Ahh...religion is baseless unsupported, unprovable and contradicts many other religions.
Religion isn't baseless nor unsupported.
Quote from Voice of All(MTG) »
Some things, like the Sciences, are WAY more solid and realiable than religion as per logic and probability.
Indeed.
Quote from Voice of All(MTG) »
If you want to argue that logic and probability are just opinions, then there are no tools to argue with and I will not even bother to reply.
I don't want to argue that.
Quote from Goatchunx »
You have no authority to determine what true religion is.You offer no warrants, and I'm not going to take your word. Nor will I take "God says so" as a warrant. I have never seen or experienced the grace of God, so present some tangible evidence that Christianity or any other religion is the "true religion." Such evidence is ultimately inattainable. So, your argument now breaks down to "Destroying religions is not wrong." But how can that be true when destroying religions advances ethnocentrism which decreases cultural diversity and contributes to the otherization of people in other cultures.
Definition: "true religion" - A religious view in which the causes for existence can be empiricially verified.
Violation: There is no set of facts that proves that all parts of Christianity to be true. First: I don't believe God exists. Second: Even if God does exist, I don't believe he wrote the Bible. Third: If he did, I don't believe the set of facts presented in it. But, I don't offer those three reasons as refutation. I will grant for the sake of argument that the Bible is the word of God. If that is true, then God presents the Bible as a set of facts. But the Bible is not true because...
Standards: We must be able to empirically verify or test the validity of the claims in the Bible. While some of the events may have happened, we can't verify their truth. We need evidence that says that existence is the result of a single God, and that God's universe makes all of the events in biblical scripture possible. Above all, we need a source outside of theology that tells us this. Otherwise, our argument is circular and it appeals to authority.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
I don't agree with this definition. A belief can be true without being able to empirically test it.
EDIT: Only a narrow and strange paradigm would yield such a definition.
Quite so, a belief can be true without being tested. The trouble is, how do you know? And if you don't know, how can you possibly use it as a justification for anything?
I don't agree with this definition. A belief can be true without being able to empirically test it.
You not agreeing with the definition is not an argument. Why is my definition in correct? Can you offer an example of a belief that is true without being able to empirically test it?
Quote from extremestan »
EDIT: Only a narrow and strange paradigm would yield such a definition.
What strange paradigm is that? If you don't like it, then you come up with a definition for "true religion." Chances are, I would argue against it on the same grounds. Unless it's really loaded or otherwise skewed, I'll still argue against it.
Also, what about my ethnocentrism argument? You dropped it. Even if you win on the "true religion" debate, I still win on "is not wrong." In fact, if we're going to have a debate, let's define wrong.
I offer a definition from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: Wrong - adj. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked.
This is your proposition which you now have a burden to prove: "destroying false religions is not wrong."
So tell me how arbitrarily deciding what religion is "right" and then destroying the others is not contrary to conscience or morality.
Come on, argue. Respond to stuff. Give me warrants. If you beat me, I'll bow down as your inferior, but we are going to make this a good debate.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
I am not so sure the measure for either of these should be moral correctness.
To address eco-terrorism (for example the sabotage of a SUV lot, a month or two ago.) I find the terrorist, vandalism activities counter productive to any agenda a group has. This is true in any case.
In Iraq a Sunni-suicide bomber blows himself up in the middle of a Shiite mosque and people remember the poor Shiites. Some ass timebombs an abortion clinic, and I feel no sympathy for the Right to Life cause. Fools everyone of them.
As for religious missionaries and wiping out culture, culture is constantly changing anyway, there is no need to resort to devious measures (as some missionaries have in the past) to convert people. If one culture or system of beliefs will benefit people, those people will adopt those beliefs. If the beliefs lack merit, they will passed over for better values. Personally I am a big fan of science, I think that the technology and medicine brought about by scientific thought is enough to convince people of its benefits. Also, science need not extinguish culture, but can co-exist, and improve that culture. But that is just this scientest, speaking from his pulpit.
I am not so sure the measure for either of these should be moral correctness.
His proposition contains the words "is not wrong." So what is the measure for the truth of his statement?
Quote from erikcu »
As for religious missionaries and wiping out culture, culture is constantly changing anyway, there is no need to resort to devious measures (as some missionaries have in the past) to convert people.
You're damn right, there's no need.
Quote from erikcu »
If one culture or system of beliefs will benefit people, those people will adopt those beliefs. If the beliefs lack merit, they will passed over for better values.
Of course.
Quote from erikcu »
Personally I am a big fan of science, I think that the technology and medicine brought about by scientific thought is enough to convince people of its benefits. Also, science need not extinguish culture, but can co-exist, and improve that culture. But that is just this scientest, speaking from his pulpit.
Getting kind of out of the scope of this thread, since missionaries spread religion, not science. For the record, I'm a fan of science, too.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Morality is a very subjective measure is my main contention with using it as a measure of some group's worth.
For terrorism, I think effectiveness is a better measure, and on the yardstick of effectiveness, it is close to a zero. Hence my opinion to use terrorism to further ones cause, is foolish.
As for evangelical movements, measuring their moral correctness, seems like a ruler trying to measure itself. It is one foot long, because it is one foot long, because it is one foot long. Spreading the faith, is moraly correct, because it is moraly correct, because it is moraly correct.
Perhaps it is better to take look at the methods used to spread that faith, or talk about the merits of that belief system, rather than measure its morality on a scale with eco-terroism...
Both of these are interesting topics for debate in their own respects, but I don't think it is that useful to try to compare them on some moral scale.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Because some Christians do bad things, they are all bad! Yay for generalizations and sweeping condemnations!!
I agree! Politicians lie and have lots of extra-marital sex and are corrupt! We should do away with politicians and politics, too!
