Reason and faith???

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Plus, their families receive, what, something like $25,000?

The Christian martyr's family got 25 grand!!??

😲

Originally posted by lucifershammer
But suicide bombers are not eye-witnesses to Heaven, or Gabriel's recitation of the Quran to Mohammed etc.

The early Christian martyrs were eye-witnesses to the life, death and (at least what they thought was) the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

That's a huge difference.

No, it isn't.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Plus, their families receive, what, something like $25,000?

This is a common BS claim thrown around. I've never seen it actually substantiated by any type of document. In Palestine, the Israelis had a policy (illegal of course) of bulldozing the houses and seizing the assets of the families of suicide bombers. Other Arab countries and organizations made it a policy that these people should be compensated as the victims they were (in fact, they were doubly victimized). I personally don't see anything wrong with that.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, it isn't.

Really?

You're telling me there is no difference, even in your US law-based reasoning, between an eye-witness and secondary-source witness?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Really?

You're telling me there is no difference, even in your US law-based reasoning, between an eye-witness and secondary-source witness?

Goalpost moving again (BTW, eyewitness testimony is considered one of the most unreliable types of evidence).

The person who decides to become a suicide bomber to fight against the oppression of his people IS an eyewitness to that oppression in almost all cases. So, how is his wish to give his life in the belief that it may (or will) help to end that oppression any different from the beliefs of early Christian martyrs (you seem to be reducing that category to a very small handful by requiring actual physical interaction with Jesus + matyrdom)? An actual answer this time rather than another non-sequitur.

Originally posted by corp1131
Excellent post Coletti, this forum would be a much better place if all posters were to read it.

One question. In the sentence "At least with the Christian worldview, you have a rational explanation for meaning, morality, and order in the universe." You imply that non-Christian / non-religious worldvievs are inherently irrational. Why do you be ...[text shortened]... rality not just be a product of evolution? Why does there have to be meaning?
...
~corp1131

Thank you.

I can't really say that non-theistic worldviews are irrational so much as they are insufficient to explain meaning and morality. Rationalism is by definition a rational non-religious worldview. But it seems to be absent any axiom for justifying knowledge - no epistemic starting point.

And if Christianity is false, or God does not exist, then I suppose the morality would have to be a product of evolution. I don't see how it would work, and it would undermine the possibility of a universal moral code. It would reduce to skepticism. But then if I'm wrong, maybe the Skeptics are right. I certainly don't believe they are right, I just can prove them necessarily wrong.

I think it comes down to a choice in what worldview axioms you believe. Although "choice" doesn't seem quite right because I'm not sure all beliefs are volitional.

We can have all sorts of rational arguments for a our conclusions, which we believe because we have proven them and we believe the premises they are based on. And we might believe those premises because we can give another argument to justify them in turn. But as we justify our premises with a-priori arguments and premises, eventually it seems we must reach a point where we can no longer justify the premises we believe without giving a circular argument. And so to avoid a making fallacious arguments, we need assume some starting point. Unfortunately, this must be an unprovable axiom.

So no matter how rational or coherent the resulting worldview is, the axioms themselves can not be rationally proven - they are the epistemological start, and nothing can be logically prior to it. I think this is a common characteristic of all "rational" worldviews.

Which is why I can not say it is a logical fact that non-theistic worldviews are irrational (not without assuming mine worldview is correct, which begs the question). But I don't think they are sufficient to provide al the desiderata of a worldview - that is they don't seem to allow for objective meaning and morality.

Did that answer your question?

Originally posted by Coletti
Did that answer your question?

WTF?! Did you just get back from Charm School or something?

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Come on Powershaker!?! I try to stay out of the Spirituality arguments as these debates go nowhere and I find I can't learn anything from the such blind devotion to one side or another. No one here seems to be truly interested in the Spiritual growth of anyone else, just fixated on their own perception of the truth.

My comment is that you can't a ...[text shortened]... e, I'm begging you, cease and desist with the circular arguments your frigging killing me.

The roman empire lasted until 476AD (as a conservative date, apparently you can have it right up until 1493, depending on yuor definition), although became Christian around 380AD. Way, way after the time of Christ or any of his direct followers. Hardly "bringing the roman empire to its knees".

Originally posted by Coletti
Thank you.

I can't really say that non-theistic worldviews are irrational so much as they are insufficient to explain meaning and morality. Rationalism is by definition a rational non-religious worldview. But it seems to be absent any axiom for justifying knowledge - no epistemic starting point.

