Conquer Club

Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

What say you?

 
Total votes : 0

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:36 pm

puppydog85 wrote:but just in case you are asking what original sin is:

Adam (1st human, father of all the human race) was created by God and given a job + rules by which to abide.
He failed his job and broke the rules.
He was cursed by God to bear the taint of sin in his actions.

Original sin is the concept that sin infects and affects all the human race from birth through their connection to Adam(father of the human race and all). Federal head is the strict term for it.

Now for the Gospel in a nutshell (if you want to hear it). Christ (Son of God) took the punishment for sin upon himself and became the *new* Adam in that all who believe in Him can acquire that which is needed to again find favor in the eyes of God.

So,
Action= Reaction
New Action= New Reaction


So, what about the issue of the fundamental cause (god) and proximate cause (humans)?

e.g. godlike mismanagement and culpability, thus sin
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby puppydog85 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:49 pm

1. Ok so my math is off. YECer's will say about 6,000. This is a major problem in Christian circles and the most consistent on original sin are the Young Earth Creationists. But anyway if you hold to that view, Hitchens' statement does not apply in the main to you.
2. Well, I would say that I did :-). When you read the actual words of Christ it's quite clear. Paul makes things a little hard and that is where most people get off track. But anyway the point is that I think I can make a consistent argument that God did not change his mind, hence Hitchens' critisism does not apply to me.
3. Yes, if you don't hear it you don't go to heaven. That's why Christians were so big on missionary work. Essentially you are positing the problem of evil argument which would be glad to discuss if you want.

I'll look at those other points later.
Sergeant 1st Class puppydog85
 
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:23 am

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:56 pm

In other words,

RE: #1, belief in a particular non-scientific method leads one to conclude: homo sapiens (humans) existed for 6000 years.
-We can roundly reject this approach as incompetent, insufficient, and false.

#2 remains unresolved, thus your position remains either unsound or fails to establish its soundness.

Your #3 leads to the conclusion that "god works in mysterious, dickish ways," which doesn't sync well with the "all merciful/all loving" hypothesis of God.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby AAFitz on Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:04 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
AAFitz wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Is original sin really used to resolve the inconsistencies between (1) God must be totes good and (2) some people have bad morals?



Only if there are inconsistencies with your logic.


So what's your response to Chesterton?


To be honest, Id just say I disagreed with the logic of it, and that other possibilities exist.

The detail would take some time though, and Im not convinced it deserves it.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:10 pm

AAFitz wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
AAFitz wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Is original sin really used to resolve the inconsistencies between (1) God must be totes good and (2) some people have bad morals?



Only if there are inconsistencies with your logic.


So what's your response to Chesterton?


To be honest, Id just say I disagreed with the logic of it, and that other possibilities exist.

The detail would take some time though, and Im not convinced it deserves it.


Chesterton told me to tell you that you and Isaac Asimov are toilet-heads.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:17 pm

crispybits wrote:Plainly put, the question is "what is the cause/reason/nature of the difference between what the bible says and what is commonly accepted?"

Because people read the Bible and people are fallible.

crispybits wrote:And arrogance at an ability to drive or do complex maths or whatever is a VERY different thing to arrogance that we are special beings distinct from every other being that exists because of some supernatural "soul" or however you wish to describe it (because I know the definitions vary depending on the religious basis for the claim)

Yes, but even biologists admit that humans have qualities quite different from other creatures. It is why there are whole fields of study dealing with JUST human behavior, sociology, anthropology, etc. The comparible studies of animals are far less complex.

So, not entirely arrogant.

The bit about "being like God" is faith, it is religion, in the Bible.. the point of the discussion.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby puppydog85 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:31 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:In other words,

RE: #1, belief in a particular non-scientific method leads one to conclude: homo sapiens (humans) existed for 6000 years.
-We can roundly reject this approach as incompetent, insufficient, and false.

#2 remains unresolved, thus your position remains either unsound or fails to establish its soundness.

Your #3 leads to the conclusion that "god works in mysterious, dickish ways," which doesn't sync well with the "all merciful/all loving" hypothesis of God.