Seriously though. The extremist idiots you're presenting don't stand for the entire field of missionary work, any more than yu-gi-oh! represents the pinnacle of trading card games, or any more than O.J. Simpson represents the average moral integrity of African-Americans.
You not agreeing with the definition is not an argument.
Of course it's not. It's a dispute of one of your claims. You can't use as premises claims that are in dispute.
Quote from Goatchunx »
Why is my definition in correct? Can you offer an example of a belief that is true without being able to empirically test it?
God either exists or doesn't exist. One of those beliefs is true, yet neither are empirically testable.
Quote from Goatchunx »
What strange paradigm is that? If you don't like it, then you come up with a definition for "true religion." Chances are, I would argue against it on the same grounds. Unless it's really loaded or otherwise skewed, I'll still argue against it.
Thinking that something is true if and only if it's empirically testable is a strange paradigm. I'm sorry, it just is. It's an odd philosophical framework to work from.
Quote from Goatchunx »
Also, what about my ethnocentrism argument? You dropped it. Even if you win on the "true religion" debate, I still win on "is not wrong."
Oh? Well then it is then assumed, for the rest of this post, that there is a true religion.
Quote from Goatchunx »
In fact, if we're going to have a debate, let's define wrong.
I offer a definition from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: Wrong - adj. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked.
This is your proposition which you now have a burden to prove: "destroying false religions is not wrong."
1) It is virtuous to be knowledgeable and vicious to be ignorant or deceived.
2) It is morally right to spread virtue, especially at the expense of vice.
3) That which is morally right cannot be morally wrong.
There are several claims being made between the two of us. I say that,
~ Religious claims are either fully true or (at least) partially false.
~ It is good to spread truth. We can never know for certain that anything is true based on practical observation, but,
~ It's possible to come to reasonable determinations without a reliance on empirical science. It's better of course, to come to determinations through a tried and tested method like the scientific.
In the scope of our discussion, I'm not claiming any religion X is true.
Quote from Goatchunx »
So tell me how arbitrarily deciding what religion is "right" and then destroying the others is not contrary to conscience or morality.
False dilemma fallacy by providing "arbitrary determination" and "empirical determination" as the exclusive options, and affirmation of the (distant) consequent by presuming mere arbitration.
Oh? Well then it is then assumed, for the rest of this post, that there is a true religion.
No. I don't think we can assume it. Why can we assume it?
Quote from extremestan »
1) It is virtuous to be knowledgeable and vicious to be ignorant or deceived.
You're asserting right now. Do you have a definition of viruous and vicious? Why is it viruous to be knowledgeable? Why is it vicious to be ignorant?
Quote from extremestan »
2) It is morally right to spread virtue, especially at the expense of vice.
What criterion are you using for "morally right"?
Quote from extremestan »
3) That which is morally right cannot be morally wrong.
Okay.
Quote from extremestan »
There are several claims being made between the two of us. I say that,
~ Religious claims are either fully true or (at least) partially false.
You have an absolute burden on the proof of said religious claim.
Quote from extremestan »
~ It is good to spread truth. We can never know for certain that anything is true based on practical observation, but,
Nobody has a monopoly on religious truth. The fact that there are so many religious and spiritual views is evidence of this.
Quote from extremestan »
~ It's possible to come to reasonable determinations without a reliance on empirical science. It's better of course, to come to determinations through a tried and tested method like the scientific.
Quote from extremestan »
In the scope of our discussion, I'm not claiming any religion X is true.
So how do you prove your statement?
Claims:
1) Either...
a) one or more true religions exist, or
b) no true religion exists.
If 1a, then we are still incurring the impact of my ethnocentrism argument that you still haven't talked about, which says that destroying "false" religions decreases cultural diversity. Decreasing cultural diversity is not virtuous.
If 1b, then destroying any religion is not wrong. First, destroying religions comes into conflict with the ethnocentrism argument. Second, if this statement is true, then destroying Christianity is not wrong. This may seem like an appeal to consequences fallacy, but keep in mind that without the existence of a true religion, this is an impact of the truth of your argument.
2) While it is "virtuous" to spread truth, if no true religion exists, then there is no truth to spread. For this argument to link to your conclusion, at least one true religion must exist. Therefore, you have to prove that such a religion exists, otherwise you have the conditional statement "if a true religion exists, then destroying false religions is not wrong." This is not what your statement says now, and you have an absolute burden to show that a true religion exists.
3) While it is "virtuous" to spread truth, it is not virtuous to perpetuate ethnocentrism, which is what destroying "false religions does."
Link: Missionaries contribute to the destruction of religions.
Destroy, from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: v. To do away with; put an end to.
Missionary, from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: n. One who attempts to persuade or convert others to a particular program, doctrine, or set of principles; a propagandist.
If missionaries convert people, then the number of people observing some religion decreases. The missionary is, therefore, engaging in the act of destroying religions.
Definition: Ethnocentrism, from The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary: The tendency to evaluate other groups according to the values and standards of one's own ethnic group, especially with the conviction that one's own ethnic group is superior to the other groups.
Being "virtuous" by spreading a religion assumes that the belief system of the missionary group is true. True is superior to false.
Missionaries engage in ethnocentrism, because they believe that their belief system is superior.
b): Any notion of the "superiority" and "inferiority" of people due to gender, class, race, culture, ethnicity or religion distorts the biblical view of humanity. [Citation: Vorster, J.M. "Racism, xenophobia and human rights." The Ecumenical Review, July 2002 v54 i3 p296(17)] Because of this, destroying religions is wrong even by a biblical standard.
Alternative: Religious pluralism maintains diversity without negative impact.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
You seemed subscribe to this earlier: "Something is true if and only if it's empirically testable." Do you now abandon it?
