walks in, looks around.

[self stirring mug]

walks in, looks around

leaves

 

[Dual]

So you also dismiss Machiavelli's 'The Prince' because it contains stuff like

'Whoever conquers a free town and does not demolish it commits a great error and may expect to be ruined himself. '

'A better course is to establish colonies. This is inexpensive, and offends only the few citizens whose lands are taken; and those become poor and powerless, while those uninjured will be compliant, for fear it should happen to them. Men ought either to be well treated or crushed; they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, therefore injury ought to be of such a kind that one does not fear revenge'

or Hobbes' 'Leviathan', which basically says that all power should be concentrated in the ruler, who has the right to enforce said power with all means available?

Do you think that it is even possible to shun every source with what we deem questionable and downright unethical ideas when studying philosophy?

It's not really about ethics. Machiavelli doesn't claim to represent supreme good or supreme morality, nor does he claim universal infallibility. As an object of philosophy, the Bible is bankrupt precisely because it hinges on unthinking, absolute dogmatic acceptance. The claims that it makes about itself and its God are clearly and evidentially incompatible with its other content. There are two ways to rectify those discrepancies: either the claims about the supreme good of God are falsehoods, or the corpus of the Bible is untrue, in which case it can not follow from the infallibility of God. If we accept the former solution, then the writings of the Bible are nothing but monstrous fairy tales, and if we accept the latter, we're left with the truth, that being that it's little more than a codification of bronze-age tribal laws, with all the obsolete horrors that implies. Principally, the different between Machiavelli and the Bible is that Machiavelli bases his arguments on sound premises, and that his conclusions follow in a logical manner. Neither can be said for any religion, least of all Christianity.

 

[Ilyanna]

It's not really about ethics. Machiavelli doesn't claim to represent supreme good or supreme morality, nor does he claim universal infallibility. As an object of philosophy, the Bible is bankrupt precisely because it hinges on unthinking, absolute dogmatic acceptance.

Does it really? Does the bible itself say that all of its content has to be dogmatically believed? (Actual question here - it's been a long time since I last really read it completely). The bible provides the reader with an explanation about how the world is created, about how to act in different situations, it gives advise about what is considered ethical behavior. Just because we have evidence that this 'world created in 7 days' stuff might not have happened exactly like depicted, doesn't mean that everything else written in there is bullshit. (FTR, I am talking about both the old and the new testament here.)
Let's just assume for a minute that we look at the bible not as 'God's Word' (something that would, indeed, require unquestioning faith), but as a book from human authors, from people who, at different times, felt the need to lay down their thoughts about stuff like societal rules, laws, ethics, morals, that kind of stuff based on their beliefs. Machiavelli did the same, only he didn't bother with explaining the world's creation, or by explaining his concept of God. He does, though, base everything on his take on human nature. IIRC, he doesn't even explain where he got his idea of man from. He simply says 'that's how man is'. In order to follow his philosophy, you have to take his stance on humans at face value.

The claims that it makes about itself and its God are clearly and evidentially incompatible with its other content. There are two ways to rectify those discrepancies: either the claims about the supreme good of God are falsehoods, or the corpus of the Bible is untrue, in which case it can not follow from the infallibility of God. If we accept the former solution, then the writings of the Bible are nothing but monstrous fairy tales, and if we accept the latter, we're left with the truth, that being that it's little more than a codification of bronze-age tribal laws, with all the obsolete horrors that implies. Principally, the different between Machiavelli and the Bible is that Machiavelli bases his arguments on sound premises, and that his conclusions follow in a logical manner. Neither can be said for any religion, least of all Christianity.

As I said, one doesn't necessarily have to throw away everything a book contains just because one part of it is outdated, or deemed invalid. You don't have to believe that animals really talk to understand and discuss the ethical and moral lessons contained in fables. Strip the bible from this 'God is infallible' stuff, and what you get are a bunch of ideas worth thinking about, for example the Sermon of the Mount. Yes, there are also tribal laws laid down in there. If anything, it's pretty interesting to see what these people thought would constitute justice or correct behavior. Or, as in this case, take the story and think what it might imply when viewed as a parable. Who cares if on page 1243, some guy said that it's ok to stone somebody? We all know it's not cool to do so. Does this mean everything this Jesus guy alledgedly said is invalid?
If a convicted rapist and murderer tells you that killing another human being is wrong, does that make the statement false?

 

[Cassie]

Ah, but all-knowing does not equal predetermination. God is supposed to be timeless, so just because he knows what you will do next in your space-time-continuum does not mean that you can't change your mind. It's just that he also knows that you will change your mind.

Nope, sorry. Knowing the future means it is predetermined. If you change your mind, then it was always going to happen that way.

 

[Dual]

If a convicted rapist and murderer tells you that killing another human being is wrong, does that make the statement false?

No, but if that rapist goes on to claim perfect good and to say that rape's really cool, then his qualifications as an arbiter of morality might be called into question. An issue with the Bible is that it does claim to be such an arbiter.

You can take the Bible as a book of parables and discard the religious element, sure. You're still left with a bunch of really warped, fucked up stories, but meh.

Machiavelli's premise is that humans are bastards. I can accept that. It's reasonable.

The Bible is interesting in the same way as Hammurabi's Code. The Bible is horrifying in that so many hundreds of millions worship it. In a discussion like this, it's important to draw that distinction: the emotional issue that I've with the Bible is on this latter point.

Regarding dogma, it probably varies by sect; I don't know what the Bible says on the matter, if anything. In America our massive Evangelical population and their influence on society and politics is really stunning, so speaking from my perspective Biblical literalism seems very widespread. My little sister is dating a guy whose grandmother insists that Earth is ~6k years old, dinosaur bones are tricks of Satan, and that the Rapture's coming. Not an altogether rare assortment of fucktarded beliefs. =/

 

[Ilyanna]

Nope, sorry. Knowing the future means it is predetermined. If you change your mind, then it was always going to happen that way.

I'll get back to you on that. I will have to take some time to get my thoughts on this into an English somebody besides me can understand

No, but if that rapist goes on to claim perfect good and to say that rape's really cool, then his qualifications as an arbiter of morality might be called into question. An issue with the Bible is that it does claim to be such an arbiter.

I agree with you to some extent. I do question the bible. I sure as hell (heh!) don't take anything in there for granted or believe anything at face value. But that's something I do with every source I read. The fact that a few of the 10 commandments are something I personally find completely ridiculous does not make me feel less confident that the others are very, very important and right.

You can take the Bible as a book of parables and discard the religious element, sure. You're still left with a bunch of really warped, fucked up stories, but meh.

Just like Bukowski, man, just like old Bukowski.

Machiavelli's premise is that humans are bastards. I can accept that. It's reasonable.

Well, you can acccept that. Others can accept that there's a god who created mankind in his image. Others (like me) accept that they have no clue whatsoever and listen to those who think they do, always looking for something they can accept

The Bible is interesting in the same way as Hammurabi's Code.

Exactly my point.

The Bible is horrifying in that so many hundreds of millions worship it. In a discussion like this, it's important to draw that distinction: the emotional issue that I've with the Bible is on this latter point.

Absolutely. I always, always make a distinction between the message, the messenger, and those who've understood less than half of the message but feel inclined to fill the gaps with their bs and feed it to the unsuspecting.

Regarding dogma, it probably varies by sect; I don't know what the Bible says on the matter, if anything. In America our massive Evangelical population and their influence on society and politics is really stunning, so speaking from my perspective Biblical literalism seems very widespread. My little sister is dating a guy whose grandmother insists that Earth is ~6k years old, dinosaur bones are tricks of Satan, and that the Rapture's coming. Not an altogether rare assortment of fucktarded beliefs. =/

It's different over here. We don't have that many sects/varieties of Christian beliefs. In Germany, it is rather difficult to get acknowledged as a church. I have never met a German who literally believes in Genesis or anything else written in the bible. Maybe that's why my emotional reaction is more, uh, laid-back when it comes to this book

 

[SuN]

Nope, sorry. Knowing the future means it is predetermined. If you change your mind, then it was always going to happen that way.

One can have a blue print that the builders ruin, becoz they didn't RTFM.
I think its all relative; at the end of the day people are provided with choices which have associated outcomes, consequences & responsibilities.

I think its a different discussion when it comes to religious institutions, exploitation of natural human vulnerabilities and those that support their existence and propagation.

The bloody bible topic humors me as we have always lived in a bloody world; the only difference here is that the dude known as God actively cheers, develops strategical plans and goes about settling scores according to His view and ability to influence.
It fascinates me that its acceptable for humans to do this, but if God does it...its spoilt child syndrome of 'zomg how culd u'!!!
If indeed this God created us, then wouldn't we mirror some of these aspects also? And who are we, who do similar things with less insight then point the finger at God?
I imagine there are not many who believe in the Abrahamic God, who actively petition Him to modify His ways of doing things....kinda like abraham did.

Again I see this as a responsibility of creative beings- to create, responsibly ethically etc Isn't it human nature to hold a key and bitch about not having the guts to use it?

 

[Donovan]

I'll respond in depth later, but it's too damn hot to sit here right now. But I'll say this in passing to dual:

Is it more foolish to believe there is a higher power, a superior form of life whose sole interest is our continued well-being? Or is it more foolish to assume in all the millions of varieties of life evidenced on this planet alone, that somehow we won the genetic lotto and are at the very top both in advancement and intelligence and supremity? In the whole universe? Really?

One of these assumptions is naive. The other's just fucking scary, man.

 

[Dual]

Is it more foolish to believe there is a higher power, a superior form of life whose sole interest is our continued well-being?

