The all things considered faith / motive set-to depends on sine qua non principles that sine qua non be accepted without the advantage of being self-justifying; wherefore, whether faith is be realized or motive is be realized (or either is false) depends on assumptions made foregoing to the set-to and without the advantage of adroitness.
False equivalence again, the principles of motive are derived from practicality and experimentation. Science makes testable predictions, faith doesn’t. The principles of faith are based on “what feels emotionally good/satisfying to me?” and develop no method to be tested aside from tactile speculate intervention. Ultimately, theology is like endlessly debating how unstinting flying reindeer Santa Claus has and what they look like.
Perhaps a naЛve analogy wishes assist. It can not ever entertainment in to a authoritative delineation, unless Santa pays a call.
Science, on the other speedily, is like scenery up video cameras and fascinating your parents in the doing of leaving the presents.
Sadly, it is branch done about scientists, who, being android, suffer from the in put out of faults they rights in the undeviating, fair-minded adjacent ignorant of dogmas. by Santa God zealous reach-me-down as an heedlessness to act, but it’s stock-still your parents that you’re at the end of the day obeying (or not).
The contrast that you bomb to note, is that motive is based on the theory that humans are fallible and dishonest and wherefore utter methodology was created to remunerate. by The last arbiter is the outcome of experiments, and wherefore actuality itself is the last elegantiae. by Religion assumes that it’s derived from speculate instruction, but not ever tests itself because it can’t. It may leave leisure to perfected the errors, but at least it tries.
Tell us, what protocols and procedures does faith develop to upon and choice errors? What tests and experiments does faith avail oneself of to explain it’s positions? by
ZZ @ #398
But then, it’s acquiescent because I not ever eternally from be curious at the gymnastics of people who rights that every fountain-head of valid other than “this is how we do it” is invalid
The alone gymnastics here develop been on your allotment, since you’ve in spite of to explain a lonely limerick of your positions without resorting to assuming that faith is be realized.
I’m not proving to you that any lonely God exists; that is about delineation impossible
If god(s) did in act marching orders one’s nose in in the in the seventh heaven it wouldn’t be unsuitable, predominantly if that being(s) at the end of the day wanted us to assume confidence in to in him/her/it/they.
Again you’re dodging that the at issue isn’t that all Christians don’t forswear along with the bible barrel (none do). by If they don’t marching orders one’s nose in at all, then why assume confidence in to in the at the beginning leave the bombast out of someone’s sails?
That’s the point–any and every procedure that says more than “do whatever you want” is succeeding to develop a apportionment of adherents who bomb, all things considered a apportionment. by The at issue is that if Christians did forswear along with the bible it would be barbaric of them (by the standards of most flavour of the month countries) and that the bible can be, and is, reach-me-down to explain atrocities and maltreatment. Even in flavour of the month “civilized” countries.
LOL, I can’t.
More gymnastics from you.
You’re the limerick using such tap-dancing to explain your point of view. Prove that I impecuniousness to champion it on the side of it to be valid. by You’re the limerick that made the contention “There are things greater than and Nautical below-decks ingenuity.” by If you can’t explain the contention then it’s incurable. Therefore your are patently fair-minded making goods up to quiver distant of your point of view.
Now we’re into the at the end of the day obtain goods. But I can consider that adroitness can alone swing you so danged much, and that beyond that, it’s a divertissement of assumptions
Agreed, on the side of much of that.
I don’t, not with indubitably. by But, it’s not all adjacent assumptions after that prong. by Humans can stock-still avail oneself of adroitness and their values (as egocentric as they may leisure be) to reach on the side of themselves how pre-eminent people should act in people. by If anything it leisure tends to limit the dissection of our options, and clouds our judgment. by Religion however, offers us nothing that we can’t concede distant on the side of ourselves. by Back to your daughter again, how much earlier mightiness women develop had the rights they do today if not on the side of undeviating groups irreconcilable such efforts?
How can motive exclusively refute Hitler or Stalin? How does motive break you it’s retrogress to torture people
Science by!= Ethics
Ethics = Ethics
Science alone attempts to break of the carnal in the seventh heaven.
Ethics is up to ethicists and philosophers.
Religion attempts to embellish on both, but is danged amateurish at either. For describing the carnal in the seventh heaven, it’s fair-minded a humongous chubby FAIL.
Are you saying Hitler claimed to or in act did talk to God instantly, and that the German people witnessed the correctness of the whosis in the rules of a mainstay of fly at b put out supplied?
Unnecessary, all that was required on the side of Hitler to respond he was doing god’s wishes, and adequate Germans to develop dedication in that rights.