Quote from Goatchunx »
No. I don't think we can assume it. Why can we assume it?
Because you said "Even if you win on the 'true religion' debate, I still win on 'is not wrong.'" In order to address that statement properly I, for the rest of that post, was assuming that I won the 'true religion' debate.
Quote from Goatchunx »
You're asserting right now. Do you have a definition of viruous and vicious? Why is it viruous to be knowledgeable? Why is it vicious to be ignorant?
You're right, I was asserting. But I didn't think you'd have a problem with my assertions. Most would agree that having knowledge is a kind of benefit or advantage, and most would agree that being ignorant is a kind of weakness or imperfection.
When debating morality, there comes a point where one has to support some premises by saying, "Well, most people agree with me."
Quote from Goatchunx »
What criterion are you using for "morally right"?
Conduct that is good.
If you agree with my premises, attack my derived claim instead of trying to pick them apart. If you don't agree with my premises, attack their validity instead of trying to make me support them with deeper premises. There's a limit to how "supported" you can go when arguing morality.
Quote from Goatchunx »
You have an absolute burden on the proof of said religious claim.
...
Except there has been no said religious claim.
Quote from Goatchunx »
Nobody has a monopoly on religious truth. The fact that there are so many religious and spiritual views is evidence of this.
- Religion X has a monopoly on religious truth.
- There are hundreds of religions that disagree with religion X.
Those two statements are harmonious.
Quote from Goatchunx »
So how do you prove your statement?
Claims:
1) Either...
a) one or more true religions exist, or
b) no true religion exists.
If 1a, then we are still incurring the impact of my ethnocentrism argument that you still haven't talked about, which says that destroying "false" religions decreases cultural diversity. Decreasing cultural diversity is not virtuous.
Cultural diversity is not virtuous in a vacuum. If religion X is true, and religion X says that we should be ministers of reconciliation to everyone we meet, then decreasing cultural diversity is most certainly an appropriate price to pay.
Quote from Goatchunx »
2) While it is "virtuous" to spread truth, if no true religion exists, then there is no truth to spread. For this argument to link to your conclusion, at least one true religion must exist. Therefore, you have to prove that such a religion exists, otherwise you have the conditional statement "if a true religion exists, then destroying false religions is not wrong." This is not what your statement says now, and you have an absolute burden to show that a true religion exists.
Actually, that's exactly what my statement says now. It's completely conditional on whether a true religion exists. I'm not arguing at all about whether a true religion does exist, so please don't strawman me. I'm arguing about two things: Whether a true religion canexist, and what the implications are if it does exist.
Quote from Goatchunx »
3) While it is "virtuous" to spread truth, it is not virtuous to perpetuate ethnocentrism, which is what destroying "false religions does."
This just in: General virtues can be applied against each other.
The question is which is more virtuous in this context. And, again, if a true religion prescribes a certain virtue at the cost of another, then the former is morally right.
Remember that for the above statement to work, I'm assuming that there is a phantom "true religion" somewhere. None of my arguments are practical without filling in some key missing pieces (like, "Which one is true, then, if any?"), but that doesn't mean the arguments are burdened by them. It just means that's not what I'm arguing.
Quote from Goatchunx »
Any notion of the "superiority" and "inferiority" of people due to gender, class, race, culture, ethnicity or religion distorts the biblical view of humanity. [Citation: Vorster, J.M. "Racism, xenophobia and human rights." The Ecumenical Review, July 2002 v54 i3 p296(17)] Because of this, destroying religions is wrong even by a biblical standard.
Whoa, false conclusion! By Biblical standards, destroying religions is right, but believing peopleare inferiordue to their religion is wrong. Those two are not in conflict.
I think this false equivocation of "notion of inferior religion" with "notion of inferior people due to their religion" is what's causing your obsession with ethnocentrism. A good missionary does not minister out of ethnic pride. Just as a sexually-active priest is not representative, neither is an ethnocentric missionary.
Extremestan, either you can argue that your religion is correct and have no support at all for that claim, or you can continue to argue one of those "this is possible" ideas, which while true, has no application to anything other than highly random arbitrary beliefs aplied to life; normally, Occam's Razor cuts through here.
There could be a God, and the Bible, beyond some locations and names/events which are actually based on true stories, could actually be fairly true in some areas, such as the attributes of God and Jesus. Then again there is no reason to believe that, there is no consensus (or anything close) for this in the scientific, archaelogical, or historian communities either.
Someone can believe God exist and said X is evil because "this book said so" and his preist "said so" and other people "said so", and he has the right to do believe that and avoid X, even though it is all just silly. He does not, however, have the right to trample over other religions and supress other occurences of X by other people.
Quote from extremestan »
When debating morality, there comes a point where one has to support some premises by saying, "Well, most people agree with me."
I agree with that, as this is somewhat aribitrary.
Morality is needed to avoid causing pain to others and other causing pain to you (if there is no morality you can hurt others, but surely you will get caught up in it to).
Law is made for moral rules that are most easily expressed. "Be a good person" is not a law is people's ideas of it vary so greatly and it is hard to analytically express.
Quote from extremestan »
You're right, I was asserting. But I didn't think you'd have a problem with my assertions. Most would agree that having knowledge is a kind of benefit or advantage, and most would agree that being ignorant is a kind of weakness or imperfection.
Quote from goatchunx »
What criterion are you using for "morally right"?
As stan said, morallity often involves consensus as people still can not be persuaded to all agree exactly on what it is. Lets split up morality into three basic types:
Basic Morality is like law needed to prevent, generally simple, bad things from happening. By logic and probability, we know that if it is allowed to go unchecked, that others will do it and we are at risk ourselves. We know what does or what might hurt us individually, and we can empathize using this knowledge to guess what hurts others. This includes things like "don't steal". This are often already laws.
