Originally posted by firstfloor
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Relationship between Philosophy and Theology
Collapse
X
-
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNo. NMN supports that morality and ethics is a brute natural fact of non-theistic origins, and NOT whether science determines what is moral and ethical.
This addresses the brute fact of the NMN basis for morality and ethics, and not whether specific morals and ethics of different societies and cultures are righht or wrong.Last edited by seer; 03-07-2017, 09:13 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostFirst, I'm glad you finally agree that science tells us nothing about what is moral or not - you were confusing me. Second, Moral Realism is saying more than that - that moral truths exist independently of humankind or cultures. And no one here, certainly not you, have been able to demonstrate how that is possible. It is a mere assertion without evidence.
I clearly demonstrated from the reference that Moral Realism is not saying what you said it says. My argument has never changed and the references are clear and specific. NMN argues that morality and ethics have a natural basis, and not whether science determines whether the morals and ethics of any one culture, society, religion or belief system is the true correct system of morals and ethics.Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-07-2017, 09:21 AM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostRight that is an assertion without evidence. Did you follow the questions I asked Matt - who in the end rejected NMN?
No seer, we definitely do not agree, unless, of course, you now agree that morals and ethics can possibly have natural non-theist origins, as described in NMN and Utilitarian Teleology.
I clearly demonstrated from the reference that Moral Realism is not saying what you said it says. My argument has never changed and the references are clear and specific. NMN argues that morality and ethics have a natural basis, and not whether science determines whether the morals and ethics of any one culture, society, religion or belief system is the true correct system of morals and ethics.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNo seer, we definitely do not agree, unless, of course, you now agree that morals and ethics can possibly have natural non-theist origins, as described in NMN and Utilitarian Teleology.
I clearly demonstrated from the reference that Moral Realism is not saying what you said it says. My argument has never changed and the references are clear and specific. NMN argues that morality and ethics have a natural basis, and not whether science determines whether the morals and ethics of any one culture, society, religion or belief system is the true correct system of morals and ethics.
Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them. http://www.philosophybasics.com/bran...l_realism.htmlAtheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNo Shuny, we agree that science says nothing about what is moral or not.
No Shuny, moral realism says that moral truth exist independently of cultures, that they are objective.
So again Shuny, demonstrate how these moral truths exist independently of our perception, beliefs, feelings, attitudes. Is you can not show how they exist independently you are just making an assertion with no evidence.
No seer, we definitely do not agree, unless, of course, you now agree that morals and ethics can possibly have natural non-theist origins, as described in NMN and Utilitarian Teleology.
I clearly demonstrated from the reference that Moral Realism is not saying what you said it says. My argument has never changed and the references are clear and specific. NMN argues that morality and ethics have a natural basis, and not whether science determines whether the morals and ethics of any one culture, society, religion or belief system is the true correct system of morals and ethics.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThis basically selective and false. The bottom line is that in the Baha'i writings it is clear that the interpretation of scripture in terms of the nature of our physical existence, and that includes the Baha'i writings MUST be understood and interpreted in the light of the evolving nature of our scientific knowledge. That has been clarified in numerous treads for many years.
The only unchanging law of God is the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, and not commentary on the nature of our physical existence in the other writings.
Even if we limit infallibility to the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Baha'u'llah points out that "We have appointed two signs for the coming of age of the human race: the first, which is the most firm foundation, We have set down in other of Our Tablets, while the second hath been revealed in this wondrous Book." Baha'u'llah makes clear in other writings that the first sign refers to a common universal language shared by all people, and the second sign refers to teaching people pseudo-science silliness on alchemy and transmutation,
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostSo if science said that homosexuality was perfectly natural and healthy and your God said that it was immoral and should be rejected/avoided - which one would be true?. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostNah. It isn't false, and you clarified nothing. As anyone can tell by reading the threads, it's just you running around in circles without a clue about your professed faith.
That's false. The Baha'i Faith teaches that the Bab, Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l Baha, Shoghi Effendi, and the Universal House of Justice are all infallible.
Even if we limit infallibility to the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Baha'u'llah points out that "We have appointed two signs for the coming of age of the human race: the first, which is the most firm foundation, We have set down in other of Our Tablets, while the second hath been revealed in this wondrous Book." Baha'u'llah makes clear in other writings that the first sign refers to a common universal language shared by all people, and the second sign refers to teaching people pseudo-science silliness on alchemy and transmutation,
Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-07-2017, 09:50 AM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostBad and selective misrepresentation of the Baha'i Faith and the understanding of infallibility in the Baha'i Faith. I have responded to this many times before in detail.
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostNo philosopher would start at revelation. There is no connection between philosophy and theology.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostOh you've responded, but not with anything meaningful. And no, it isn't a bad and selective misrepresentation of the Baha'i Faith, but then, you've demonstrated thoroughly on these forums that you don't know much about what the Baha'i Faith actually teaches.
Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-07-2017, 09:56 AM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostReal science can show that homosexuality is not healthy.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
There is nothing in the Writings that would lead us to the conclusion that what Shoghi Effendi says about himself concerning statements on subjects not directly related to the Faith also applies to 'Abdu'l-Bahá. Instead we have assertions which indicate that 'Abdu'l-Bahá's position in the Faith is one for which we find "no parallel" in past Dispensations. For example, Bahá'u'lláh, in addition to His reference to the Centre of His Covenant as the "Mystery of God", states that 'Abdu'l-Bahá should be regarded as God's "exalted Handiwork" and "a Word which God hath adorned with the ornament of His Own Self, and made it sovereign over the earth and all that there is therein..." And from Shoghi Effendi we have the incontrovertible statement that the Guardian of the Faith while "overshadowed" by the "protection'' of Bahá'u'lláh and of the Bab, "remains essentially human", whereas in respect of 'Abdu'l-Bahá Shoghi Effendi categorically states that "in the person of 'Abdu'l-Bahá the incompatible characteristics of a human nature and superhuman knowledge and perfection have been blended and are completely harmonized.
Basically the very opposite of what you were hoping to find in your quickly googled source. Man your reading comprehension is bad.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThat was not the topic of disagreement.
Where does "science" say that murder is wrong, or stealing is wrong or immoral? You keep bringing in science, but where does science make these moral claims? I will be waiting for your answer.
The science of anthropology, sociology, and evolution shows that wrongful death codes of morals are necessary for the cooperation and adherence to a system of morals and ethics to maintain social order. In simpler forms these morals and ethics exist in higher social animals like primates.
No seer, we definitely do not agree, unless, of course, you now agree that morals and ethics can possibly have natural non-theist origins, as described in NMN and Utilitarian Teleology.
I clearly demonstrated from the reference that Moral Realism is not saying what you said it says. My argument has never changed and the references are clear and specific. NMN argues that morality and ethics have a natural basis, and not whether science determines whether the morals and ethics of any one culture, society, religion or belief system is the true correct system of morals and ethics.Last edited by seer; 03-07-2017, 10:06 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
161 responses
514 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
Yesterday, 05:44 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
|
88 responses
354 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-01-2024, 09:27 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
133 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment