blah Wrote:

Sophandros Wrote:No, my friend, logic tells us that arrogantly assuming that one's faith is correct and every other faith is invalid is the incorrect course to take.

Well that may make sense from a scientific point of view, but from a human standpoint I'm not sure it does. Wouldn't you have to think that your own faith is better (i.e. correct) than everyone else's in order to make a decision to go with that religion? If subconsciously you felt they were all the same, why would you pick one over another? I think you have to make the "Why I am right and they are wrong" argument just to justify your decision. If you think about it, that has to happen no matter what your affiliation (atheists included).

No, you don't have think that one is absolutely better. You have to think which is better for you. As I asked in my previous post, how do you get to Atlanta? Now, I don't trust GGNiner to have the mental capacity to understand that, so I'll explain here why I said that.

In order to get directions to Atlanta, one must know from where they are starting, what mode of transportation they want to use, how much time they have, etc. I just can't tell someone, "Get on I-20 and go east", because they may be coming from New Orleans instead of from Dallas.

One's religion is one's path to the divine. GGNiner's path may be from Dallas to Atlanta, while your path may be from Chicago to Atlanta. They will require two different sets of directions, gas mileage, etc. However, at the end of the journey, both of you will be at the same place.

I just find it to be immensely arrogant for humans to attempt to put limitations on God by saying that not only is there one way to reach God, THEIR way is that one and only way. How can they possibly know that God DOESN'T speak to each of us in a different way and that God DOESN'T give us each different "roadmaps", since each of us is in a different place? If God made us all different, and made us into different cultures with different languages, then why can't God have made it so that we can each speak to him in the cultural references that God placed us in?

Further evidence that all faiths have more in common than people like GGNiner are willing to admit is this: The Golden Rule in 21 World Religions

Now, one would be better served to ask this question: When you examine all faiths, many themes appear in all of them. Ever think about that?

Sophandros Wrote:Logic tells us that just as one's relationship with one's parents is not identical to one's siblings' relationship with one's parents, one's relationship with God may not be the same as another's.

Very true, however that has nothing to do with the comparison I'm making. Christianity states that christ is the only way to heaven. Islam teaches that's simply not the case. Both can't be true. It's simply not possible.

Quote:And BECAUSE God determines who is "right" or not, who are you or any other human to say that another's faith is not equal to yours?

I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is my belief is that my faith is true. And my faith tells me that Christ is the only way to heaven. Therefore I can't state Islam is true, because my faith teaches me that it isn't.

Quote:No, my friend, logic tells us that arrogantly assuming that one's faith is correct and every other faith is invalid is the incorrect course to take.

It is not arrogance "my friend", it's a matter of faith. Could I be wrong, sure. Do I think I am, no. But as I said, I'll find out eventually.

And you are wrong. Logic says, by virture of the precepts various religions teach, that they can't all be true. Logic is a matter of true or false. Logic says that if one religion teaches A, and one religion teaches non-A, then both can't be true, thus equal. Therefore logic would then tell us that embracing all religions as valid simply can't be, because all religions can't be true.

GGniner Wrote:........the Capital is full of Free Exercise, while its being trampled on elswhere in the country. Judeo-Christian heritage, 52 of the 55 founders(Constitution signers) were Creationist Christians.

Darwin was still 100's of years away.

Times change. Ignorance lessens. Science expands.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Darwin was still 100's of years away.

Times change. Ignorance lessens. Science expands.

As was Islamic Fundamentalism and nuclear weapons. So, you're on our side about keeping those sumbitches down at Guantanamo without a trial?

Ninerfan1 Wrote:And you are wrong. Logic says, by virture of the precepts various religions teach, that they can't all be true. Logic is a matter of true or false. Logic says that if one religion teaches A, and one religion teaches non-A, then both can't be true, thus equal. Therefore logic would then tell us that embracing all religions as valid simply can't be, because all religions can't be true.

But aren't you cooking the books a bit here? If your major premise is that there is only one true religion (which it appears to be - correct me if I'm wrong), then you MUST conclude as you've written above. But from a logical standpoint, if your major premise is merely that there is only one God, then it is possible to get to Soph's point that religion A's teachings could be just as reasonable as religion non-A's (as long as neither of them is anti-God of course). I'm not trying to make a religious statement here, just commenting on the issue of logic, which isn't necessarily as simple as true or false.

It is good to know the founders of this country reallized that no faith has any more claim to truth than all the others, and to reject them from government.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:........the Capital is full of Free Exercise, while its being trampled on elswhere in the country. Judeo-Christian heritage, 52 of the 55 founders(Constitution signers) were Creationist Christians.