Idealistic Morality represents what an individual believes to be harmful actions that are to be avoided and helpful ones to be initiated. This is reflected in the extension of Basic Morality into areas that are not well charted or defined by much consensus(like Law). Regional/aereal/local and personal consensus and experience shape these more than global experience. You may exprience events which simultanously tend to lean you into different moral ideologies, and you try to sort it out in your head. This global experience refers things you see happening everwhere (on the news/radeio ect...) that all incline for you to hold to one viewpoint, like needless or selfesh murder is wrong).
Religious Morality referes to moral beliefs that you have due to a belief that a higher power commanded them to be so. This power is defined as good and usually powerful, and therefore, it is to be followed. The believes are from personal encounters with the God(s), or more often of clergy or text written by men said to be this God or Gods' will.
Now the problem with religious morality is that it is always "God said so", "He said God said so" or "this book(s) says so". These sources all lack credibility and any elements of them are backed up by no legitimate sources or very few other independant texts.
So the premise "he said I should think" become scientifically challengable to the point of either disproof (eg. 6 day creation) beyond a reasonable doubt (well, everything could be an illusion and no one really else exists) or extreme doubt in and of itself.
Basic Morality has strong consensus among most reasonable (not obviously crazy/delusional/pyscotic or irrational) people. Ideological morality is derived from logic, probality, experience(subjective) and the premise of Basic Morality.
With religions morality, you either are using weak unsupported data ("he said so") or extending beyond the "consensus" of basic morality.
Click here to visit my userpage at Wikipedia, where I am currently an administrator.:cool2:
"Your attack has been rendered quite harmless, it is however, quite pretty." -Saprazzan vizier
"It was probably a lowsy spell in the first place." -Ertai, wizer adept
"The duel was going badly for me and Zur thought I was finished. He boasted that he would eat my soul--but all he ate were his words." -Gustha Ebbasdotter
Extremestan, either you can argue that your religion is correct and have no support at all for that claim, or you can continue to argue one of those "this is possible" ideas, which while true, has no application to anything other than highly random arbitrary beliefs aplied to life;
As I've already said, mine is an impractical argument. All it's meant to do is to show that the debate shouldn't be about whether "it's right to evangelize," but whether "the evangel's religion is true or not."
You seemed subscribe to this earlier: "Something is true if and only if it's empirically testable." Do you now abandon it?
I don't really need that argument, so sure.
Quote from extremestan »
Because you said "Even if you win on the 'true religion' debate, I still win on 'is not wrong.'" In order to address that statement properly I, for the rest of that post, was assuming that I won the 'true religion' debate.
That statement didn't conceed that you won on the "true religion" debate.
Quote from extremestan »
When debating morality, there comes a point where one has to support some premises by saying, "Well, most people agree with me."
So argumentum ad populum is okay?
Quote from extremestan »
Except there has been no said religious claim.
Isn't your religious claim that, "if one or more true religions exist, then destroying false religions is not wrong"?
Quote from extremestan »
- Religion X has a monopoly on religious truth.
- There are hundreds of religions that disagree with religion X.
Those two statements are harmonious.
When attacking my contention that no religion has a monopoly on truth, you are begging the question by assuming that religion X can exist.
Quote from extremestan »
Cultural diversity is not virtuous in a vacuum. If religion X is true, and religion X says that we should be ministers of reconciliation to everyone we meet, then decreasing cultural diversity is most certainly an appropriate price to pay.
1) Begging the question on the existence of religion X.
2) If true religion X says we should love each other, then it is not virtuous to incur the impacts of ethnocentrism.
3) Since we don't know what religion X is, how do we know that it says that "we should be ministers of reconciliation to everyone we meet"?
Quote from extremestan »
Actually, that's exactly what my statement says now. It's completely conditional on whether a true religion exists. I'm not arguing at all about whether a true religion does exist, so please don't strawman me. I'm arguing about two things: Whether a true religion can exist, and what the implications are if it does exist.
This argument doesn't strawman yours at all. If a true religion does not exist, then all religions are false. Then affirming your statement gives "destorying religions is not wrong." I hate to commit an argumentum ad populum, but most people would disagree. If a true religion does exist, then we have to know whether or not it considers being "ministers of reconciliation" virtuous. And since religions don't necessarily share the same values, we aren't necessarily affirming.
Quote from extremestan »
This just in: General virtues can be applied against each other.
The question is which is more virtuous in this context. And, again, if a true religion prescribes a certain virtue at the cost of another, then the former is morally right.
Apply my previous arguments about the existence of such a religion and whether or not it prescribes speading truth at the cost of cultural diversity. Also, note that in my alternative, I give a way of dealing with false religions that is virtuous and does not incur ethnocentrism impacts.
Quote from extremestan »
Whoa, false conclusion! By Biblical standards, destroying religions is right, but believing people are inferior due to their religion is wrong. Those two are not in conflict.
I think this false equivocation of "notion of inferior religion" with "notion of inferior people due to their religion" is what's causing your obsession with ethnocentrism. A good missionary does not minister out of ethnic pride. Just as a sexually-active priest is not representative, neither is an ethnocentric missionary.
First, ad hominem on "your obsession with ethnocentrism".
Second, the conclusion is not false because my link from destroying religions to ethnocentrism is standing. You didn't respond to it. Also, this is only one impact of my ethnocentrism argument. I also talk about how ethnocentrism decreases cultural diversity and how we can be virtuous without spreading the "true religion." So, extend my alternative.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
I think stan has a point. Other than my cynical "morality prevents yourself from getting hurt" there really is nothing else other than "it just is" because "it just is" because "it just is".
