Originally posted by black beetleThe philosopher has to produce a clear and reasonable thesis which it has nothing to do with the "faith" or the "non-faith" factor; the theologian stands on his personal “absolute truth”, he builds an irrational system and he then he tries by any means to indoctrinate the other people in full by any means
edit: “I think you have the order swapped. There are a handful of people who wish to displace religion (and for good reason) with humanistic thinking. Worse, however, are those people who are hell-bent on replacing truth with human viewpoint. That being said, religion has been around a heck of a lot longer than what is traditionally known as philosophy. ...[text shortened]... doctrine whilst I assume that it’s just another ill-considered metaphysic theory
😵
Ouch.
“Clear and reasonable” to whom, exactly? Further, based upon which standard? As with any system of thinking, faith is always a factor: trust toward one’s ability to gather empirical data; trust one is collecting the correct data; trust that one is accurately analyzing the data, etc., etc., etc..
A theologian does not stand on his personal truth; he submits himself to God’s word. While that word certainly yields personal applications, it is by no means intended for one solitary person.
The rest of your quote is simply gibberish.
The philosopher has to take into account the given scientific finds and evidence; the theologian takes into account solely his personal “holy scripture”
The philosopher is at the mercy of the veracity of both the latest understandings and his ability to make sense of the whole thing. The theologian rests with confidence that underneath it all our the loving arms of God.
A philosophic theory must be fair and based on common sens, intuition, facts and evidence; a religious system is totally metaphysic
I’m not sure you know what the term “metaphysic” actually means.
The philosopher proceeds through the evaluation of the mind; the theologian surpasses the unsolvable problems of his religious system by means of presenting them as “holy mysteries”
Hogwash. No theologian picks up the Book, submits himself to rigorous study to simply end every inquiry with ineffable conclusions.
A philosophic theory is not a means of a mental doctrine, which it has to be absorbed "as is" in order to "free" the "people" from their so called "theological and/ or philosophical delusion"; a religious system is the opposite
“You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” Sure, I’m thinking that’s what He had in mind.
A philosophic theory must not be seen as a tool that it can be used in order to promote a solution for problems that have arise or that are supposed to arise in the future; a religious system is the opposite
I guess you’ve never heard of philosophy going bad.
A philosophic theory has to survive severe criticism, therefore it must be well versed; a religious system is based on evidence and conclusions that they are both irrational to the hilt
A theologian must support his view on any topic via Scripture… the whole of Scripture.
A philosophic system is looking for the truth herenow, and this is the reason why it goes hand to hand with science: the philosopher is aware of the fact that there is no such a thing as the so called “absolute truth”; on the contrary, religion promotes a stable “absolute truth” and the theologian will do everything in order to indoctrinate the humanity with his personal “absolute truth”
Sounds like you’ve run out of ideas here. And with the awareness, does it dawn on the philosopher that such declarations (there is no such thing as the so called “absolute truth&rdquo😉 are the very definition of irrational?
Your claim that “…truth outstrips both systems” is false due to all the above. However I understand that we disagree because you see your religion as a divine doctrine whilst I assume that it’s just another ill-considered metaphysic theory
If my claim is false, does that make its falseness true? Is there such thing as truth?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHTo the first part of your post: 😵.
You've gone to great lengths to make your point, but it's pretty much the same thing over and over, now summarized by this:
"For the last time, my claim was something regarding limitation on doxastic control as it regards our theoretical deliberations."
Here, you are saying that people have no control about what type of reasoner they are, whet ...[text shortened]... would stand for, say, a political cartoon lampooning either of its many sacred cows?
That is even supposed to mean that Christianity allows for intellectual freedom. Do you honestly believe that the "freedom" allowed in China or any Muslim-ruled nation would stand for, say, a political cartoon lampooning either of its many sacred cows?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question. And I'm still trying to understand what support you have (if any) for your claim that without Christianity there would be no intellectual freedom.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHedit: “Clear and reasonable” to whom, exactly? Further, based upon which standard?”
[b]The philosopher has to produce a clear and reasonable thesis which it has nothing to do with the "faith" or the "non-faith" factor; the theologian stands on his personal “absolute truth”, he builds an irrational system and he then he tries by any means to indoctrinate the other people in full by any means
Ouch.
