<p>First, I’m keeping myself removed from actual beliefs here. So people are angry at the beliefs I am laying out in my posts, not what “I am saying.”</p>
<p>Second, that’s what ALL beliefs on morality/existence are, at least from my experience. I cannot possibly imagine how someone could support the statement that their morality is empirically objective and involves no assumptions.</p>
<p>Surprise: Everyone has “faith,” except maybe nihilists (but the fact that we even exist is another assumption…)! That’s my postulate, and I would be more than happy to be proven wrong. But I haven’t yet.</p>
Baelor- something you and I can “agree” on. I dont get why people are saying that to be Christian you have to follow the bible, and now “pick and choose.” Last time I checked, it’s really only fundies and some baptists that follow a literal translation of the bible.</p>
<p>Blah blah blah. My religion is complex blah blah so my views are valid blah blah. </p>
<p>Believe whatever nonsense you want, but don’t expect those of us who actually give a damn about rationality and the real world to sit idly by as you spread your beliefs, causing real world problems in the process.</p>
<p>If you can pick and choose what parts of the Bible to follow (ie not take it literally), why be a Christian in the first place? I don’t see why you wouldn’t just use it as a moral guide (a la Jefferson) instead of continuing to believe in the “Christian God”. What’s wrong with deism sprinkled with values from the Christian bible?</p>
<p>You can claim whatever you want. I have made sure that they are always hypothetical and nothing more.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is this in reference to anything? Or just a general complaint about things you don’t like?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Problems as you define them. I feel bad that you’re so unwilling to understand why you believe what you believe and why others believe what they believe. I think that if you really considered the fundamental truths that you accept, you would realize that they are merely assumptions that you are willing to make. Everyone has this choice. You’ve made yours. But don’t fault others for doing what you did, albeit in a different way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Catholic Church, as an institution that compiled the Bible yet also never took it literally, has tons of literature on this topic. Your failure to understand the intricacies of Christianity and its denominations doesn’t mean they’re stupid, only that you’re ignorant.</p>
<p>Not even going to touch that one. It seems you think that thousands dying from AIDS (many as a result of misinformation RE: contraception) is not a problem. Flying airplanes into buildings because of religious differences? Not to mention the hundreds of millions of people killed by religious-minded people over the years. But I guess since it’s their moral belief, I can’t call it a problem. What a cold, detached person you are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, I ask: why take only some parts of the Bible literally? If it’s meant to be a moral guide, how are the parts about Jesus’ divinity any more or less valid than parts about stoning homosexuals or owning slaves?</p>
<p>why do you have to take the bible either totally literally (this is actually impossible to do without running into contradictions) or not at all? these aren’t the only choices.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>don’t ignore this part. this is, in my opinion, the most important part of baelor’s post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>you can call it a problem. you can call their ideology ugly, stupid, disgusting. but you can’t necessarily say that your way of viewing the world is derived from pure reason or from science, and that they, without a doubt, are just idiots who are incapable of seeing the world the Right way.</p>
<p>^You’re still avoiding the question. If you get to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are relevant to today’s society, why does the divinity of Jesus get a free pass? </p>
<p>Yes, I get it, everything’s subjective. To someone, millions dying for stupid reasons is perfectly acceptable. Wonderful. With that kind of mentality, we’d still be in the dark ages.</p>
<p>i don’t see what you are trying to say. you are free to pick your religous views however you want. it’s not like you have to choose between religion A and religion B. this is like saying that americans must have political beliefs that toe (tow?) the democratic or republican party line, and nothing else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>no, you aren’t getting it. you pretend like you are criticizing other’s beliefs on logical grounds, but it really boils down to you not liking them. i’m not even saying that there is anything wrong with this type of objection! i am saying though that it is dishonest to think that it is anything else.</p>
<p>If you are a Christian, you ultimately take your religion from the Bible. No Bible = no ‘record’ of Jesus’ divinity = no Catholic church = no Protestant offshoots = no other forms of Christianity. </p>
<p>If parts of the Bible can be ignored or written off to “acceptable at the time”, metaphorical, or the like, what is it about Jesus’ divinity that makes it immune from these accusations? Why is the fact that ‘Jesus is God’ (and his miracles/etc. that prove so) never comes under question for these same reasons?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, like I said, morality is subjective. With that same token, you’re giving equal ground to nonsense like “People should die of AIDS because they didn’t practice celibacy, and celibacy is a part of my moral code.” That sort of attitude is nonsensical and dangerous to those beyond the immediate believers. Like I said before, believe whatever you want, but when you start pushing your beliefs onto others – and said pushing results in death, destruction, and general undesirable situations – people with common sense will object.</p>
<p>I don’t know, you tell me. Would you rather die from old age (because your society practices healthy behaviors) or die from AIDS at age 20 (because your society believes that celibacy is the answer, no matter what the consequences)?</p>
<p>Because (most) christians don’t choose to! why are your political and ethical beliefs the way they are? answer this. earlier in the thread i asked you to. it’s a good exercise that will help illustrate my point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i think that opinion is disgusting, but i can’t necessarily say that the person spouting it is making a logical error on his part. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>in other words, people who have moral beliefs that are in common with yours will object, and force their views on the others.</p>
<p>And I choose to believe in a teacup flying around the Earth. That doesn’t somehow make it valid or logical whatsoever.</p>
<p>What exactly qualifies as logically good, then? If dying young from a preventable disease isn’t logically bad, what exactly is? Is the instinct to survive not scientific enough to be logical?</p>
<p>"I don’t know, you tell me. Would you rather die from old age (because your society practices healthy behaviors) or die from AIDS at age 20 (because your society believes that celibacy is the answer, no matter what the consequences)? "</p>
<p>That’s a <em>serious</em> false dilemma.</p>
<p>However, since I have never experienced death, I cannot in good conscience even attempt to make the judgement that it would be better to be alive than dead. I have no answer to what is a logical fallacy in any case.</p>
<p>Also, as “cold and detached” as it may sound, the idea that human life is intrinsically valuable is an assumption in its own right. It is <em>impossible</em> to empirically assign value to something.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>If life isn’t valuable to you, then why are you still here? Nevermind the biological reasons that we choose to live. I’m not going to argue the validity of life with you – if you don’t think being alive is important, then get out of the way of those who do. </p></li>
<li><p>Lose the idea of an afterlife, and all of a sudden the current reality becomes important.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Like I said before – if you don’t care about the current world, you’re detrimental to those who do. Bypassing this reality because “heaven” will reward you after death is a dangerous opinion to have, as far as this world is concerned.</p>