What is your argument for morality, using your non "ad populum" agrument? It will inherently be hard to answer that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click here to visit my userpage at Wikipedia, where I am currently an administrator.:cool2:
"Your attack has been rendered quite harmless, it is however, quite pretty." -Saprazzan vizier
"It was probably a lowsy spell in the first place." -Ertai, wizer adept
"The duel was going badly for me and Zur thought I was finished. He boasted that he would eat my soul--but all he ate were his words." -Gustha Ebbasdotter
I think stan has a point. Other than my cynical "morality prevents yourself from getting hurt" there really is nothing else other than "it just is" because "it just is" because "it just is".
What is your argument for morality, using your non "ad populum" agrument? It will inherently be hard to answer that.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
As I've already said, mine is an impractical argument. All it's meant to do is to show that the debate shouldn't be about whether "it's right to evangelize," but whether "the evangel's religion is true or not."
But since it cannot be know whether the evangel's religion is true or not, it's not a tremendously productive debate.
I would like to begin by saying that I am a Christian. I find the comparison inappropriate.
That being said, this is the debate forum. A place where people of differing ideas can meet to share and discuss their opinions. What I consider a fact, others consider an opinion. That is the basis for my faith.
Now I have an interesting comparison for everyone. Christian Missionaries are merelt engaging in a widerspread debate with everyone they meet. It is no different than conversing your ideas on another topic. I consider it to be fact, you consider it to be false. I am perfectly ok with that. I do not hold it against anybody for not sharing my belief. Everyone here shares something in common with Christian Missionaries. They only wish to exchanges their ideas with other cultures. If you are trying to make the arguement that by giving their ideas to others they are destroying their previous lifestyle, then I would suggest you are doing the exact same right now. You have willingly entered an open forum for the sharing and discussion of ideas. By doing so, you are changing others beliefs and destroying the previous ideas they had.
My point is that converting someone isnt a bad thing. There are bad methods. There are bad people. But the ideas being presented aren't bad. Same goes with eniviromentalists. Eco-terrorism is a bad method. People killing people are bad people. The idea of protecting the enviroment isn't bad.
Trying to compare eco-terrorism to Christian Missionaries is like comparing apples to steak. That's my opinion.
I see where you could make the comparison, but I don't feel its strong enough to make a whole thought.
I'm not gonna go shoving some "holier than thou" concept on you, I just wish you to know the things I believe God has done in my life.
It seems sort of silly to ridicule a company for marketing efforts. Of course they are going to hype upcoming products, every company on the face of the planet does it, and it works, thats why they do it. There isn't really any sense complaining about it. If you don't like the marketing, ignore it.
Everyone here shares something in common with Christian Missionaries. They only wish to exchanges their ideas with other cultures.
When I give an opinion/view on these forums I have the intention of simply making my opinion heard. I do not expect that to change anyones opinions or ideas and beliefs. I don't try and write in a way that convinces people that I'm right and they are wrong.
Missionaries only argue their ideas with the intention to convert and change peoples beliefs, and yes they do argue. The thing that annoys me about christians is they are so ready to dish out their own beliefs to everybody but the minute someone tries to present a counter argument they talk over you or ignore you.
They only wish to exchanges their ideas with other cultures.
This is incorrect on the basis that exchange means more simply trade. Trades usually require something from both parties.
On what grounds? The whole point of religion is that it deals with stuff beyond the empyrical world. We currently have no reliable method of testing anything beyond the empyrical world. When a religion becomes knowable, it ceases to be religion and becomes science.
On what grounds? The whole point of religion is that it deals with stuff beyond the empyrical world. We currently have no reliable method of testing anything beyond the empyrical world. When a religion becomes knowable, it ceases to be religion and becomes science.
I would say that we can "reasonably know" something without subjecting it to empirical tests. This is especially the case with historical claims.
Quote from WarEmblem »
Hypothetically, there could be a religion that could be shown to be true. But for the set of religions currently practiced, he's right.
Ahh...religion is baseless unsupported, unprovable and contradicts many other religions.
Religion isn't baseless nor unsupported.
Indeed.
I don't want to argue that.
What do you mean by "ultimately unattainable?"
Definition: "true religion" - A religious view in which the causes for existence can be empiricially verified.
Violation: There is no set of facts that proves that all parts of Christianity to be true. First: I don't believe God exists. Second: Even if God does exist, I don't believe he wrote the Bible. Third: If he did, I don't believe the set of facts presented in it. But, I don't offer those three reasons as refutation. I will grant for the sake of argument that the Bible is the word of God. If that is true, then God presents the Bible as a set of facts. But the Bible is not true because...
Standards: We must be able to empirically verify or test the validity of the claims in the Bible. While some of the events may have happened, we can't verify their truth. We need evidence that says that existence is the result of a single God, and that God's universe makes all of the events in biblical scripture possible. Above all, we need a source outside of theology that tells us this. Otherwise, our argument is circular and it appeals to authority.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
I don't agree with this definition. A belief can be true without being able to empirically test it.
EDIT: Only a narrow and strange paradigm would yield such a definition.
Quite so, a belief can be true without being tested. The trouble is, how do you know? And if you don't know, how can you possibly use it as a justification for anything?
You not agreeing with the definition is not an argument. Why is my definition in correct? Can you offer an example of a belief that is true without being able to empirically test it?
What strange paradigm is that? If you don't like it, then you come up with a definition for "true religion." Chances are, I would argue against it on the same grounds. Unless it's really loaded or otherwise skewed, I'll still argue against it.
Also, what about my ethnocentrism argument? You dropped it. Even if you win on the "true religion" debate, I still win on "is not wrong." In fact, if we're going to have a debate, let's define wrong.
I offer a definition from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: Wrong - adj. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked.
This is your proposition which you now have a burden to prove: "destroying false religions is not wrong."
So tell me how arbitrarily deciding what religion is "right" and then destroying the others is not contrary to conscience or morality.
