believe war on christmas and denying the right of choice to women.
MLK was not a member of this christian movement.

 

[Felicity]

Re: Spin the wheel!

I judge each claim on its own merits, but I will be skeptical.



Well then, feel free to reply to my last posts in a point by point manner; the quantity of questions be damned!

What did I assert "just is" exactly? What have I asserted that I have no evidence for, that is not in fact a rule of logic. Just what did I assert that you will go on record as being true? That there are rules of logic? The validity of logic itself?

This universe exists, we exist, and everything we do is real, you have to take whats real and work from there; Skeptically.

That is where you assert something ‘just is’ and what you have no evidence for per your required means of “proof.” There is no evidence that the universe is real according to the paradigm of pure scientific scrutiny. Reality itself is assumed. Furthermore, there is no evidence of “rational” or “reasonable.” The means of ascertaining a logical conclusion itself is assumed as being true without evidence that is itself dependent upon an assumption.

An assumption is a presupposition. The fact that you must have a presupposition to make sense of any claim, in and of itself, in fact points to the REALITY of things beyond provable evidence—hence a “transcendent reality” that exists.

You accept this transcendent reality when you accept the existence of abstract notions and emotions and ideas and communication—the relevance of thought itself! Religion and theology is rooted in transcendent realities—both those we can experience in the human dimension, and otherwise. However, although you accept as presupposing the transcendent reality in some instances (because it cannot be objectively proven and consistently tested and yet such things as thought and rationality and the universe undeniably exist) you attempt to marginalize the reality of some other such things by dismissing the discussion of realities you indiscriminately decide are “mysticism” and “superstition.” (post #334).

To deny transcendent reality in some instances, like in the assertions made to evidence God, because they are not “provable” per some particular test, and to not hold the assumption of the reality of existence itself to that same proof-test, is intellectually hypocritical. If you are willing to accept some kinds of transcendent reality because it is “reasonable” (a transcendent reality itself!) then you should be willing to consider the reasonableness of transcendent reality in other instances as well.

You can be skeptical all you like, but to flat out deny and categorize the progression of logic concerning some transcendent realities in derogatory ways (ala mysticism and superstition) while at the same time judging those ideas per transcendent means is again, intellectually hypocritical.

This universe exists. Do you deny it, because it is an axiom, that implies a correlary axiom; that I exist to make it. Is that what you're saying that I said "just is." Or are you talking about the validity of skepticism regarding new claims? Are you suggesting that rather than skepticism being the default scientific position, credulousness should be?

I’m saying take a step back and question your assumption. I agree that it is logical to accept reality and that the universe exists and that knowledge can be gained through rational observation. However, why aren’t you skeptical concerning how you arrive at the assumption of those things? There is more to the story before your assumption—and underlying the assumptions you so readily accept is the transcendent reality.

How is "logic" that can support most any dogma and false claims more valid that real logic, which cannot, and always follows from true premises without fallacy?

I think, rather, your question should be, how valid is a logic that refuses to turn its own lens upon itself? You assume reality and that your premise is true without scrutiny—hence contradicting your own logic.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

If we're talking about the same thing, lets use the same words.

That is where you assert something ‘just is’ and what you have no evidence for per your required means of “proof.” There is no evidence that the universe is real according to the paradigm of pure scientific scrutiny.

Existence exists is an axiom. It has to exist in order for us to be having this conversation, and it implies correlary axioms.

Reality itself is assumed.

What do you mean by "reality." Do you mean this universe? And what do you mean it is assumed? Are you suggesting that it could be otherwise?

Furthermore, there is no evidence of “rational” or “reasonable.” The means of ascertaining a logical conclusion itself is assumed as being true without evidence that is itself dependent upon an assumption.

What? I don't follow at all...

An assumption is a presupposition. The fact that you must have a presupposition to make sense of any claim, in and of itself, in fact points to the REALITY of things beyond provable evidence—hence a “transcendent reality” that exists.

What is the distinction between your "transcendent reality" and the universe that we exist in? If we are talking about the same thing, lets at least use the same words.

Are you saying that no universe can exist without this underlying "transcendent reality?"

You accept this transcendent reality when you accept the existence of abstract notions and emotions and ideas and communication—the relevance of thought itself!

The existence of abstract notions, emotions and ideas are inherent to the existence of sentient neurology, which we have evidence for and understand through natural processes.

Religion and theology is rooted in transcendent realities—both those we can experience in the human dimension, and otherwise.

Whats an example of another way of experiencing reality? What do you regard as the "human dimension"? Do you meant he universe that we have only recently come to exist in?