1. Yawn. I gave you an explanation, I could care less what you think of it. Last time we got into a discussion you expressed yourself in the same dickish way you do here. Your ego is too much for me and I prefer to deal with people who understand basic logic and argumentation. I only entered this to give you an explanation.

2. Obviously. This thread is not about giving massive explanations. I try to keep it short, if you want a specific explanation ask for it.

3. Right, a crude way to put it (in every sense of the word) but the problem of evil in a nutshell. Are you interested in my answer or do you just want to hear the sound of your own horn tooting?
Sergeant 1st Class puppydog85
 
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:23 am

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:35 pm

I'll pay attention to your explanations for your #2 and #3.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby AAFitz on Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:24 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
AAFitz wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
AAFitz wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Is original sin really used to resolve the inconsistencies between (1) God must be totes good and (2) some people have bad morals?



Only if there are inconsistencies with your logic.


So what's your response to Chesterton?


To be honest, Id just say I disagreed with the logic of it, and that other possibilities exist.

The detail would take some time though, and Im not convinced it deserves it.


Chesterton told me to tell you that you and Isaac Asimov are toilet-heads.


Well you can take your chesterton and stick it up your assimov for all isaa cares
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:26 pm

Image
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby stahrgazer on Sat Mar 16, 2013 6:48 pm

crispybits wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:There are a lot of subtleties. I don't really want to get into another "free will" discussion. I am just saying that there is a difference between what is commonly accepted and what the Bible actually says.. and the difference is important.


And all I keep trying to get down to and keep getting stonewalled is why that difference is there.

To borrow a literary tool from BBS, either:

(a) The bible is absolute truth, and humans have misinterpretted it and corrupted it, and therefore it can no longer be trusted as a path to absolute truth without a big exercise to attempt to genuinely undo the damage we have caused to the message.

(b) The bible is something just close to the truth, and as humans it is our purpose to keep refining that truth, distilling it through reason and morality and the tools God gave us in our own search for the absolute truth.

(c) The bible is absolute truth, and we as humans cannot truly access it properly as are doomed to always be a little bit off from the true message.

(d) Something else (please specify)


D: Something else.

The bible is man's way to explain the universe. It contains some inherent truths (echoes of option b, but not necessarily "close" which is why we're at option d.) One truth is the idea of "good" and "evil" which themselves are "absolutes" but which man cannot pinpoint as a precise location because his tools just aren't good enough.

It's like a calculus problem for 3-d vectors: given the right formulas, one can approach a spot; and given other right formulas, one can move away from the spot, and as such, one can estimate where the spot is, but even though one draws closer and closer, one can still only approximate the spot.

Rockets launch based on these imprecise calculations. If they zero in on a location, then even though they never quite get there to that impossible-to-really-calculate-location, it's enough for human efforts. If instead of approaching that target, the rocket moves away from that target, it's "bad" and the rocket is destroyed.

Per the bible, Adam and Eve were created sitting on the spot and to be ABSOLUTELY "good" they were told to remain on the spot. But evil exists and lured them away from that spot, and now it's impossible to find it again.

Atheists would say: since you cannot tell me precisely where the spot is, the spot doesn't exist.

Agnostics would say: since you cannot prove where the spot is precisely, I'm not sure the spot exists.

Catholic-type Christians discuss "mortal" vs. "venial" sins, meaning, really bad/far-away-from-the-spot sins, and "not going in the right direction but not that Godawful far away from the spot" sins.

Religions - not just Christians, but any other religions - suggest that, because one can see that one approaches, and one can see that one moves away, then the spot exists. One difference is, "what precisely does the spot look like?" and another difference between religions is how they describe the path that a human takes to either approach or move away from the spot.

"Good" and "evil" exist and most atheists and agnostics admit along with most religious folks that someone who does something like the Sandy Hook massacre is not "doing good." They may squabble about whether a man who steals a loaf of bread to give it to some other homeless guy on the street is "doing good," "doing evil," or doing a mixture of both.

