[usaguedriedax]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


I know you don't understand what Christianity is.

JM Who does ?

[Bonioners]

Well JM, having both told me I'm miss-informed and refused to debate me I think your now obligated to at the least explain your position and inform me.

[Rffkwfct]

Improving yourself, becoming a better person, I assume

[fashikn]

Originally posted by Nostromo
Improving yourself, becoming a better person, I assume Has nothing to do with improving yourself. That is Buddist way. In Christ we are a made new. We accept this change, we don't (or shouldn't) be changing ourselves.

JM

[boanuatiguali]

If you want to put it into a large box that includes all ways to become a better person... I wouldn't disagree

JM

[turbutbamethyg]

Original post by Jon Miller
So you want to continue with your statement that Christianity is based on the philosophy of Plato? While I agree that some Christian thought is, by no means all is. I think that your statement is so misinformed that the only solution is for you to actually read something about Christianity (instead of just reading some atheists thoughts about it). How did you construe my original words

Plato's dualism of Forms and substance also provides a key underpinning of Christian theology Into All Christianit theology being based on the philosophy of Plato? My wording is rather clearly conveying the notion that Plato is one of only many providers as I say "a" not "the". I don't even claim he is the most important, rather Egyptian mythology has that destinction. Plato's key contribution is the idea that the physical world is an imperfect shadow of a perfect devine world. Thats significantly different then the Egyptian mythos ware the underworld is largly identical to the real or the Bablyonian underworld which is a dystopia. I also think its one of the most poisones ideas ever created as its been used to make man give up hope for this material world and meekly accept every tyrany thats been heap upon him through the ages.

[voodoosdv]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
Oh sorry I missed the Counter-Enlightenment and the return of the Dark Ages, though with the way things are going now ya never know. Please do explain how my dislike of Plato, or perhapse its being an atheist, means my head is up my arse. It's neither, actually. It's your subscribing to the delusional fantasy that religion is some sort of bogeyman that made everything bad until people discovered Reason, perhaps hidden in a cave somewhere, and that changed everything. In the 1700s, following a series of brutal religious wars that ravaged Europe, that idea was shortsighted but understandable. In the year 2007, after Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, et cetera ad nauseum, such an opinion can only be attributed to stupidity or self-deception.

It's a very tempting delusion, as it allows you to not only feel good about your own supposed wisdom but to pretend that fundamental flaws in human nature can be somehow overcome via a change in opinion or public attitude. Hence its continuing popularity to this day despite obvious flaws. Kind of like the way people are still pushing ethanol as the answer to global warming despite its inadequacy: it offers a free escape to a painful problem, so some people take it and to hell with logic. But it's still stupid.

[sicheAscems]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Science without philosophy is blind, philosophy without science is lame. Science works just fine blind then.

[allachakb]

Originaly Posted by Jon Miller
But it doesn't provide a key underpinning of Christian theology. It is key to certain Christian theologies... but you are not very informed and continue to make broad false statements anyways. Do Catholisism and Protistantism not both agree on the notion that the Divine world and God are perfect and the material world as imperfect and corrupted? Thus man should care very little if at all about the material and focus all his thoughts and efforts on the divine world, aka getting into heaven, saving his soul, personaly relation with Jesus etc etc. These two constitue the majority of christians so even if some fring like Mormons or something don't belive this I can't see that as disproving my point.

Originaly Posted by Elok
It's neither, actually. It's your subscribing to the delusional fantasy that religion is some sort of bogeyman that made everything bad until people discovered Reason, perhaps hidden in a cave somewhere, and that changed everything. In the 1700s, following a series of brutal religious wars that ravaged Europe, that idea was shortsighted but understandable. In the year 2007, after Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, et cetera ad nauseum, such an opinion can only be attributed to stupidity or self-deception. Far from it, my position is Religion surpressed reason (which ofcourse already existed) and when that supression was reduced (it hasn't stopped completly) reason one again florished. People used reason to then invent a lot of stuff (Industrialization) and think up far more interesting reasons to kill each other (Ideology) and our wars are now for other reasons often very bad reason, but they are less frequent, shorter, less destructive (comparativly) and less barberous.

[Poreponko]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
Far from it, my position is Religion surpressed reason (which ofcourse already existed) and when that supression was reduced (it hasn't stopped completly) reason one again florished. People used reason to then invent a lot of stuff (Industrialization) and think up far more interesting reasons to kill each other (Ideology) and our wars are now for other reasons often very bad reason, but they are less frequent, shorter, less destructive (comparativly) and less barberous. I tend to disagree with this narrative. We have in the past, and we continue to make sociopolitical decisions based on our subjective viewpoints. One of the subjectivities that people use is religion, another is blind faith in rationality. Bare in mind that many of the worst excesses of the 20th century were committed in the name of Modernism. The problem is not with religion, but with an idea that we can act knowing with absolute certainty that we are making the right decision, and not acknowledging the potential validity of differing points of view.

[SarkisPioute]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Science works just fine blind then. Scientific propositions would be completely meaningless without philosophical assumptions.

You see, when you see, you don't see your eyes seeing.

[movlabk]

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, proposition 6.371:


The modern view of the world rests on the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are an explanation of natural phenomenons.

[kvitacencia]

Originally posted by Admiral
I tend to disagree with this narrative. We have in the past, and we continue to make sociopolitical decisions based on our subjective viewpoints. One of the subjectivities that people use is religion, another is blind faith in rationality. Bare in mind that many of the worst excesses of the 20th century were committed in the name of Modernism. The problem is not with religion, but with an idea that we can act knowing with absolute certainty that we are making the right decision, and not acknowledging the potential validity of differing points of view.

QFT. Fundamentalist religionists, of course, will consider their view as being absolutely true and thus all other views are completely wrong and act that way. But this fundamentalist point of view doesn't only apply to religionists. Philosophies have their own fundamentalist believers.

[foI3fKWv]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, proposition 6.371:


The modern view of the world rests on the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are an explanation of natural phenomenons.
It's not an illusion

If you're going to go all Descartes on me I can just snicker and ignore you... because you still act like you believe in object reality and yadda yadda.

[Anatolii]

A perfectly accurate description might as well be an explanation... and serves scientists just as well.