Come on, argue. Respond to stuff. Give me warrants. If you beat me, I'll bow down as your inferior, but we are going to make this a good debate.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
To address eco-terrorism (for example the sabotage of a SUV lot, a month or two ago.) I find the terrorist, vandalism activities counter productive to any agenda a group has. This is true in any case.
In Iraq a Sunni-suicide bomber blows himself up in the middle of a Shiite mosque and people remember the poor Shiites. Some ass timebombs an abortion clinic, and I feel no sympathy for the Right to Life cause. Fools everyone of them.
As for religious missionaries and wiping out culture, culture is constantly changing anyway, there is no need to resort to devious measures (as some missionaries have in the past) to convert people. If one culture or system of beliefs will benefit people, those people will adopt those beliefs. If the beliefs lack merit, they will passed over for better values. Personally I am a big fan of science, I think that the technology and medicine brought about by scientific thought is enough to convince people of its benefits. Also, science need not extinguish culture, but can co-exist, and improve that culture. But that is just this scientest, speaking from his pulpit.
You're damn right, there's no need.
Of course.
Getting kind of out of the scope of this thread, since missionaries spread religion, not science. For the record, I'm a fan of science, too.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
For terrorism, I think effectiveness is a better measure, and on the yardstick of effectiveness, it is close to a zero. Hence my opinion to use terrorism to further ones cause, is foolish.
As for evangelical movements, measuring their moral correctness, seems like a ruler trying to measure itself. It is one foot long, because it is one foot long, because it is one foot long. Spreading the faith, is moraly correct, because it is moraly correct, because it is moraly correct.
Perhaps it is better to take look at the methods used to spread that faith, or talk about the merits of that belief system, rather than measure its morality on a scale with eco-terroism...
Both of these are interesting topics for debate in their own respects, but I don't think it is that useful to try to compare them on some moral scale.
I know, but I want to disprove extremestan's argument, and I'm going to use a moral scale to do it, because he uses a moral scale in the proposition.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
I agree! Politicians lie and have lots of extra-marital sex and are corrupt! We should do away with politicians and politics, too!
Seriously though. The extremist idiots you're presenting don't stand for the entire field of missionary work, any more than yu-gi-oh! represents the pinnacle of trading card games, or any more than O.J. Simpson represents the average moral integrity of African-Americans.
Of course it's not. It's a dispute of one of your claims. You can't use as premises claims that are in dispute.
God either exists or doesn't exist. One of those beliefs is true, yet neither are empirically testable.
Thinking that something is true if and only if it's empirically testable is a strange paradigm. I'm sorry, it just is. It's an odd philosophical framework to work from.
Oh? Well then it is then assumed, for the rest of this post, that there is a true religion.
1) It is virtuous to be knowledgeable and vicious to be ignorant or deceived.
2) It is morally right to spread virtue, especially at the expense of vice.
3) That which is morally right cannot be morally wrong.
There are several claims being made between the two of us. I say that,
~ Religious claims are either fully true or (at least) partially false.
~ It is good to spread truth. We can never know for certain that anything is true based on practical observation, but,
~ It's possible to come to reasonable determinations without a reliance on empirical science. It's better of course, to come to determinations through a tried and tested method like the scientific.
In the scope of our discussion, I'm not claiming any religion X is true.
False dilemma fallacy by providing "arbitrary determination" and "empirical determination" as the exclusive options, and affirmation of the (distant) consequent by presuming mere arbitration.
You're asserting right now. Do you have a definition of viruous and vicious? Why is it viruous to be knowledgeable? Why is it vicious to be ignorant?
What criterion are you using for "morally right"?
Okay.
You have an absolute burden on the proof of said religious claim.
Nobody has a monopoly on religious truth. The fact that there are so many religious and spiritual views is evidence of this.
So how do you prove your statement?
Claims:
1) Either...
a) one or more true religions exist, or
b) no true religion exists.
If 1a, then we are still incurring the impact of my ethnocentrism argument that you still haven't talked about, which says that destroying "false" religions decreases cultural diversity. Decreasing cultural diversity is not virtuous.
If 1b, then destroying any religion is not wrong. First, destroying religions comes into conflict with the ethnocentrism argument. Second, if this statement is true, then destroying Christianity is not wrong. This may seem like an appeal to consequences fallacy, but keep in mind that without the existence of a true religion, this is an impact of the truth of your argument.
2) While it is "virtuous" to spread truth, if no true religion exists, then there is no truth to spread. For this argument to link to your conclusion, at least one true religion must exist. Therefore, you have to prove that such a religion exists, otherwise you have the conditional statement "if a true religion exists, then destroying false religions is not wrong." This is not what your statement says now, and you have an absolute burden to show that a true religion exists.
3) While it is "virtuous" to spread truth, it is not virtuous to perpetuate ethnocentrism, which is what destroying "false religions does."
Link: Missionaries contribute to the destruction of religions.
Destroy, from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: v. To do away with; put an end to.
The role of a missionary is to infiltrate a tribe, and convince or coerce them into rejecting their own indigenous spiritual beliefs in favour of the christian church.
Or if you think that my evidence is loaded,
Missionary, from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: n. One who attempts to persuade or convert others to a particular program, doctrine, or set of principles; a propagandist.
If missionaries convert people, then the number of people observing some religion decreases. The missionary is, therefore, engaging in the act of destroying religions.
Impact: Destroying religions perpetuates ethnocentrism.
Definition: Ethnocentrism, from The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary: The tendency to evaluate other groups according to the values and standards of one's own ethnic group, especially with the conviction that one's own ethnic group is superior to the other groups.
Being "virtuous" by spreading a religion assumes that the belief system of the missionary group is true. True is superior to false.
Missionaries engage in ethnocentrism, because they believe that their belief system is superior.
a) Clearly, the diversity of religions in the world has been a fact throughout the entire history of all the world's major living religious traditions. Nevertheless, this diversity has been made the basis for contention rather than community in many cases, and the monotheistic religions have often been among the worst offenders on this score. The strong tendency to display hostility toward different religious positions is connected with a strong tendency toward xenophobia and ethnocentrism.
All religions produce a kind of elementary religious chauvinism because of universal human weaknesses. However, only the monotheisms raise this homegrown psychological hostility to diversity into a theological principle. It is very tempting for one who believes that one universal deity created and controls the entire cosmos to assume that this deity wants only one religion to be practiced by all humans. That religion, of course, is "ours," which leads to the rather absurd situation of monotheists condemning each other to oblivion for following the wrong kind of monotheism.
b): Any notion of the "superiority" and "inferiority" of people due to gender, class, race, culture, ethnicity or religion distorts the biblical view of humanity. [Citation: Vorster, J.M. "Racism, xenophobia and human rights." The Ecumenical Review, July 2002 v54 i3 p296(17)] Because of this, destroying religions is wrong even by a biblical standard.
Alternative: Religious pluralism maintains diversity without negative impact.
The philosophy of religious pluralism needed today is much more daring. It goes far beyond the attempt to include "them" in our categories and it also goes far beyond mere tolerance of differences. Genuine pluralism, as I would name this ideal philosophy of religious pluralism, unlike a theory of multiple covenants, anonymous Christianity, et cetera, is fully aware of genuine differences among the world's religions. Nevertheless, there is no need to elevate one religious viewpoint as superior nor to reduce them all to the same thing. This genuine and very real pluralism of religious worldviews and value systems does not cause psychological stress or distress.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Because you said "Even if you win on the 'true religion' debate, I still win on 'is not wrong.'" In order to address that statement properly I, for the rest of that post, was assuming that I won the 'true religion' debate.
You're right, I was asserting. But I didn't think you'd have a problem with my assertions. Most would agree that having knowledge is a kind of benefit or advantage, and most would agree that being ignorant is a kind of weakness or imperfection.
When debating morality, there comes a point where one has to support some premises by saying, "Well, most people agree with me."
Conduct that is good.
If you agree with my premises, attack my derived claim instead of trying to pick them apart. If you don't agree with my premises, attack their validity instead of trying to make me support them with deeper premises. There's a limit to how "supported" you can go when arguing morality.
...
Except there has been no said religious claim.
- Religion X has a monopoly on religious truth.
- There are hundreds of religions that disagree with religion X.
Those two statements are harmonious.
Cultural diversity is not virtuous in a vacuum. If religion X is true, and religion X says that we should be ministers of reconciliation to everyone we meet, then decreasing cultural diversity is most certainly an appropriate price to pay.
Actually, that's exactly what my statement says now. It's completely conditional on whether a true religion exists. I'm not arguing at all about whether a true religion does exist, so please don't strawman me. I'm arguing about two things: Whether a true religion can exist, and what the implications are if it does exist.
This just in: General virtues can be applied against each other.
The question is which is more virtuous in this context. And, again, if a true religion prescribes a certain virtue at the cost of another, then the former is morally right.
Remember that for the above statement to work, I'm assuming that there is a phantom "true religion" somewhere. None of my arguments are practical without filling in some key missing pieces (like, "Which one is true, then, if any?"), but that doesn't mean the arguments are burdened by them. It just means that's not what I'm arguing.
Whoa, false conclusion! By Biblical standards, destroying religions is right, but believing people are inferior due to their religion is wrong. Those two are not in conflict.
I think this false equivocation of "notion of inferior religion" with "notion of inferior people due to their religion" is what's causing your obsession with ethnocentrism. A good missionary does not minister out of ethnic pride. Just as a sexually-active priest is not representative, neither is an ethnocentric missionary.
There could be a God, and the Bible, beyond some locations and names/events which are actually based on true stories, could actually be fairly true in some areas, such as the attributes of God and Jesus. Then again there is no reason to believe that, there is no consensus (or anything close) for this in the scientific, archaelogical, or historian communities either.
Someone can believe God exist and said X is evil because "this book said so" and his preist "said so" and other people "said so", and he has the right to do believe that and avoid X, even though it is all just silly. He does not, however, have the right to trample over other religions and supress other occurences of X by other people.
I agree with that, as this is somewhat aribitrary.
Morality is needed to avoid causing pain to others and other causing pain to you (if there is no morality you can hurt others, but surely you will get caught up in it to).
Law is made for moral rules that are most easily expressed. "Be a good person" is not a law is people's ideas of it vary so greatly and it is hard to analytically express.
As stan said, morallity often involves consensus as people still can not be persuaded to all agree exactly on what it is. Lets split up morality into three basic types:
Basic Morality is like law needed to prevent, generally simple, bad things from happening. By logic and probability, we know that if it is allowed to go unchecked, that others will do it and we are at risk ourselves. We know what does or what might hurt us individually, and we can empathize using this knowledge to guess what hurts others. This includes things like "don't steal". This are often already laws.
Idealistic Morality represents what an individual believes to be harmful actions that are to be avoided and helpful ones to be initiated. This is reflected in the extension of Basic Morality into areas that are not well charted or defined by much consensus(like Law). Regional/aereal/local and personal consensus and experience shape these more than global experience. You may exprience events which simultanously tend to lean you into different moral ideologies, and you try to sort it out in your head. This global experience refers things you see happening everwhere (on the news/radeio ect...) that all incline for you to hold to one viewpoint, like needless or selfesh murder is wrong).