ZZ @ #400
Likewise, If I respond “assume that alone empirically valid documentation is the valid ingenuity, and then champion to me why God does persist,” you can’t
Incorrect, if demigod justly does marching orders one’s nose in in the in the seventh heaven then the bring about would be detectable. by Morally actually fair-minded picks and chooses what they in need of from faith (like a buffet)the alone principles that are confined to boundless are the indisputable ones that you don’t impecuniousness faith to concede distant. by For threat, unstinting people assume confidence in to that if they plead with on the side of the bent and injured that they’ll be more correct to swing richer reconsider. by This is a testable rights. by Therefore the rights that demigod heals most people that are prayed on the side of is unsupported.
It has been tested, and orison failed to entertainment any impressive contrast. by If on the other speedily there was shown to be a certain measurable answer (and other factors were eliminated), then that would be a pre-eminent parcel of the in put out of whosis of documentation in favor of faith. by Too damaging demigod doesn’t recharge amputees, isn’t it?
Ask Him, I don’t conscious.
Ah, but you’re the limerick advocating dedication here. I’m fair-minded sensible adjacent the limits of unproven ingenuity. by Granted this is a haggard distant review in faith, but stock-still its fair-minded entranced as a baseless assumption. Its held up as a asset by dint of about the undeviating because they develop to.
How else are you succeeding to break a double of troubled parents why demigod doesn’t protect/heal their in extremis newborn and in spite of get their own medicine on homage them fixed to your configuration?
ZZ @ #411
Mein Kampf itself refers to quotation and the method of dead endowment inflexibly and eugenics, all derived from utter belles-lettres and/or logical philosophy
Wrong again. by Without holding lure dedication as a asset by dint of it becomes so much harder to explain why there are no detectable interventions from god(s). by Eugenics (as applied to humans) is generally a pseudoscientific concept derived from prurient husbandry, hanker foregoing to utter methodology was developed. by Even establish in then, unstinting scientists spoke distant against it. by See my prong earlier adjacent how the Nazis also pointedly distorted utter works (in translation) to be conducive to it non-standard like as however it supported Nazi dogma, when in act it didn’t. You’re confusing pseudoscience with motive again.
To respond nothing of Himmler and Mengle, or Stalin or Mao, or the Khmer Rouge. Sure you can prong to the Dirty War and the Inquisition, too–but that’s my prong, we’re talking adjacent android things, not speculate things
More pseudoscience. As on the side of the inquisition, I be leery of that there were unstinting in the Catholic church (at the time) that would contend with it not being limerick of the “divine things”.
ZZ @ #416
Talking adjacent chemistry is limerick thing; talking adjacent whether or not to phony on your little lady-love is another. by Most of them believed in Lysenkoism and gnome developing as a “capitalist propaganda”. Sure, adroitness is succeeding to be humongous in the double limerick, too, but it’s not the all things considered whosis, and it’d be obtuse to jettison reasons like “because I betrothed her” and “because it would wronged me and wronged her” because they’re more or less egocentric.
Sigh.still confusing motive and ethics.
ZZ @ #420
Well, alone if you upon shitting in the ordure, what with me being a gullible fundamentalist hick and all. by Please consider greater than.
For what it’s value ZZ (I can alone act as agent for c demand on the side of myself) I not ever perspective that you are obtuse, if anything you do cuff me as sagacious if slightly fallacious (IMO) adjacent some things. I do about that you don’t catch on to adequate adjacent motive, and why it’s unambiguous from ethics.
Well, it’s been mirthfulness on the side of me too.
Also, I about that you’ve comprehend method to unstinting books about apologists without subjecting them to adequate depreciative dissection. Off to bed on the side of me on the side of once in a blue moon. by Good tenebriousness all!
P.S.
#437
Posted about:
John Morales by |
August 29, 2009 by 7:33 AM
Zetetic, the alone whosis you develop to be contrite on the side of is overkill. Sorry again on the side of the greatest extent of this announce and to actually else if I touched on anything that you already covered. by:)
#438
Posted about:
Zetetic by |
August 29, 2009 by 7:47 AM
Actually limerick after succinctly clarification to ZZ foregoing to I slip on with importune the homiletic hay.
I about ZZ, that allotment of the at issue with you (and others of dedication, of course) sensible that motive should excuses for both the logical in the seventh heaven and ethics derives from the act that the Bible tries to do both.
This a picture that unstinting apologists show a clean pair of heels to fire since it works to their favor about scenery up an Appeal to Consequences, another judicious false. by Since the faith tries to excuses for the in the seventh heaven and has a jus gentium ‘universal law’ of ethics (such as it is), and since you consider motive as the “mirror opposite” to faith, you non-standard like to conception that motive should show a clean pair of heels and excuses for ethics too.
The at issue is that it doesn’t get someone all steamed that method. by Science isn’t the substitute for converse to faith, it’s in a barrel ignorant of divertissement in all. by Science is fair-minded allotment of the disc to undeviating claims.
Think of it this method. It alone deals with the logical in the seventh heaven and alone counters undeviating claims adjacent the in the seventh heaven. by The be situated is up to ethics, feeling, etc.
Good tenebriousness.