Religious, atheists, and agnostics may all argue about what to call the motivations for both these folks - the murderer and the breadstealer - but for the most part they can see that the murderer is much farther away from some mythical "paradise" than the breadstealer.

Because they can all pretty much see that, "good" exists, and so does "evil." Even if we can't pinpoint anymore exactly where both of those reside. Per the bible, humans sort of could once; and per the bible, we might be able to again if we follow certain things that lead us to the light side instead of the dark side. Per any religion or spiritual philosophy, there are things you can do to head toward the light, the "spot" or at least away from the dark.

Doesn't really much matter how long we've been on Earth, it's obvious that if we ever did live in Paradise (that spot I spoke of before) we're not there now. It's also usually fairly obvious which way not to go if we want to get closer to Paradise than we were yesterday.

And, per the bible, if we insist on continually moving away from Paradise, then we, like the rocket, will be destroyed.

Will it be "murder" (God's hand coming down to crush) or will it be "suicide" (our own hand hitting the destruct button) might be the only remaining question between agnostic, atheist, and the religious.

But all of these can likely agree that with enough Sandy Hooks and less and less Ghandis and Mother Theresas, the world is "doomed" - whether they're "Christian," "religious," "spiritual," "agnostic," or "atheist," most can likely agree that Ghandi or Mother Theresa's choices were better for humanity than, say, Adam Lanza's.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby crispybits on Sat Mar 16, 2013 7:35 pm

One small correction - atheists say "I see no evidence for the point existing, therefore I will base no belief on the point" (a rational atheist is genuinely open to be shown the point exists, but failing someone being able to demonstrate that the point does exist maintains that it makes no sense to base any other beliefs on it - it's not really to do with exactly where the point is)

Image

Other than that it's a fair reply, but as above I would say that as far as we can tell "good" and "evil" as actual natural qualities (rather than man-made concepts) do not exist. The fact we perceive things as being more good or more evil is no more significant than the fact that the vast majority of people would agree that (for example) Charlize Theron is more physically attractive than Rosie O'Donnell. There are some outliers who will think the opposite, just like there are some outliers that think that evil actions are good ones. You cannot point to a "good" particle/energy and more than you can point to a "beauty" particle/energy, or a "justice" particle/energy.

I'm sure that won't convince you to my point of view, but it's the same as the "is there a God" question in another form. Theists will say that good and evil really exist, just like God exists, and the concepts we create of them are identical to the concepts we have about a chair or an apple, in that they are caused by actual reality. An atheist will say that these are simply psychological tricks the mind employs in order to make sense of the world around us, and are no more existential than "delicious" or "entertaining" as qualities.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby john9blue on Sat Mar 16, 2013 9:07 pm

crispybits wrote:One small correction - atheists say "I see no evidence for the point existing, therefore I will base no belief on the point" (a rational atheist is genuinely open to be shown the point exists, but failing someone being able to demonstrate that the point does exist maintains that it makes no sense to base any other beliefs on it - it's not really to do with exactly where the point is)

Image


nothing is certain and nothing is impossible.

there aren't 3 different categories LOL
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby crispybits on Sat Mar 16, 2013 9:21 pm

Travelling faster than the speed of light is impossible (note wormholes and bending space and whatever other theories are out there right now don't affect speed, they shorten the distance)

2+2=4 is certain.

But obviously certain and impossible still have margins for error for things we have not yet conceived, or evidence we have yet to find, even these things aren't truly set in stone, but for all useful purposes we can claim impossibility and certainty on some things.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby stahrgazer on Sat Mar 16, 2013 9:44 pm

crispybits wrote:The fact we perceive things as being more good or more evil is no more significant than the fact that the vast majority of people would agree that (for example) Charlize Theron is more physically attractive than Rosie O'Donnell. There are some outliers who will think the opposite, just like there are some outliers that think that evil actions are good ones.


The very fact that there are "outliers" does make the point.

If you have a red rose bush, some of those roses might come out pink. That doesn't change the fact that it's a red rose bush. Granted, calling it "red" is a manmade concept; but it was always different from "white."

crispybits wrote:An atheist will say that these are simply psychological tricks the mind employs in order to make sense of the world around us,


This is exactly what I said the bible was about.

stahrgazer wrote:The bible is man's way to explain the universe.