“Clear and reasonable” to whom, ex ...[text shortened]... my claim is false, does that make its falseness true? Is there such thing as truth?[/b]
“Clear and reasonable” stands for the common procedure of testing of a scientific/ philosophic theory: we conduct a logical comparison of the conclusions of the given theory among themselves in order to validate its internal consistency. Then we determine the character of the theory. Then we compare it with other theories in order to see if it actually offers an advance at a specific field and, if it really does, we apply extreme criticism and tests in order to see if it can survive. Then we test once more the theory by means of empirical applications of the conclusions that they arise from the theory. All in all, we evaluate the theory according to our intelligence. Mind you, “faith/ trust” has nothing to do with this procedure –whatever you tried to describe as “faith/ trust” is merely covered by the trial and error method.
On the contrary, the theologian does stand on his personal truth because, as you said, he submits himself to “god’s word” (in fact he submits himself to his -personal- god’s word, that is). And this is the reason why he cannot cope with the above mentioned scientific/ philosophic procedure but he merely offers his system blindly because it is the so called “word of (his) god” -and furthermore he tries by any means to indoctrinate with it the other people;
edit: “The theologian rests with confidence that underneath it all our the loving arms of God.”
Yeap, the good ole standing alone confidence;
Edit: “I’m not sure you know what the term “metaphysic” actually means.”
😀😀
edit: “Hogwash. No theologian picks up the Book, submits himself to rigorous study to simply end every inquiry with ineffable conclusions.”
Of course he does, and this action is the cornerstone of the preaching;
edit: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” Sure, I’m thinking that’s what He had in mind.”
Truth is merely yourself herenow and this truth is everchanging according to your nature -so I think that he was talking solely about the most hard task: one has to get to know himself. This conclusion set me free indeed, but that’s another story;
Edit: “I guess you’ve never heard of philosophy going bad.”
Oh my teacher was repeating again and again that there are good philosophers and bad philosophers;
edit: “A theologian must support his view on any topic via Scripture… the whole of Scripture.”
Sure thing; unfortunately the scripture at its core is not “holy” but merely an ill-considered theory;
edit: “Sounds like you’ve run out of ideas here. And with the awareness, does it dawn on the philosopher that such declarations (there is no such thing as the so called “absolute truth&rdquo😉 are the very definition of irrational?”
Go on, prove it!
Edit: “If my claim is false, does that make its falseness true? Is there such thing as truth?”
Your claim can be false or right or whatever according to the evaluation of your mind because it is always merely a relativistic conclusion. Truth is empty. I will not offer the essentials of sunyata here but I will make my idea clear by means of exploiting briefly a simple scientific fact:
In the past it was believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe, but Galileo falsified it partly and he claimed that the centre of the universe was the Sun. As you see, the core idea that there is indeed a centre of the universe was not falsified. Then came along Newton, and he offered a theory that made Galileo’s thesis less tenable. And nowdays, the theories of relativity and of quantum mechanics offer the idea that it is quite possible that any place could be the centre of the universe. As you see, the idea that the universe has a centre is not yet falsified; therefore the idea that the Earth is the centre of the universe is neither falsified nor corroborated. So what is the “absolute truth” over here? On the other hand, why do we choose the Earth as the centre of the spatial coordinate system?
😵
Originally posted by LemonJelloI'm sorry, but I don't understand your question.
To the first part of your post: 😵.
That is even supposed to mean that Christianity allows for intellectual freedom. Do you honestly believe that the "freedom" allowed in China or any Muslim-ruled nation would stand for, say, a political cartoon lampooning either of its many sacred cows?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question. And I'm ...[text shortened]... e (if any) for your claim that without Christianity there would be no intellectual freedom.[/b]
Of course you do; you're just playing your little game, per usual.
The question to you is this:
In any other country wherein Christianity has not been the ruling ideology--- Muslims, Chinese, and so forth--- can you honestly assert that said countries have the same intellectual freedom as exists in the Christianity-influenced countries?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYes they have the same intellectual freedom.
[b]I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question.
Of course you do; you're just playing your little game, per usual.
The question to you is this:
In any other country wherein Christianity has not been the ruling ideology--- Muslims, Chinese, and so forth--- can you honestly assert that said countries have the same intellectual freedom as exists in the Christianity-influenced countries?[/b]
Originally posted by black beetleAll in all, we evaluate the theory according to our intelligence.
edit: “Clear and reasonable” to whom, exactly? Further, based upon which standard?”