However, although you accept as presupposing the transcendent reality in some instances (because it cannot be objectively proven and consistently tested and yet such things as thought and rationality and the universe undeniably exist)

If the universe didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to have this discussion. This is what I meant about the anthropic principle. The same goes for the existence of life on earth.

you attempt to marginalize the reality of some other such things by dismissing the discussion of realities you indiscriminately decide are “mysticism” and “superstition.” (post #334).

The reality of some other things? I believe in reality, and am skeptical about whether or not mystical or superstitious claims are true. I make no indiscriminate judgments regarding such claims, my standards are the rules of logic and science.

And it is not true that I "deny" religious experiences either. I am actually very interested in understanding spiritual experiences at the neurological level. I've experienced (through isolation chambers, fits of sleep paralysis, and hallucinogens) a great many things that you would regard as a spiritual experience, out of body experiences, knowing things about rooms that I couldn't possibly have known, and an utter loss of my self when experiencing a oneness with the universe.

There is much to be learned from our neurology, and the fact that we can have such moving experiences. But some things are within our brain's capacity for simulation, some parts of our brain are responsible for making us feel that we are inside of our bodies, and we can trigger these kinds of experiences.

To deny transcendent reality in some instances, like in the assertions made to evidence God, because they are not “provable” per some particular test, and to not hold the assumption of the reality of existence itself to that same proof-test, is intellectually hypocritical.

Skepticism regarding the truth claims of your god /= denying the existence of your, or denying any reality that in fact exists.

If you are willing to accept some kinds of transcendent reality because it is “reasonable” (a transcendent reality itself!) then you should be willing to consider the reasonableness of transcendent reality in other instances as well.

I don't understand what you mean, I believe in the cosmos (all that is), and I also believe (because it is supported by testable quantum mechanical assumptions, with precise accuracy) in the existence of other universes.

Your use of the word "realities" is ambiguous. And I don't understand what you mean by transcendence. If by transcendent you mean more complex than we can perceive, then I agree. We have only evolved to understand the universe on this planet, and are limited by our neurological capabilities, and perceptions of time the 3rd dimension.

You can be skeptical all you like, but to flat out deny and categorize the progression of logic concerning some transcendent realities in derogatory ways (ala mysticism and superstition) while at the same time judging those ideas per transcendent means is again, intellectually hypocritical.

What have I "denied" exactly? I recognize bad logic, are you denying that logical fallacies invalidate arguments?

It seems you're equating skepticism of a claim with the denial of said claim again.

I’m saying take a step back and question your assumption. I agree that it is logical to accept reality and that the universe exists and that knowledge can be gained through rational observation. However, why aren’t you skeptical concerning how you arrive at the assumption of those things?

Axioms /= assumptions, they are anthropically true and necessary for truth to even EXIST; There are no contradictions.

Do I question that I exist? No, that would be irrational. Do I question why I exist? No, life on earth has been long since explained. Do I question my purpose on this earth, and its meaning? No, I chose my purpose and give my life meaning.

Do I question how the universe came to be, of course. Its a difficult question that particle physicists and cosmologists are working on, and their explanations so far have mind blowing implications.

I have never to this day heard a valid god hypothesis for the origin of the universe. St. Thomas Aquinas had the best one, but it was still invalid.

There is more to the story before your assumption—and underlying the assumptions you so readily accept is the transcendent reality.

Which is distinct from the cosmos that we know exists how? Are you talking about a different universe, or more complexity to our universe?

I think, rather, your question should be, how valid is a logic that refuses to turn its own lens upon itself? You assume reality and that your premise is true without scrutiny—hence contradicting your own logic.

I do not assume reality, you're equivocating words now. The acceptance of an axiom as a premise is not a contradiction, thats how logic works. You're personifying logic when you say "it refuses to turn its own lens upon itself." Logic is a process, not a thing or body of people. It has rules, like A=A and the law of non-contradiction, just like in physics we have laws for the behavior of matter.

If ever you claim to have found a contradiction in the rules of logic, please share it. But to use logic, by the rules of logic, to attack logic would be illogical. If those rules were invalid in the first place, so is your logic that is debunking logic. The question itself is absurd, there are no contradictions in this universe.

Since we are here to have this debate, we exist in a universe where life can evolve to do so, on a planet suitable for life. Its important to note our place, size, and age in this universe.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Post Script

I hope my tone has not become anything other than skeptical. Its just that we have to agree on certain rules of logic in order to have a debate about ideas, and its important to me that we do not equivocate on words that have specific meanings.

The word "realities" is too ambiguous, could you use a more precise word, so that we're using the same terms; I don't want to get bogged down in semantics.

 

[Felicity]

Existence exists is an axiom.

Yes it is. We agree.
But what is an axiom, really?

Here’s Merriam Webster’s view on it:
1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit 2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : POSTULATE 1 3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth

And here’s “postulate”
2 a: to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary : depend upon or start from the postulate of b: to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics)

It has to exist in order for us to be having this conversation, and it implies correlary axioms.

And I agree with the axiom. What I question, is why you accept such an axiom.

What do you mean by "reality." Do you mean this universe?

Not just this universe...I mean everything that is—seen and unseen, known and unknown, postulated and totally unimagined.

And what do you mean it is assumed?

I mean accepted without question. As the definition of axiom states, “self-evident” based upon “intrinsic merit” and (as the definition of “postulate” states), to “depend upon or start from” a particular unproven claim.

Are you suggesting that it could be otherwise?

Not at all.

What? I don't follow at all...

I mean, the position that something is rational and reasonable is a point that can’t be proven either. One must assume the conditions that determine what is rational and reasonable as self-evident. Logic is assumed self-evident based upon intrinsic merit. nonetheless, it is still technically "unproved."

What is the distinction between your "transcendent reality" and the universe that we exist in? If we are talking about the same thing, lets at least use the same words.

I believe your view of “reality” needs be material—that’s why you keep calling it “the universe we exist in.” I am saying that reality need not be material as evidenced by non material assumptions made even by those holding materialist views.

Are you saying that no universe can exist without this underlying "transcendent reality?"

Since we would have no way to apprehend within our minds that reality without the transcendent reality of thought, the universe might exist, but we would have no consciousness of it. Like that old saw... "does a tree make a sound when it falls in a forest where no one is around to hear it"...It's irrelevant to us, really, if there is no "us." Is there an entirely material universe? I don't know--but I doubt it.

The existence of abstract notions, emotions and ideas are inherent to the existence of sentient neurology, which we have evidence for and understand through natural processes.

Nonetheless—the actual reality of ideas and such is non material.

Whats an example of another way of experiencing reality? What do you regard as the "human dimension"? Do you meant he universe that we have only recently come to exist in?

No. I do not mean the “universe”—that is a material thing. I mean a reality that I cannot demonstrate materially.

An example of non material reality would be the color I am thinking of right now. I see it in my mind—it is real—I know it exists—I could describe to you material things that evidence that color and you could see that color in your mind also—HOWEVER—though I communicated a reality to you through description of material things, the reality that is the color in my mind’s eye has no material properties, though it does have material evidences in neurological processes--though the processes themselves are not the conceptualized color.

The human dimension is the material reality we apprehend through our physical senses.

Not true, I am actually very interested in understanding spiritual experiences at the neurological level. I've experienced (through isolation chambers, fits of sleep paralysis, and hallucinogens) a great many things that you would regard as a spiritual experience, out of body experiences, knowing things about rooms that I couldn't possibly have known, and an utter loss of my self when experiencing a oneness with the universe.

Then I guess I ask that you be cognizant of the loaded language and what such things imply. All one can reasonably assume from the use of loaded language is an underlying bias and resistance to objective analysis.

Skepticism regarding the truth claims of your god /= denying the existence of your, or denying any reality that in fact exists.

I’m merely requesting you apply that skepticism equally

I don't understand what you mean, I believe in the cosmos (all that is),

Right there’s an assumption that may not be accurate. Perhaps the cosmos is not actually “all that is.” Consider that. If you allow for a certain set of assumptions in your paradigm of belief that need not be proved, what is so different from my assumption that there is more to “all that is” than merely the material cosmos? My evidence for a reality that is not material can be seen above where I was “thinking of a color...” It is materially evidenced, but non-material in its reality.

Axioms /= assumptions,

Yes they are. The two words are synonyms. An axiom assumes a position.

See Webster:
Assumption: 5 a: an assuming that something is true b: a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted

 

[Felicity]

Re: Post Script

Its just that we have to agree on certain rules of logic in order to have a debate about ideas, and its important to me that we do not equivocate on words that have specific meanings.

The word "realities" is too ambiguous, could you use a more precise word, so that we're using the same terms; I don't want to get bogged down in semantics.

I agree-- I hope the above post helps.

 

[Felicity]

Re: If we're talking about the same thing, lets use the same words.

I do not assume reality, you're equivocating words now. The acceptance of an axiom as a premise is not a contradiction, thats how logic works. You're personifying logic when you say "it refuses to turn its own lens upon itself." Logic is a process, not a thing or body of people. It has rules, like A=A and the law of non-contradiction, just like in physics we have laws for the behavior of matter.

If ever you claim to have found a contradiction in the rules of logic, please share it. But to use logic, by the rules of logic, to attack logic would be illogical. If those rules were invalid in the first place, so is your logic that is debunking logic. The question itself is absurd, there are no contradictions in this universe.

Since we are here to have this debate, we exist in a universe where life can evolve to do so, on a planet suitable for life. Its important to note our place, size, and age in this universe.

I am not attacking logic itself. I am questioning your perception of what is a logical foundation for refusing to accept axiomatically that there is in fact a transcendent, unprovable, reality that is non-material.