The very fact that atheists would agree there's some sense to be made, also makes my point.

Now, you may say that an atheist might be as "okay" with a Jeff Dalmer as with a Mother Theresa, but unless you are saying that to an atheist, a Jeff Dalmer IS THE SAME AS a Mother Theresa, then you still make my point that there is a "spot."

You can call good, "evil," and you can call evil, "good" because the names are manmade concepts...but the concepts themselves exist, and are as different as a white rose from a red one, or a hyacinth from a turtle.

In other words, just because human preferences vary doesn't mean the things or concepts that those human preferences vary from don't exist.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby crispybits on Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:05 pm

But if there is an absolute "good" and "evil", and they aren't purely man-made concepts tied to cultural morals and standards, then the existence of outliers disproves a loving Christian God. He made us all the way we are, he has a plan for us, and if there are people that don't know the truth about the most basic of concepts as this (whether that's the outliers or the majority is irrelevant, as long as there are some people this holds), then he has doomed those people to hell with no chance of redemption, because they view evil as good and/or vice versa. A loving Christian God at the very least promised us all a chance at redemption, I mean that's what Jesus is all about right? Just one human with no chance of ever achieving redemption because they honestly believe their evil acts are good and therefore would not conceive of asking forgiveness for them disproves the loving Christiam God concept just as surely as just one fossil out of the geological dating order would destroy several scientific theories (not evolution as a whole, but parts of it possibly, or dating methods, or something like that).

I would say that there is a secular moral consensus, and we judge actions based on that. Because there is no absolute authority does not make good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral indistinguishable. That doesn't mean that there's any "spot" in reality, that simply means that we judge everything in the context of our culture and our moral standards. We do not move away from or towards anything, we simply move, constantly attracted to whatever the consensus on the common good of society is at that time. The fact that certain religious teachings in the bible and other texts that now seem ridiculous to us is clear evidence that we're not tied to some divine text book, but that we, as a species, make up our own rules. On this basis, it becomes perfectly feasible that previous versions of these rules are also man-made and were right for the context of the society they were written in and for and by, but also clear that clinging to any of those rules is worse than pointless, because the society we live in now is very different from then.

Or are you seriously claiming that not believing in God means I cannot tell the difference between good and evil, the difference between Lanza and Ghandi or Dalmer and Mother Theresa (who wasn't necessarily the best example you could have picked there by the way)?
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby stahrgazer on Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:19 pm

crispybits wrote:But if there is an absolute "good" and "evil", and they aren't purely man-made concepts tied to cultural morals and standards, then the existence of outliers disproves a loving Christian God.


No; the existence of outliers could be used to prove the existence of Satan.

See, biblicly speaking, Satan used to live up there - wherever, frequently referred to as "Heaven" with God and the various archangels; then he got upset (jealous, whatever) with God and turned against God. Basically Satan said that given freedom of choice, all humans would choose evil (that the only reason they'd "worship" God is because they had no other choice); God felt otherwise, and gave us freedom to choose. Satan continues to act on us, tempting and luring us to evil while God continues to hope and encourage us to turn his way.

A Satan worshipper could be thought of as considering "evil, is good," and "good, is evil," but it's not a case of, "once a satan-worshipper, always a satan-worshipper."

So, evil may be allowed to lure; doesn't mean the plan is for all to be evil. Just means we were given choice.

crispybits wrote:Or are you seriously claiming that not believing in God means I cannot tell the difference between good and evil, the difference between Lanza and Ghandi or Dalmer and Mother Theresa (who wasn't necessarily the best example you could have picked there by the way)?


Nope. I'm saying that something exists out there whether you choose to believe it or not, and the proof is: you can see there's a difference between all of those folks.