Both foolish and narcissistic, yes.

Or is it more foolish to assume in all the millions of varieties of life evidenced on this planet alone, that somehow we won the genetic lotto and are at the very top both in advancement and intelligence and supremity?

On this planet? No, obviously that's not foolish, because based on all evidence we have of the planet's history, we are.

In the whole universe? Really?

That's another matter entirely, and I would never make that claim, ever.

 

[SuN]

^lulz

 

[Dual]

^lulz

lulz @ u; u beleev in deity <3

 

[SuN]

lulz at donovan...but yas...u can has some lulz too <3 lulz for all!

 

[RavenBlackheart]

Man created "god" on his own image. Is it a coincidence that all gods are presented as being humans or humanoids ?

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

Satanas Aeternum.

 

[Bickendan]

It's different over here. We don't have that many sects/varieties of Christian beliefs. In Germany, it is rather difficult to get acknowledged as a church. I have never met a German who literally believes in Genesis or anything else written in the bible. Maybe that's why my emotional reaction is more, uh, laid-back when it comes to this book

What are the denominations present in Germany, if I may ask?

Y'know, it's odd that I'm not really jumping into this discussion. Really, though, I don't have too much to add.

 

[Ilyanna]

Bick,
According to a rather trustworthy source ('religionswissenschaftlicher Medien- und Informationsdienst):

The majority of Germans are without denomination, owed to the fact that the former GDR officially supported the secularization of its people.
The two main denominations are the Protestants as represented by the Evangelical Church and the Roman-Catholics having a 30% resp. 29% share of the population.
3rd place goes to Islam with 4,6% of the population followed by the various orthodox churches.

There are a few minor religious communities like the New Apostolic Church and Jehova's Witnesses, but their followers are not enough to even pass the 1% mark. Same goes for the Jews and Mormons.

Y'know, it's odd that I'm not really jumping into this discussion. Really, though, I don't have too much to add.

As far as I have gathered, the Mormons believe that God evolved from mere human to the highest being, and that other humans can do the same, is that correct? If so, what would a possible Mormon take on this whole Tree of Knowledge and Fall from Grace story be?
(Yeah, I totally am trying to lure you into a religio-philosophical debate )

 

[Bickendan]

Troll bait! Om nom nom... (gets cast out of the Garden of Trolling) h4x!

Donovan has it pretty well said, what with the tree of knowledge being a test. We (Mormons) see Adam and Eve's eating the fruit as a transgression and not a sin; Eve realized that without eating the fruit, humankind would never progress and Adam and Eve would still be in the garden to this point (Conjecture: We don't know how long they spent before eating from the tree; for all we know, they spent 10,000 years there! Ok, that's a bit unrealistic, but you get my point).
To that point, Lucifer's plan kinda backfired, as eating the fruit allowed Man to progress (and eventually become like God); but like any good Xanatos Gambit, the secondary plan winds up more beneficial to the devil: Access to a suddenly broader pool of humans to tempt and damn.

Because we don't see Eve eating the fruit (Adam joined in when Eve told him, realizing that he had to eat as well) as a sin but as a transgression, we don't believe in Original Sin, therefore, mankind is responsible for only their own sins, not that of their fathers or of Adam's. As such, children under the age of eight are 'innocent' and unaccountable for their sins.

 

[Marquis De Sade]

Well, you can acccept that. Others can accept that there's a god who created mankind in his image. Others (like me) accept that they have no clue whatsoever and listen to those who think they do, always looking for something they can accept

Sometimes the best answer is simply saying "I don't know", instead of claiming certainty, going into extremes, and attempting to rationalize concepts that transcend human logic and cannot be rationalized, by default.

On another note, it would be interesting if the believer folk would discuss the philosophical/moralistic/ethical aspect of their faiths, instead of delving into the supernatural, and fighting an uphill battle where logic, coherence, and facts is not on their side.

To be honest I was quite disappointed with the thread. I was linked to it and been told that it was interesting. Apart from the above quote, it's pretty much your run of the mill believer v/s atheist "debate" that goes along the lines of :

"God created the world. It couldn't have created itself."

"What you say is devoid of any logic, and you have no proof that backs it up. I am an atheist, and I am better than you."

Regards.

 

[Cassie]

Marquis, you could get the ball rolling by discussing the philosophical/moralistic/ethical aspect of your faith.

 

[SuN]

No its not Marquis....it scarcely has a hint of debate; it leans towards discussion alot more than it does debate; although I do find it interesting that you would percieve it be so

P
r
O
j
E
c
T
i
O
n

Much?

 

[Marquis De Sade]

Marquis, you could get the ball rolling by discussing the philosophical/moralistic/ethical aspect of your faith.

I already stated that "I don't know" is the only answer I have to pompous questions regarding our existence, God, et cetera.

The ball's in your court, dearie.