You are currently looking at Flamebate, our community forums. Players can discuss the game here, strategize, and role play as their characters.
You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.
Haggis, we can continue our discussion of C.S. Lewis, atheism, and religion in here.
|
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
We started in IDC, but ****ed too many folks off. |
||||||
| Posted On: 04/04/2008 1:07PM |
Rate this Post: 0
View markchild's Profile
|
#
  |
||||||
|
I found a link to an excerpt from Mere Christianity that mentions the point of moral law and the (proof?) of God:
[link]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/ownwords/mere1.html[/link]
And I admit that some may not believe this, but it seems very convincing considering he was smart enough to cover the case of negating his claim.
Other than that, I guess I suppose that though I have no real considerable and definable belief myself, atheism in itself to me seems impractical. It’s bumerting a claim just as sure and narrow-minded as any other, with no principle evidence to back it up. Science has not provided any empirical data to disprove the existence of God. And it is simply ignorant for an atheist to condemn another for a belief in a higher power, since they are simply as unsure as the rest. I heard someone (a proclaimed atheist) mention science as their Truth and their reason to refute the existence of a god or gods, but as far as I recall from my high school science clbumes half a decade ago, Scientific fact only does not mean anything is proven, only that it has not yet been disproved. |
||||||
| Posted On: 04/04/2008 1:26PM |
Rate this Post: 0
View HaggisBasher's Profile
|
#
|
||||||
|
HaggisBasher Posted:
Before I begin. From:http://essayinfo.com/essays/persuasive_essay.phpDisprove the opposing argument. Understand the opposite viewpoint of your position and then counter it by providing contrasting evidence or by finding mistakes and inconsistencies in the logic of the opposing argument.
So no free points to C.S. for the counter-argument.
“But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away.”
A good argument against it being instinctive, but it leads directly to the question of moral law as a societal phenomenon.
“If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature’s mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win.”
One of many bumumption that are stated in this paragraph without support.
“Here is a third way of seeing it. If the Moral Law was one of our instincts, we ought to be able to point to some one impulse inside us which was always what we call ‘good,’ always in agreement with the rule of right behaviors. But you cannot.”
Here I agree with the statement. Moral Law is not instinctive.
“The people who ask that question are usually taking it for granted that if we have learned a thing from parents and teachers, then that thing must be merely a human invention. But, of course, that is not so. ... But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality…”
Flat wrong, you are measuring it against your ideal of morality. Do you think Hitler thought his moral law was immoral. No, he was witch hunting. (see below) |
||||||
| Posted On: 04/04/2008 2:06PM |
Rate this Post: 0
View markchild's Profile
|
#
|
||||||
|
“I conclude then, that though the difference between people’s ideas of Decent Behaviour often make you suspect that there is no real natural Law of Behaviour at all, yet the things we are bound to think about these differences really prove just the opposite. But one word before I end. I have met people who exaggerate the differences, because they have not distinguished between difference of morality and differences of belief about facts. For example, one man said to me, ‘Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?’ But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did — if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbors or drive them mad or bring bad weather — surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did? There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simple about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believes there were no mice in the house.”
All well and good but, how do you, or C.S. counter the real argument?
Societies develop moral codes to benefit society. It logically follows that members of those societies will be indoctrinated with ideals that sustain those societies. Most societies will, therefore, encourage helping others. This accounts for similar moral codes around the globe without invoking religion.
HaggisBasher Posted: Clbum of ‘03? Cool. We’ll talk about the standards for theories in a bit. Theories aren’t facts, but they are closer than you may think.
End argument part 1.
I, in fact respect your viewpoint, and am a Christian. Think of this as a debate with name calling. I just believe that my faith has to fly in the face of proven science and yell “but I’m the exception.” |
||||||
| Posted On: 04/04/2008 2:06PM |
Rate this Post: 0
View markchild's Profile
|
#
|
||||||
|
Your critique on the excerpt was well appreciated. I would try to justify the claims made in the excerpt that I tried to link, but they are not mine and I would do none of it justice. I cannot even think that I have thought out those ideas as well or intensely has he tried. I just believe they are interesting bumertions. However, before any approaches he made are scrutinized, it would be best to read it in the context of its entirety, not just the excerpt. It’s all very interesting, though I know that proves nothing. And I think I understand the idea that Theories are more real than fact, based off of my basic philosophy course where we skimmed over the concept of concepts, in the search for the unattainable perfect Form by Plato. Also, through a mind-altering trip I had once when I was younger, I had expanded the concept with my own personal modification of including the ultimate being to actually be the amalgamation of those perfect Forms that people can never comprehend. The real problem I think that instigated the whole conversation in IDC was my clbum of 03’ concept about atheists. Now, my indecisiveness causes me to precariously straddle the fence on the idea of religion. Mainly, I lack faith. But I have viewed atheists attacking the ideas of organized religion. Sometimes even banding together as a coalition (congregation) against the evils, even on more than one occasion. If proof is needed of this, please let me know and I will find places online quickly. Almost every stumble upon link to an atheist interest website I have seen has shown the intent animosity toward faith, primarily the Christian faith. The two primarily puzzling questions about atheist I have are: what is the purpose as an atheist to try to refute another person’s faith-based belief? What is the gain in doing this? |
||||||
| Posted On: 04/04/2008 2:44PM |
Rate this Post: 0
View HaggisBasher's Profile
|
#
|
||||||
|
I will read the entire work before going at it again. Also, one firm critique of faith is that it allows abrogation of real world responsibilities. Just something to chew on until I read up. |
||||||
| Posted On: 04/04/2008 3:22PM |
Rate this Post: 0
View markchild's Profile
|
#
|
||||||