“Clear and reasonable” stands for the common procedure of testing of a scientific/ philosophic theory: we conduct a logical comparison of the conclusions of the given theory among themselves in order to validate its internal consistency. Then we determine the charact ...[text shortened]... n the other hand, why do we choose the Earth as the centre of the spatial coordinate system?
😵
Or, our understanding. Now the question comes knocking: do we know what we don't know? Or, in other words, do we trust our own understanding, or do we trust someone who knows? Do we know who knows?
Mind you, “faith/ trust” has nothing to do with this procedure –whatever you tried to describe as “faith/ trust” is merely covered by the trial and error method.
Absolutely wrong. Terribly, irredeemably wrong. You most emphatically are putting your faith in some aspect of "this procedure." You are placing your trust in your own understanding. Arrogance, in other words.
And this is the reason why he cannot cope with the above mentioned scientific/ philosophic procedure but he merely offers his system blindly because it is the so called “word of (his) god” -and furthermore he tries by any means to indoctrinate with it the other people;
In this, you have succeeded in nothing more than displaying your ignorance regarding exactly what a theologian does.
Of course he does, and this action is the cornerstone of the preaching;
Again, your ignorance is appalling.
so I think that he was talking solely about the most hard task: one has to get to know himself. This conclusion set me free indeed, but that’s another story;
Well, you blew that one, huh.
Oh my teacher was repeating again and again that there are good philosophers and bad philosophers;
I guess you ignored the lesson, as your posts make philosophers the cornerstone of truth... which, also according to you, doesn't exist.
Sure thing; unfortunately the scripture at its core is not “holy” but merely an ill-considered theory;
Sounds great--- less filling.
Go on, prove it!
In your irrational system, this is an impossibility.
Truth is empty.
Empty? Empty of what?
More nonsense from you. Again.
So what is the “absolute truth” over here?
You're here talking about facts, not truth. That you cannot make the distinction isn't really surprising...
... however, it does prove the point that your goalposts are forever moving.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHedit: “Or, our understanding. Now the question comes knocking: do we know what we don't know? Or, in other words, do we trust our own understanding, or do we trust someone who knows? Do we know who knows?”
[b]All in all, we evaluate the theory according to our intelligence.
Or, our understanding. Now the question comes knocking: do we know what we don't know? Or, in other words, do we trust our own understanding, or do we trust someone who knows? Do we know who knows?
Mind you, “faith/ trust” has nothing to do with this procedure –whatever you ...[text shortened]... urprising...
... however, it does prove the point that your goalposts are forever moving.
I know what I know and I know what I ignore herenow. Understanding is solely a result of intelligence herenow;
edit:” Absolutely wrong. Terribly, irredeemably wrong. You most emphatically are putting your faith in some aspect of "this procedure."
You are placing your trust in your own understanding. Arrogance, in other words.”
Wrong. My understanding is related solely to my intelligence, and my intelligence is related solely to my conceptual awareness (scientific finds and evidence, non-falsified philosophic and scientific theories) and to my non-conceptual awareness herenow;
edit: “In this, you have succeeded in nothing more than displaying your ignorance regarding exactly what a theologian does.”
😀
edit: ” Again, your ignorance is appalling.”
😀
edit: “Well, you blew that one, huh.”
😀
Edit: “ I guess you ignored the lesson, as your posts make philosophers the cornerstone of truth... which, also according to you, doesn't exist.”
I never said that there is such a thing as a standing alone “absolute truth” that is expressed by a philosophic system or by a philosopher too. I said that the sole truth is yourself herenow;
edit: “Sounds great--- less filling”.
😀
Edit: “In your irrational system, this is an impossibility.”
It is an impossibility for you to prove it merely because your 120%metaphysic system is irrational;
Edit: “Empty? Empty of what? More nonsense from you. Again.”
Empty. There is no such a thing as a standing alone "absolute truth" although I understand that you are sure of the opposite. And of course I explained you -in vain- that the term "empty" stands for sunyata;
edit: “You're here talking about facts, not truth. That you cannot make the distinction isn't really surprising... ... however, it does prove the point that your goalposts are forever moving.”