 

[scourge99]

Maybe this helps, maybe it doesn't but here's an old post from Lachean you might find useful:

I have reason to believe in the nature of truth and falsehoods through living, and interacting with reality. If you want to continue to have a practical discussion, we're going to have to agree that some things are true, and some things are false. If you want to continue to engage in this shifting goalpost fallacy, which I imagine next you're going to have me prove reality, or the reliability of my senses, then I have no interest in debating with you.

I refuse to the debate impractical and silly notions:

* That I exist;
* The reliability of my senses, or my sanity
* The existence of reality or truth/falsehoods.

 

[Felicity]

Maybe this helps, maybe it doesn't but here's an old post from Lachean you might find useful:

I'm not questioning the existence of those things--or asking him to. I ask merely upon what logical foundation are some things accepted axiomatically (such as those things), and other possibilities (specifically possibilities with measurable evidence that points to its existence) are flatly denied and even marginalized with loaded language?

It's a fair question. What is the difference between such axiomatic assumptions as "I think, therefore I am" and "I think, therefore some reality that is unmeasurable and yet readily evident exists?" I actually think the second axiomatic statement is less a leap to a conclusion than "I think, therefore I am." It's basically "I think--therefore 'thinking' itself is some thing real."

 

[MSgt]

The actions of a person simply because he is Christian do not necessitate that they are actions due to his religion.

Yet, the violent actions of a person because he is a Chrisitian would certainly necessitate that they are actions due to his religion, right?

Why is it that an abortion clinic bomber get's to be tied to his religion, but MLK is seperated from his? This cannot be a one way street.

 

[MSgt]

This is historical revisionism. People were illiterate for the most part, and when the printing press actually became available, look at the myriad erroneous Biblical texts that got produced and disseminated--there was absolutely no "quality control." What's a Church concerned with fidelity to the Truth supposed to do?

A church concerned with losing power did exactly what it always does....circle the wagons and lash out. If the Catholic Church was concerned with truth, then why did they insist (still do) that another man "absolve" you of your sins?

No, the mobile printing press made the word of god available to all men and this weakened the hold that the Catholic Church had. Rebellions and punishments ensued and the 16th century recorded it all. One side was mortified over the prospect of a different path to salvation that did not go through the church and the other was emboldened with this prospect. The land ran crimson.

...and God let the Church languish for 1500 years in error only to be revitalized by a protest movement that has since shattered into thousands of versions of "the Truth?" Okay...If that makes sense to you... :shrug:

"God" didn't let anything happen. This is what "free will" means. Man did unto man.

No bias there..:rofl

Is it bias? I fail to recognize a single passage where men were given power over men when it came to salvation in the Bible. I also fail to recognize a single passage where popes, cardinals, bishops and other hieracrchy are to be appointed over man. This is a product of the church...not God. And this is just one indication that leads me to believe that most Christians are faithful to the church rather than to God. It strikes me odd that so many in the West can accept that Muslims are faithful to the Arab tribe rather than to Allah, but fail to see how Christians do the same thing with their churches.

Per the Anglican Jesus...God is for every race, and if you look around, Jesus can be found depicted as Asian and African and Spanish, etc.. He's the Christ for all peoples and every sort has the right to "paint him" as they please. Just because Europeans embraced Christianity so readily and were the main peoples in power around the globe for such a long time does not "necessarily" indicate racist motives.

Yet, in the mainstream of Chrisitianity you will find bigotry towards Jews. History recorded church communities fighting other church comunities over the prospect of equality. History recorded the church's sentiments towards a woman's role despite the very strong presence and implications of women in Jesus' life. An obvious purposeful alteration of skin color for the Middle Eastern prophet very much deals in racial motives. These are prescriptions passed on through the church through tradition and did not reflect on what Christianity was supposed to be. If you were raised Christian, you know this to be true. I questioned the establishment my whole life and only recently come to some obvious conclusions. And I got here by studying the psychology of Islam of all things.

That's just a few comments...when one has a bias that already assumes error on the part of the opposing POV without hearing out the actual perspective...there's not much one can effectually say to rebut the bias.

Spare me the hurt martyr routine. I have alegitimate argument and you don't like it simply because it doesn't sit well with what "church" has told you. Many Christians find themselves the victims of traditions and most refuse to acknowledge it. Is there a reason women aren't deacons? Did Jesus treat the women around him as creatures to be set below this leadership?

 

[Felicity]

A church concerned with losing power did exactly what it always does....circle the wagons and lash out. If the Catholic Church was concerned with truth, then why did they insist (still do) that another man "absolve" you of your sins?