And if Christianity is false, or God does not exist, ...[text shortened]... eem to allow for objective meaning and morality.

Did that answer your question?

You should read Dawkins Selfish gene and Extended phenotype methinks.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You should read Dawkins Selfish gene and Extended phenotype methinks.

EVERYONE should read those books.

Originally posted by nomind
EVERYONE should read those books.

Yes, but who will understand them? I bet you most theists would reject them as fanciful writing on evolution (hypocrites!)

Originally posted by Coletti
I can't really say that non-theistic worldviews are irrational so much as they are insufficient to explain meaning and morality. Rationalism is by definition a rational non-religious worldview. But it seems to be absent any axiom for justifying knowledge - no epistemic starting point.

I dont find theistic worldviews to be sufficient to explain meaning and morality either. They tend to play the godunit game instead.

And if Christianity is false, or God does not exist, then I suppose the morality would have to be a product of evolution. I don't see how it would work, and it would undermine the possibility of a universal moral code. It would reduce to skepticism. But then if I'm wrong, maybe the Skeptics are right. I certainly don't believe they are right, I just can prove them necessarily wrong.
There is no evidence for a universal moral code, so as scottishinnz would say, the most parsimonious assumption is that there isnt one.

Which is why I can not say it is a logical fact that non-theistic worldviews are irrational (not without assuming mine worldview is correct, which begs the question). But I don't think they are sufficient to provide al the desiderata of a worldview - that is they don't seem to allow for objective meaning and morality.
Why is objective meaning and morality desiderata of a worldview?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I dont find theistic worldviews to be sufficient to explain meaning and morality either. They tend to play the godunit game instead.

[b]And if Christianity is false, or God does not exist, then I suppose the morality would have to be a product of evolution. I don't see how it would work, and it would undermine the possibility of a universal moral code ...[text shortened]... eaning and morality.
Why is objective meaning and morality desiderata of a worldview?[/b]

Gee shucks, my reputation preceeds me!!!

Originally posted by no1marauder
Goalpost moving again (BTW, eyewitness testimony is considered one of the most unreliable types of evidence).

The person who decides to become a suicide bomber to fight against the oppression of his people IS an eyewitness to that oppression in almost all cases. So, how is his wish to give his life in the belief that it may (or will) help to en ...[text shortened]... interaction with Jesus + matyrdom)? An actual answer this time rather than another non-sequitur.

If anything, you're the one moving the goalposts.

My assertion was that there is a big difference between modern suicide bombers who choose death based on Quranic promises and the early Christian martyrs. You said there wasn't. Now you're talking about witnessing oppression etc. - but that's not what I was talking about.

And not, I propose, what scottishinnz was talking about when he first brought up suicide bombing; because if, as you assert, suicide bombers die as witnesses of the oppression of their people, then that would only support powershaker's hypothesis that men do not readily die for a lie.

Originally posted by Coletti
Many theists shoot themselves in the foot by proclaim that they "know" God exists in any epistemic sense. But they can have "complete certainty" - and that's the colloquial sense of the term.

But let's stick with belief rather then knowledge (knowledge being justified true belief). Belief in God is not necessarily blind faith. Faith, yes, but there are No. But I'm pretty certain. And the contrary seems pretty bleak.

I'm sorry, but this just seems like your usual mix of jargon-laden, dodgy reasoning.

You can't use an analogy with logic. The reason you can't "prove logic is true" (or false) is that it is "built in", as it were; it is part of the framework we operate in. The same is not true of God.

You also say that to prove the existence of God would require "a priori propositions", before going on to say that the existence of God is "a pointless debate". Yet you then discuss the possibility of whether God can reveal himself to us, or give us evidence of his existence. If God came to me in my bedroom and explained himself, did a couple of impressive miracles, etc., I would consider him to have "proved" his existence.

At any rate, whether or not we can "prove" the existence or non-existence of God in the manner you describe does not affect the question: can we have good reasons for believing (or not-believing) in God? This is not a matter of choice; it is a matter of weighing evidence and arguments.

Can I prove that there are no green elephants living inside the sun? No. Are there green elephants living inside the sun? No.

Your argument from the existence of the Bible is obvious question-begging. The "apparent moral order" could be explained in a variety of ways that do not require God. One (anthropological) explaination would be that it is a function of our evolution; another (philosophical) explanation might be that there are brute moral facts in our world, just as there are other brute facts.

Can we chose to believe whatever we want? I don't know. Should we? No. That's copping out; it's not what we are here for.