I was talking about theories and ideas (about philosophic/ scientific theories and ideas that they are not considered "absolute truth" and they are constantly under evaluation, and about religious theories and ideas which they are the cornerstone of the miscellaneous religious systems and beliefs -your religious system included- and they are considered by their believers and by their fellow theologians as standing alone "absolute truth"😉.
Well, should I have to consider that your so called "absolute truth" is not a fact and/ or it is not related with facts and/ or it is not derived from a fact and or it has not caused a fact? Or, what else should I have to think regarding your standing alone so called "absolute truth"?
Anyway, I state once more that "truth" is just a concept/ invention of the Human -and I challenge you to prove that this is wrong and that there is indeed a standing alone "absolute truth". Therefore, kindly please state briefly what is in your opinion this standing alone "absolute truth" of yours
😵
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm sorry, but I still don't understand your question. What here constitutes 'intellectual freedom'? And I thought before that you claimed that without Christianity as ruling ideology "intellectual freedom" would not exist (you claimed this on page 7). Now it seems like you are targeting something weaker: that without Christianity as ruling ideology, there would not be the same intellectual freedom. Make up your mind: which are you going to be arguing (whenever you do start providing some actual argument)?
[b]I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question.
Of course you do; you're just playing your little game, per usual.
The question to you is this:
In any other country wherein Christianity has not been the ruling ideology--- Muslims, Chinese, and so forth--- can you honestly assert that said countries have the same intellectual freedom as exists in the Christianity-influenced countries?[/b]
Gee, maybe you don't know how this works: if I ask for some support for a claim, you're supposed to give reasons that shed plausibility on the claim. You seem to think that asking me questions that basically have the form "Honestly, now, don't you think I'm right?" somehow constitutes providing support for your claims.
Originally posted by black beetleIt is an impossibility for you to prove it merely because your 120%metaphysic system is irrational;
edit: “Or, our understanding. Now the question comes knocking: do we know what we don't know? Or, in other words, do we trust our own understanding, or do we trust someone who knows? Do we know who knows?”
I know what I know and I know what I ignore herenow. Understanding is solely a result of intelligence herenow;
edit:” Absolutely wrong. Ter ...[text shortened]... hat is in your opinion this standing alone "absolute truth" of yours
😵
Not only is it frontier gibberish, but it expresses a courage little seen in this day and age. Rowrarree!!
Empty. There is no such a thing as a standing alone "absolute truth" although I understand that you are sure of the opposite.
It can hardly be expressed how ridiculous such an emphatic statement such as this is to even the casual reader. Ironically, you simply cannot see the absolute absurdity of the position.
And of course I explained you -in vain- that the term "empty" stands for sunyata;
Gosh, I probably could have understood it, if it weren’t so darned metaphysical--- or is it anti-metaphysical? No bother, because if there is no truth, nothing can be said about it… even the statement of its nonexistence.
I was talking about theories and ideas (about philosophic/ scientific theories and ideas that they are not considered "absolute truth" and they are constantly under evaluation, and about religious theories and ideas which they are the cornerstone of the miscellaneous religious systems and beliefs -your religious system included- and they are considered by their believers and by their fellow theologians as standing alone "absolute truth" .
I think you need to put the bong down for a few days, get a clear head, string together a few rational thoughts and then try again.
Well, should I have to consider that your so called "absolute truth" is not a fact and/ or it is not related with facts and/ or it is not derived from a fact and or it has not caused a fact? Or, what else should I have to think regarding your standing alone so called "absolute truth"?
When I said you were referencing facts, I meant facts about the physical world. The physical world is but a shadow, a temporary stage of reality. It will pass. The reality upon which all of this is based, the reality from which all of this came into being… He doesn’t pass. He is eternal and it is from Him that absolute truth is found.
Anyway, I state once more that "truth" is just a concept/ invention of the Human -and I challenge you to prove that this is wrong and that there is indeed a standing alone "absolute truth". Therefore, kindly please state briefly what is in your opinion this standing alone "absolute truth" of yours
You have made a statement about truth. Is your statement true? That is my proof…
Originally posted by scacchipazzoTake for example the foolish posting on what other things might have been invented were Christianity not around to impede progress. This is a common leftist slur against Christians. I would love to see precisely how Christians impeded progress rather the propelling it. It will be put out there without evidence or supportive background information.For example, Copernicus and Galileo.