Per the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which is the official teaching of the Catholic faith as it has been handed down through the ages since the time of Jesus), The priest is the instrument of God through whom God acts to forgive sins. Catholics do not "get forgiven" by priests, God forgives man in the Sacrament of reconciliation. (see James 5: 16 and 2 Corinthians. 5:15-21) The Sacrament is Biblical.

One side was mortified over the prospect of a different path to salvation that did not go through the church and the other was emboldened with this prospect.

A different path other than through the dictates of Jesus? Does this surprise you? Jesus established his Church and gave the authority to Peter. The Jewish notion of the "chair of Moses" and the "Keys" of authority and the power of "binding and loosing" that were traditional roles of the Pharisees. As foretold in the OT, those powers would be stripped from the Jewish hierarchy that misused them, and given to another source (see Matt. 16:14-19 and JewishEncyclopedia.com - BINDING AND LOOSING and JewishEncyclopedia.com - KEY )

"God" didn't let anything happen. This is what "free will" means. Man did unto man.

I agree--man corrupted the unity of the Church created by Jesus through prideful disobedience. It was called "the Reformation." Just look at the history of Martin Luther.

Is it bias? I fail to recognize a single passage where men were given power over men when it came to salvation in the Bible.

As noted, you have a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching that leads to assume erroneous conclusions.

I also fail to recognize a single passage where popes, cardinals, bishops and other hierarchy are to be appointed over man. This is a product of the church...not God.

The priesthood is based in the OT Mosaic priesthood and another priesthood that is not of the “law” but of “life” (otherwise known as the New Covenant priesthood of Jesus)

Here are some of the Biblical sources:

From the OT~
Exod.40 [1] The LORD said to Moses, [12] Then you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the door of the tent of meeting, and shall wash them with water, [13] and put upon Aaron the holy garments, and you shall anoint him and consecrate him, that he may serve me as priest. [14] You shall bring his sons also and put coats on them, [15] and anoint them, as you anointed their father, that they may serve me as priests: and their anointing shall admit them to a perpetual priesthood throughout their generations." [16] Thus did Moses; according to all that the LORD commanded him, so he did.

Gen.14 [18] And Mel-chiz'edek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.

Ps.110 [4] The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchiz'edek."

Fulfilled in the NT~
Heb.5 [1] For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.[4] And one does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was. [5] So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee"; [6] as he says also in another place, "Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchiz'edek."


Also see Heb. 7:1-28

As an explanation~

The Catholic priesthood is called “Apostolic” because this “new priesthood” began with the 12 Apostles of Jesus

The symbols of authority and Divinely protected leadership are the “keys” to the kingdom and the power of “binding and loosing” mentioned in Matt. 16:14-19

The following are NT verses concerning succession of teaching authority through a hierarchical priestly authority:

Acts 1:15-26 succession of Matthias to the position vacated by Judas
1Thess. 1:1, 2:6 Paul refers to Silvanus and Timothy as “apostles of Christ”
1Tim 3:1-8 qualifications of a bishop
1 Tim 4:134-14 succession through the laying on of hands and prophetic utterances
1 Tim 5:17-22 more instruction concerning caution as to who is consecrated to the priesthood
2 Tim 2:1-2 entrusting the teaching to faithful men who can teach others

Is there a reason women aren't deacons?

Yes--It's because God sent his SON to be the high priest and so men are the ones who receive the priesthood. The human person is body and soul which are ultimately inseparable (per the Biblical dogma of the resurrection of the body at the end of time).

Did Jesus treat the women around him as creatures to be set below this leadership?

Yes. There are no female apostles. However, do note the great veneration given to God's perfect human creation: Mary. How much flack does the church get for honoring the Blessed Mother as she does? Women and men are of equal dignity in the eyes of God and the Church--but they are very much unique and different and special in their own right.

 

[jfuh]

Yet, the violent actions of a person because he is a Chrisitian would certainly necessitate that they are actions due to his religion, right?

AS you should already know better now, just as I don't relate terrorism by OBL to his religion (though he uses it to his benefit to control others), nor would I attribute it with christianity. I've repeated this to YOU over and over I don't understand what of that you don't yet understand.

Why is it that an abortion clinic bomber get's to be tied to his religion, but MLK is seperated from his? This cannot be a one way street.

Because when an abortion clinic bomber states that it is unchristian and ungodly to have abortions and such clinics need to be met with violently he's appealing to his religion for his actions (even though it's against his religion). When MLK led his civil rights movement as did Malcom X neither attributed their fight for civil rights and equality to their religion. If either of them were atheist what then are you going to attribute the credit to?
Einstein was a Jew so does that mean that it was because of his religious belief that allowed him to develop the theory of relativity? Was it Darwin's christian faith that brought about the theory of evolution?
Was it Hitler's Christian faith that brought about the holocaust?
Being a person of faith does not necessitate that all their actions are a result of their faith.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

If assumptions were axioms, I could assume myself into wealth

What I question, is why you accept such an axiom.

I accept the axiom that I exist because given my consciousness, and my capacity to perceive it, it is rational to do so. If I did not exist, I would not have the capacity to do so.

Not just this universe...I mean everything that is—seen and unseen, known and unknown, postulated and totally unimagined.

I am not attacking logic itself. I am questioning your perception of what is a logical foundation for refusing to accept axiomatically that there is in fact a transcendent, unprovable, reality that is non-material.

I do not refuse to accept any such axiom, I am skeptical of it. You've given me no reason to believe in any such "transcendent reality" beyond our own cosmos, or that the existence of our cosmos requires such a reality.

Skepticism /= denial or refusal or a proposition; Please stop attempting to equate the two.

I mean, the position that something is rational and reasonable is a point that can’t be proven either. One must assume the conditions that determine what is rational and reasonable as self-evident. Logic is assumed self-evident based upon intrinsic merit. nonetheless, it is still technically "unproved."

Logic is our standard for rationality, or at least its mine anyways.

I believe your view of “reality” needs be material—that’s why you keep calling it “the universe we exist in.”

All of the reality that I have evidence for, experience with, and reason to believe in is material. I believe my consciousness is a by-product of my evolved brain, which is a material construct.

I am saying that reality need not be material as evidenced by non material assumptions made even by those holding materialist views.

What "non-material assumptions" do you speak of?

Since we would have no way to apprehend within our minds that reality without the transcendent reality of thought

Nonetheless—the actual reality of ideas and such is non material.

Are you calling "thought" your "transcendent reality"? Our neurology is definately material, thats why they call it grey matter. Our brains have a tremendous capacity for simulation, which is evident in dreams, hallucinations, and in so called "spiritual experiences" that we can induce in people through stroke, chemically, sensory deprivation, and even an astronaut's centrifuge testing.

We can conceive of a great many things that are not real, does that make them a part of any non-material reality. The word reality implies "real" in some sense, and mustn't include the demonstrably false.

the universe might exist, but we would have no consciousness of it. Like that old saw... "does a tree make a sound when it falls in a forest where no one is around to hear it"...It's irrelevant to us, really, if there is no "us." Is there an entirely material universe? I don't know--but I doubt it.

I think thats merely for lack of trying, I know exactly what it felt like to not exist before I was born. I can imagine what non-existence after I die will be like.

No. I do not mean the “universe”—that is a material thing. I mean a reality that I cannot demonstrate materially.

An example of non material reality would be the color I am thinking of right now. I see it in my mind—it is real—I know it exists—I could describe to you material things that evidence that color and you could see that color in your mind also—HOWEVER—though I communicated a reality to you through description of material things, the reality that is the color in my mind’s eye has no material properties, though it does have material evidences in neurological processes--though the processes themselves are not the conceptualized color.

My evidence for a reality that is not material can be seen above where I was “thinking of a color...” It is materially evidenced, but non-material in its reality.

By that logic dreams and all other imaginary conceptions are as real our perceptions. Just because your neurology translates the physical representation of that color into an electrical impulse that it can understand as that color, does not mean that your mental conception is of a "non-material reality."

I’m merely requesting you apply that skepticism equally

And I am merely asking that you do not equate my being skeptical of any truth claims of your god to "denying" the existence of your god, or "denying" any reality that in fact exists.

How have I not applied my skepticism equally? What have I allowed into my set of axioms that was irrational to do so? Certainly you do not mean the fact that existence exists, as if it were rational to deny it.

Right there’s an assumption that may not be accurate. Perhaps the cosmos is not actually “all that is.” Consider that.

The word cosmos means "all that is," so that is what I mean when I use it. I mean it including all other realities or universes.

I already said that I do believe that there may be more to the cosmos than we currently suppose. "Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we CAN suppose" - Dawkins.

If you allow for a certain set of assumptions in your paradigm of belief that need not be proved, what is so different from my assumption that there is more to “all that is” than merely the material cosmos?

Its not that they need not be proven, its that they are proven every day with every action of cognition, they have to be true in order for us to be here. But your belief is different because there is no reason to believe that such a reality is necessary for our cosmos to be possible.

Yes they are. The two words are synonyms. An axiom assumes a position.

See Webster:
Assumption: 5 a: an assuming that something is true b: a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted

Please link to me where Webster lists assumptions as a synonym for axioms. Not all assumptions are axioms, axioms are true where assumptions can be demonstrably false.

In Webster's thesaurus these are the assumptions for synonyms:
"Synonymsostulate, premise, presumption, presupposition, supposition."

 

[Felicity]

I accept the axiom that I exist because given my consciousness, and my capacity to perceive it, it is rational to do so. If I did not exist, I would not have the capacity to do so.