If there were not opposing concepts, you wouldn't see there's a difference that you choose not to "name" but Religions - especially Christian ones but not just Christian ones - name as various forms of "God" and "Satan."
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby crispybits on Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:33 pm

Most people would agree that flowers smell better than sewage, does that mean that there is some objective reality that exists independently of us that governs which smells are pleasant and which are horrible? Or is it a subjective judgement, and the consensus of society defines how we describe those two smells?
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby john9blue on Sun Mar 17, 2013 12:07 am

crispybits wrote:Most people would agree that flowers smell better than sewage, does that mean that there is some objective reality that exists independently of us that governs which smells are pleasant and which are horrible? Or is it a subjective judgement, and the consensus of society defines how we describe those two smells?


so it's not CERTAIN that flowers smell better than sewage? it's just unknown?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby crispybits on Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:28 am

Did I ever claim that as a certainty? I was asking a question.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby stahrgazer on Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:21 am

crispybits wrote:Most people would agree that flowers smell better than sewage, does that mean that there is some objective reality that exists independently of us that governs which smells are pleasant and which are horrible? Or is it a subjective judgement, and the consensus of society defines how we describe those two smells?


A baby, which turns its nose up at the smell of its own feces, has not yet been indoctrinated in society's definitions.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby crispybits on Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:50 am

stahrgazer wrote:
crispybits wrote:Most people would agree that flowers smell better than sewage, does that mean that there is some objective reality that exists independently of us that governs which smells are pleasant and which are horrible? Or is it a subjective judgement, and the consensus of society defines how we describe those two smells?


A baby, which turns its nose up at the smell of its own feces, has not yet been indoctrinated in society's definitions.


False:

Re: My two year old plays with their poop!

I know this is incredibly frustrating and unpleasant. You'll be happy to know it's also completely normal. Two year olds don't have the disgust reaction to feces that develops later, so they don't see anything wrong with touching it.


http://www.ahaparenting.com/ask-the-doc ... -with-poop

There are also adults who gain sexual pleasure from being urinated/defecated on.

You also never answered the question. Are "fragrant" and "noxious" actual qualities within nature, or human concepts defined by us?
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby tzor on Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:14 am

/ wrote:Think about it, God created all the animals and plants in the world perfectly from the outset, with females, males, hermaphrodites, and asexuals. But when it came time to make Adam he basically says "Oh you're lonely? Well I just used up the last piece of dirt, why don't you take a nap while I do some surgery? "


Perhaps you need to read the "director's uncut edition" of the Genesis Chapter 2 story. Here is the Wikipedia Cliff Notes version.

In Jewish folklore, from the 8th–10th centuries Alphabet of Ben Sira onwards, Lilith becomes Adam's first wife, who was created at the same time and from the same earth as Adam. This contrasts with Eve, who was created from one of Adam's ribs. The legend was greatly developed during the Middle Ages, in the tradition of Aggadic midrashim, the Zohar and Jewish mysticism.


There is a tradition that woman #2 was made without the "putting to sleep" part and Adam got so grossed out he rejected her outright. That leaves Eve as #3 according to that tradition.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby tzor on Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:17 am

crispybits wrote:Most people would agree that flowers smell better than sewage, does that mean that there is some objective reality that exists independently of us that governs which smells are pleasant and which are horrible? Or is it a subjective judgement, and the consensus of society defines how we describe those two smells?


That's not true. There are a lot of flowers out there in the jungles that smell really bad, according to human senses. You forget that a lot of flowers have grown as a result of "selective" breeding based on the preferences of humans. The ones the didn't smell as "good" didn't get grown as much as the ones that did.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby crispybits on Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:27 am

The point is, there is no more evidence for existential beauty, or fragrant-ness, or whatever as there is for existential good and evil (as in something that exists independently of our culture/society). That we view all of these other terms as subjective interpretations of a basically indifferent reality does not add credence to the way that some people will argue that good and evil do exist independently of anything we do/conceive. In effect in then becomes an appeal to authority on questions regarding good-ness or evil-ness - people argue that there is an objective standard by which these things can be judged (and often, coincidentally, that their religion is the only way to access this standard), rather than taking each action individually and in context of both the action, the circumstances, the intention and also larger societal values and thinking about what makes it either a good act or an evil one (or most often one with some qualities of each).
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users