The gen ...[text shortened]... cient classic manuscripts in the monasteries and weren't the ones who enabled the rennaissance.[/b]
The Muslims protected most of the classic manuscripts.
Originally posted by whodeyWho are you telling to button up? Who said religion is for the weak or mentally inferior? This isn't a Strawman, is it?
I have also heard people say that religion is for the weak or the mentally inferior. Well I guess if you accuse Christ and his disciples as being weak and mentally inferior then you would have to say yes. Otherwise, button it spanky!! ðŸ˜
Originally posted by FreakyKBHedit: “Not only is it frontier gibberish, but it expresses a courage little seen in this day and age. Rowrarree!!”
[b]It is an impossibility for you to prove it merely because your 120%metaphysic system is irrational;
Not only is it frontier gibberish, but it expresses a courage little seen in this day and age. Rowrarree!!
Empty. There is no such a thing as a standing alone "absolute truth" although I understand that you are sure of the opposite.
It c ...[text shortened]... have made a statement about truth. Is your statement true? That is my proof…[/b]
It ‘s obvious you cannot support your view:😵
edit: “It can hardly be expressed how ridiculous such an emphatic statement such as this is to even the casual reader. Ironically, you simply cannot see the absolute absurdity of the position. “
Go ahead, kindly please state a single thing that you consider it as a standing alone “absolute truth” and prove the absurdity of my thesis😵
edit: “Gosh, I probably could have understood it, if it weren’t so darned metaphysical--- or is it anti-metaphysical? No bother, because if there is no truth, nothing can be said about it… even the statement of its nonexistence.”
What exactly do you find hard to understand regarding emptiness/ void/ sunyata? Furthermore, which aspects/ parts of sunyata do you evaluate as “metaphysical”, and why, and which are in your opinion “anti-metaphysical”, and why?
edit: “I think you need to put the bong down for a few days, get a clear head, string together a few rational thoughts and then try again. “
It would be enough to prove me wrong or to state that you have to rethink for a while about a thing or two, but I understand that for the time being this is beyond your abilities😵
edit: “When I said you were referencing facts, I meant facts about the physical world. The physical world is but a shadow, a temporary stage of reality. It will pass. The reality upon which all of this is based, the reality from which all of this came into being… He doesn’t pass. He is eternal and it is from Him that absolute truth is found.“
So let me see: you appear to believe that an eternal sentient supernatural existence is the causation of the temporary stage of reality as we perceive it herenow by means of our six senses and that, at the same time, this supernatural existence is not associated with this specific cause-effect process but it stands above it.
Then you claim that the source of the temporary stage of reality is another (eternal, stable) reality, which is not conceivable by us and it is caused by the same supernatural existence that created our temporary stage of reality; and then you say that this eternal supernatural existence created the eternal reality, and from this idea of yours derives a standing alone “absolute truth”.
Do I read you right? Are the above mentioned comments of mine a brief summary of your personal theory of reality?
edit: “ You have made a statement about truth. Is your statement true? That is my proof…”
My statement is based on physical reality abiding by its laws as they stand herenow and as I conceive them by means of my intelligence, and it can or it cannot be false. And I claim that my statement is not false. So, what is your proof?
“Truth” is merely a notion regarding the accepted for the time being deductions from our (under constant evaluation, that is) theory of reality which they match our knowledge as we establish it by means of our six senses and our experiments, therefore the notion “truth” means nothing without the necessary connection. Therefore, as it lacks of a standing alone being/ essence, it is also empty (the term "empty" stands for sunyata)
😵
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloNothing anywhere near the intellectual freedom that we enjoy would be available. That's a fairly simple concept to get your mind around, I'm sure. If you want to say that any intellectual freedom automatically trumps the statement, go ahead. You'll be reminded, of course, that some intellectual freedom will exist in hell...
I'm sorry, but I still don't understand your question. What here constitutes 'intellectual freedom'? And I thought before that you claimed that without Christianity as ruling ideology "intellectual freedom" would not exist (you claimed this on page 7). Now it seems like you are targeting something weaker: that without Christianity as ruling ideology, t , don't you think I'm right?" somehow constitutes providing support for your claims.
And, it appears you've given up on your other assertion regarding the action of belief. Finally.