I see. I exist because I am conscious. And, I am conscious because I am aware of it through my perception. And, it is rational to assent to the reality of my perception since if I didn’t exist, I wouldn't be conscious of my existence.

Hmmmm.... One might consider that circular reasoning...but I understand the need to have faith in a particular basis for a belief system. :mrgreen: I agree. We exist.

I do not refuse to accept any such axiom, I am skeptical of it. You've given me no reason to believe in any such "transcendent reality" beyond our own cosmos, or that the existence of our cosmos requires such a reality.

Your consciousness is evidence of it.

Logic is our standard for rationality, or at least its mine anyways.

Until you admit that the axiom at the basis of all your beliefs is unprovable and makes an assumption (albeit a necessary assumption) to support your ability to apprehend anything and everything in a logical and coherent fashion, you are simply “existing” in a state of denial that is utterly fruitless. The truth is, at the basis of all human reason is an axiom that is only self verifying and circular. (please see Webster's stuff below)

All of the reality that I have evidence for, experience with, and reason to believe in is material. I believe my consciousness is a by-product of my evolved brain, which is a material construct.

The material functions of your brain are one thing. They evidence the immaterial reality of the thought generated. There is a difference between the wind, and the leaves that shiver in the breeze—or the breath and the lungs that generate the exhalation.

Are you calling "thought" your "transcendent reality"?

Not exactly...I’m calling thought evidence of a transcendent reality. The thought itself is non-material.

Our neurology is definately material, thats why they call it grey matter. Our brains have a tremendous capacity for simulation, which is evident in dreams, hallucinations, and in so called "spiritual experiences" that we can induce in people through stroke, chemically, sensory deprivation, and even an astronaut's centrifuge testing.

Correct, and I agree. The brain, and the measurable functioning processes are indeed material. However, the thing generated through these processes is not.

We can conceive of a great many things that are not real, does that make them a part of any non-material reality. The word reality implies "real" in some sense, and mustn't include the demonstrably false.

It’s not the things you imagine that are real—it’s real that you, in fact, imagine. And, it is THAT reality, that something exists in the confines of the mind that has no material property at all and yet can be communicated in a real and material way (through neurological processes) that points to some “thing” that is non-material and yet evident to the both of us.

I think thats merely for lack of trying, I know exactly what it felt like to not exist before I was born. I can imagine what non-existence after I die will be like.

Oh yeah? ‘splain it. What’s it like?

By that logic dreams and all other imaginary conceptions are as real our perceptions. Just because your neurology translates the physical representation of that color into an electrical impulse that it can understand as that color, does not mean that your mental conception is of a "non-material reality."

You confuse the means with the end. The color that exists in my mind is a thing. The process that generates it is the means. The thought itself is something different from the process of generating the thought. (see the wind through leaves and breath generated by the lungs).

The word cosmos means "all that is," so that is what I mean when I use it. I mean it including all other realities or universes. I already said that I do believe that there may be more to the cosmos than we currently suppose. "Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we CAN suppose" - Dawkins.

Actually, I think it means “good order” but if you mean “all that is, seen and unseen, known and unknown, etc...” I can go with that. Just to be clear—If I say “Cosmos” (better~if I say “Kosmos”) that’s what I’ll mean and assume that’s what you mean since that’s what you say here. According to what you say here, even your definition of cosmos “might” include a possibility of a transcendent reality.

Its not that they need not be proven, its that they are proven every day with every action of cognition, they have to be true in order for us to be here.

That’s exactly what I believe concerning the “transcendent reality”—we’re accessing it right now in communicating meaning to one another through our neurological processes!

But your belief is different because there is no reason to believe that such a reality is necessary for our cosmos to be possible.

Ok...what’s “our cosmos”—either “cosmos” is all that is –ALL that is—or it’s not all that is. you can’t partition off a “part” of all and still call it all. ???

Please link to me where Webster lists assumptions as a synonym for axioms. Not all assumptions are axioms, axioms are true where assumptions can be demonstrably false.

In Webster's thesaurus these are the assumptions for synonyms:
"Synonymsostulate, premise, presumption, presupposition, supposition."

FYI...semantics gets boring....every possible word won’t be listed...you have to sometimes “cross-reference” in dictionaries.

For example:
If A=B, and B=C, then A=C.
If axiom (A) = postulate (B), and postulate(B) = assumption (C), then axiom (A) = assumption (C).

Axiom = postulate per definition #2 axiom - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

BTW: the irony of the example should not be lost on the casual observer
postulate - Synonyms from the Merriam-Webster Online Thesaurus

Entry Word:
postulate
Function:
noun
Text: something taken as being true or factual and used as a starting point for a course of action or reasoning <one of the postulates that the true agnostic rejects is the assumption that it is even possible for us to know whether God exists> — see ASSUMPTION

 

[jfuh]

Re: If assumptions were axioms, I could assume myself into wealth

I accept the axiom that I exist because given my consciousness, and my capacity to perceive it, it is rational to do so. If I did not exist, I would not have the capacity to do so.

Philosophy 101 - Decartes :mrgreen:

 

[justone]

Re: If assumptions were axioms, I could assume myself into wealth

Philosophy 101 - Decartes :mrgreen:

jfuh, as well as all atheists, does not even have a clue what he is talking about. All Philosophy starting 101, going up to 999 and including ‘’Decartes’’ proves existence of G-d. If jfuh knew Descartes he would steer away from him, because Descartes as well as justone is exactly talking about things atheists cannot understand.

Because the following are true words of Descartes, and they, of course, have nothing to do to representation of Descartes by wikipedia.
''But I observed that, while I was thus resolved to feign that everything was false, I who thought must of necessity be somewhat; and remarking this truth--I think, therefore I am--was so firm and so assured that all the most extravagant suppositions of the sceptics were unable to shake it, I judged that I could unhesitatingly accept it as the first principle of the philosophy I was seeking. I could feign that there was no world, I could not feign that I did not exist.

It remained, then, to conclude that it was put into me by a nature truly more perfect than was I and possessing in itself all the perfections of what I could form an idea--in a word, by God.

I HAVE always remained firm in my resolve to assume no other principle than that which I have used to demonstrate the existence of God and of the soul, and to receive nothing which did not seem to me clearer and more certain than the demonstrations of the philosophers had seemed before; yet not only have I found means of satisfying myself with regard to the principal difficulties which are usually treated of in philosophy, but also I have remarked certain laws which God has so established in nature, and of which He has implanted such notions in our souls, that we cannot doubt that they are observed in all which happens in the world.''

Rene Descartes: 'I think therefore I am'

 

[jfuh]

Re: If assumptions were axioms, I could assume myself into wealth

jfuh, as well as all atheists, does not even have a clue what he is talking about. All Philosophy starting 101, going up to 999 and including ‘’Decartes’’ proves existence of G-d. If jfuh knew Descartes he would steer away from him, because Descartes as well as justone is exactly talking about things atheists cannot understand.

Because the following are true words of Descartes, and they, of course, have nothing to do to representation of Descartes by wikipedia.
''But I observed that, while I was thus resolved to feign that everything was false, I who thought must of necessity be somewhat; and remarking this truth--I think, therefore I am--was so firm and so assured that all the most extravagant suppositions of the sceptics were unable to shake it, I judged that I could unhesitatingly accept it as the first principle of the philosophy I was seeking. I could feign that there was no world, I could not feign that I did not exist.

It remained, then, to conclude that it was put into me by a nature truly more perfect than was I and possessing in itself all the perfections of what I could form an idea--in a word, by God.

I HAVE always remained firm in my resolve to assume no other principle than that which I have used to demonstrate the existence of God and of the soul, and to receive nothing which did not seem to me clearer and more certain than the demonstrations of the philosophers had seemed before; yet not only have I found means of satisfying myself with regard to the principal difficulties which are usually treated of in philosophy, but also I have remarked certain laws which God has so established in nature, and of which He has implanted such notions in our souls, that we cannot doubt that they are observed in all which happens in the world.''

Rene Descartes: 'I think therefore I am'

Actually Decartes does not prove the existance of god as you wrongfully assume. The first two meditations were valid, but afterwards Decartes believed that the belief of god was innate - an invalid premise thus a wrong conclusion.
Since you are now attempting, go ahead, be my guest prove that god exists.

Finally for the nth time now I'm agnostic, not an atheist.

 

[justone]

P.S. I don't really have to mention that Rene Descartes was one of the most oustanding mathematicians in history of mathematics, and thus anything he has said cannot be understood by atheistic minds, do I? It is like "'nobody can understand what justone says, - just because justone talks from the same position as Aquinas, Newton, Kelvin, Descartes, Cantor, Godel ...
’The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words.” – Lord Kelvin .
Kelvin Is Lord!

 

[justone]

Re: If assumptions were axioms, I could assume myself into wealth

Actually Decartes does not prove the existance of god as you wrongfully assume. The first two meditations were valid, but afterwards Decartes believed that the belief of god was innate - an invalid premise thus a wrong conclusion.
Since you are now attempting, go ahead, be my guest prove that god exists.

Finally for the nth time now I'm agnostic, not an atheist.

Sure, Descrates fails to jfuh

meditations? Meditation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why don't you give me a break?

Be my guest, prove to me that ""Decartes believed that the belief of god was innate"" before I even try to be smarter that Descrates in front of jfuh

You are not an atheist, you are an atheist^3 ( in the 3rd power.)