Religious Morality referes to moral beliefs that you have due to a belief that a higher power commanded them to be so. This power is defined as good and usually powerful, and therefore, it is to be followed. The believes are from personal encounters with the God(s), or more often of clergy or text written by men said to be this God or Gods' will.
Now the problem with religious morality is that it is always "God said so", "He said God said so" or "this book(s) says so". These sources all lack credibility and any elements of them are backed up by no legitimate sources or very few other independant texts.
So the premise "he said I should think" become scientifically challengable to the point of either disproof (eg. 6 day creation) beyond a reasonable doubt (well, everything could be an illusion and no one really else exists) or extreme doubt in and of itself.
Basic Morality has strong consensus among most reasonable (not obviously crazy/delusional/pyscotic or irrational) people. Ideological morality is derived from logic, probality, experience(subjective) and the premise of Basic Morality.
With religions morality, you either are using weak unsupported data ("he said so") or extending beyond the "consensus" of basic morality.
"Your attack has been rendered quite harmless, it is however, quite pretty." -Saprazzan vizier
"It was probably a lowsy spell in the first place." -Ertai, wizer adept
"The duel was going badly for me and Zur thought I was finished. He boasted that he would eat my soul--but all he ate were his words." -Gustha Ebbasdotter
As I've already said, mine is an impractical argument. All it's meant to do is to show that the debate shouldn't be about whether "it's right to evangelize," but whether "the evangel's religion is true or not."
That statement didn't conceed that you won on the "true religion" debate.
So argumentum ad populum is okay?
Isn't your religious claim that, "if one or more true religions exist, then destroying false religions is not wrong"?
When attacking my contention that no religion has a monopoly on truth, you are begging the question by assuming that religion X can exist.
1) Begging the question on the existence of religion X.
2) If true religion X says we should love each other, then it is not virtuous to incur the impacts of ethnocentrism.
3) Since we don't know what religion X is, how do we know that it says that "we should be ministers of reconciliation to everyone we meet"?
This argument doesn't strawman yours at all. If a true religion does not exist, then all religions are false. Then affirming your statement gives "destorying religions is not wrong." I hate to commit an argumentum ad populum, but most people would disagree. If a true religion does exist, then we have to know whether or not it considers being "ministers of reconciliation" virtuous. And since religions don't necessarily share the same values, we aren't necessarily affirming.
Apply my previous arguments about the existence of such a religion and whether or not it prescribes speading truth at the cost of cultural diversity. Also, note that in my alternative, I give a way of dealing with false religions that is virtuous and does not incur ethnocentrism impacts.
First, ad hominem on "your obsession with ethnocentrism".
Second, the conclusion is not false because my link from destroying religions to ethnocentrism is standing. You didn't respond to it. Also, this is only one impact of my ethnocentrism argument. I also talk about how ethnocentrism decreases cultural diversity and how we can be virtuous without spreading the "true religion." So, extend my alternative.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
I think stan has a point. Other than my cynical "morality prevents yourself from getting hurt" there really is nothing else other than "it just is" because "it just is" because "it just is".
What is your argument for morality, using your non "ad populum" agrument? It will inherently be hard to answer that.
"Your attack has been rendered quite harmless, it is however, quite pretty." -Saprazzan vizier
"It was probably a lowsy spell in the first place." -Ertai, wizer adept
"The duel was going badly for me and Zur thought I was finished. He boasted that he would eat my soul--but all he ate were his words." -Gustha Ebbasdotter
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
But since it cannot be know whether the evangel's religion is true or not, it's not a tremendously productive debate.
That being said, this is the debate forum. A place where people of differing ideas can meet to share and discuss their opinions. What I consider a fact, others consider an opinion. That is the basis for my faith.
Now I have an interesting comparison for everyone. Christian Missionaries are merelt engaging in a widerspread debate with everyone they meet. It is no different than conversing your ideas on another topic. I consider it to be fact, you consider it to be false. I am perfectly ok with that. I do not hold it against anybody for not sharing my belief. Everyone here shares something in common with Christian Missionaries. They only wish to exchanges their ideas with other cultures. If you are trying to make the arguement that by giving their ideas to others they are destroying their previous lifestyle, then I would suggest you are doing the exact same right now. You have willingly entered an open forum for the sharing and discussion of ideas. By doing so, you are changing others beliefs and destroying the previous ideas they had.
My point is that converting someone isnt a bad thing. There are bad methods. There are bad people. But the ideas being presented aren't bad. Same goes with eniviromentalists. Eco-terrorism is a bad method. People killing people are bad people. The idea of protecting the enviroment isn't bad.
Trying to compare eco-terrorism to Christian Missionaries is like comparing apples to steak. That's my opinion.
I see where you could make the comparison, but I don't feel its strong enough to make a whole thought.
I'm not gonna go shoving some "holier than thou" concept on you, I just wish you to know the things I believe God has done in my life.
I would dispute that premise, obviously.
Hypothetically, there could be a religion that could be shown to be true. But for the set of religions currently practiced, he's right.
When I give an opinion/view on these forums I have the intention of simply making my opinion heard. I do not expect that to change anyones opinions or ideas and beliefs. I don't try and write in a way that convinces people that I'm right and they are wrong.
Missionaries only argue their ideas with the intention to convert and change peoples beliefs, and yes they do argue. The thing that annoys me about christians is they are so ready to dish out their own beliefs to everybody but the minute someone tries to present a counter argument they talk over you or ignore you.
This is incorrect on the basis that exchange means more simply trade. Trades usually require something from both parties.
On what grounds? The whole point of religion is that it deals with stuff beyond the empyrical world. We currently have no reliable method of testing anything beyond the empyrical world. When a religion becomes knowable, it ceases to be religion and becomes science.
I would say that we can "reasonably know" something without subjecting it to empirical tests. This is especially the case with historical claims.
I would, of course, disagree.