Darwin was still 100's of years away.

Times change. Ignorance lessens. Science expands.

so, the founding fathers who wrote the constitution that you are taking literally as to how to prosecute war on terror and other things Ron Paul is posturing himself on, are also "ignorant".....their view of having a "Creator" who "gives inalienable rights"(and by virtue tons of meaning to our lives) is simply ignorant. Why that means then that Humans(see Humanist) give rights to us sheeple and that means humans can take those rights away.

Darwinism is not science either, its anti-science. Science states plainly that you can not get life from non-life and order from chaos. There would be no modern science as we know it, without the Christian Worldview that is in the model(see presuppositions that Discovered the Scientific Method by a creationist), of which all modern science stems from. It is absolutely impossible with a Darwinist/godless world view and presuppositions of pure chance with no meaning, everything is constantly evolving, etc.... to have modern science(discover the Scientific Method).

Sophandros Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:

Sophandros Wrote:Logic tells us that just as one's relationship with one's parents is not identical to one's siblings' relationship with one's parents, one's relationship with God may not be the same as another's.

And BECAUSE God determines who is "right" or not, who are you or any other human to say that another's faith is not equal to yours?

No, my friend, logic tells us that arrogantly assuming that one's faith is correct and every other faith is invalid is the incorrect course to take.

if thats the case, Wiccan's and Satanist are just as 'true' and 'good' as any other religion, if you follow your own logic. Jihadist/bin laden, Tom Cruise, Cannibalist, etc....who are we to judge. We should be inviting them to give a cermony before congress, no one group/culture/religion is any better than the other......should be entertaining to watch, pass the popcorn.

with relativism, as soon as you make a stand on the issue(in this case religions being equal), then you are debunking your own argurment. Your making an absolute statement about relativism. If it was TRUELY relative then you would not be spending the time to argue the point, and arguing from an absolutist standpoint no less. For relativism to be true for all of us, it must be itself an absolute truth, yet relativism defines the universe as void of absolute truth. This self-contradiction nullifies the theory as invalid.


the other thing, is one's "religion", is alot more broad a term than is often thought of. Religion is one's highest value, it can be anything. Some people its themselves(vanity), their work(an idol), trees or mother Gaia, sex, drugs.......Scientology(its no wonder so many in Hollywood subscribe to this)

First of all, you tried to use a slippery slope in discussing logic. That alone invalidates your argument.

For the record, Wicca is just as valid as every other religion out there. And if my congressman invited someone from a different faith who lives in his district to say a prayer, more power to him. It shows that he at least knows who lives in the area that he's supposed to be representing.

Answer me this, how do you get to Atlanta?

so your going to sidestep the whole point that your entire world view is built upon a logical fallacy.

btw, I did not use the slippery slope, I simply took your position to its logical conclusion. Last time I checked saying no religion is any better than the other, meant 'all religions'.... and now your coming back with telling us congressman have every right and should promote Withces or Satanist or whatever they choose, because its just as 'valid' as any other religion out there. nice

GGniner Wrote:Darwinism is not science either, its anti-science. Science states plainly that you can not get life from non-life and order from chaos. There would be no modern science as we know it, without the Christian Worldview that is in the model(see presuppositions that Discovered the Scientific Method by a creationist), of which all modern science stems from. It is absolutely impossible with a Darwinist/godless world view and presuppositions of pure chance with no meaning, everything is constantly evolving, etc.... to have modern science.

This statement shows your absolute ignorance about what evolutionary theory says. You second sentence doesn't even have anything to do with evolution; Origin of species, not origin of life. Order from chaos? I only can guess that you are talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics which only holds for a closed system. Here's a hint, the earth isn't a closed system.

oops, double post..

GGniner Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:[quote=GGniner]Darwinism is not science either, its anti-science. Science states plainly that you can not get life from non-life and order from chaos. There would be no modern science as we know it, without the Christian Worldview that is in the model(see presuppositions that Discovered the Scientific Method by a creationist), of which all modern science stems from. It is absolutely impossible with a Darwinist/godless world view and presuppositions of pure chance with no meaning, everything is constantly evolving, etc.... to have modern science.

This statement shows your absolute ignorance about what evolutionary theory says. You second sentence doesn't even have anything to do with evolution; Origin of species, not origin of life. Order from chaos? I only can guess that you are talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics which only holds for a closed system. Here's a hint, the earth isn't a closed system.

see Dr. Torch post in churchill thread for evolution part........I'm not referring to the theory of evolving from one organism into another, but the creation theory aspect, i.e the first human or organism or whatever...vs. the Creationist(God Created) theory and worldview.

I'm referring to the 'big bang theory' as our creation I guess, a godless theory with which the darwinist world view is centered. Its not scientifically possible to get something from nothing, life from non-life and order from chaos. Which is how most Darwinist believe we got here and evolved, there are those that are trying to split the issue, "i.e. God created but used evolution and big bang theory"...but Darwinism is not science and has not been observed.

as for Science point, all modern Science stems out of the Reformation and Creationist world view. Its aboslutely impossible for Boyle to have discovered the Scientific Method without a Creationist world view. If Atheist were to follow their world view logically, that everything is here by pure chance and is always evolving, then the laws of science would evolve yet they do not, as one example.


theres a reason why Science didn't start making all these major discoveries that have completely altered our lives all the way down to us typing on these computers until relatively recently historically. Who made these discoveries is also interesting.

Sophandros Wrote:

blah Wrote:

Sophandros Wrote:No, my friend, logic tells us that arrogantly assuming that one's faith is correct and every other faith is invalid is the incorrect course to take.

Well that may make sense from a scientific point of view, but from a human standpoint I'm not sure it does. Wouldn't you have to think that your own faith is better (i.e. correct) than everyone else's in order to make a decision to go with that religion? If subconsciously you felt they were all the same, why would you pick one over another? I think you have to make the "Why I am right and they are wrong" argument just to justify your decision. If you think about it, that has to happen no matter what your affiliation (atheists included).

No, you don't have think that one is absolutely better. You have to think which is better for you. As I asked in my previous post, how do you get to Atlanta? Now, I don't trust GGNiner to have the mental capacity to understand that, so I'll explain here why I said that.

In order to get directions to Atlanta, one must know from where they are starting, what mode of transportation they want to use, how much time they have, etc. I just can't tell someone, "Get on I-20 and go east", because they may be coming from New Orleans instead of from Dallas.

One's religion is one's path to the divine. GGNiner's path may be from Dallas to Atlanta, while your path may be from Chicago to Atlanta. They will require two different sets of directions, gas mileage, etc. However, at the end of the journey, both of you will be at the same place.

I just find it to be immensely arrogant for humans to attempt to put limitations on God by saying that not only is there one way to reach God, THEIR way is that one and only way. How can they possibly know that God DOESN'T speak to each of us in a different way and that God DOESN'T give us each different "roadmaps", since each of us is in a different place? If God made us all different, and made us into different cultures with different languages, then why can't God have made it so that we can each speak to him in the cultural references that God placed us in?

I disagree with you on this in that I don't believe Salvation = Atlanta. As Ninerfan1 stated, in most religions there is only one way to salvation and are almost always mutually exclusive. Therefore, if you believe the tenets of a particular religion, there is only "one" way to salvation for all and thus that makes your religion inherently better than the rest for not just you, but for all.

For me, if you asked me how to get "saved", I wouldn't need to know where you were starting from (unlike going to Atlanta), because from my point of view, there is only one road there. I can imagine from the view point of a non-religious person this would not make sense, as all religions look fairly similar (i.e. Do some stuff, say some things, faith, etc. and your there).

From a religious person's standpoint I think a more appropriate question is, "How do you know when you are in Atlanta?"

From this standpoint, you will get different answers depending on who you ask, but if the same person is asked by multiple people, they should give the same answer each time, no matter where the person that asks has started.

You can get to Atlanta on 20 from both Dallas and New Orleans. Just have to take 59 up to Meridian.

GGniner Wrote:see Dr. Torch post in churchill thread for evolution part........I'm not referring to the theory of evolving from one organism into another, but the creation theory aspect, i.e the first human or organism or whatever...vs. the Creationist(God Created) theory and worldview.

I'm referring to the 'big bang theory' as our creation I guess, a godless theory with which the darwinist world view is centered. Its not scientifically possible to get something from nothing, life from non-life and order from chaos. Which is how most Darwinist believe we got here and evolved, there are those that are trying to split the issue, "i.e. God created but used evolution and big bang theory"...but Darwinism is not science and has not been observed.

So you redefine Darwinism or evolution to whatever you want it to mean and then debunk that? That's called a strawman.

Quote:If Atheist were to follow their world view logically, that everything is here by pure chance and is always evolving, then the laws of science would evolve yet they do not, as one example.

See that's just making stuff up.

Quote:theres a reason why Science didn't start making all these major discoveries that have completely altered our lives all the way down to us typing on these computers until relatively recently historically. Who made these discoveries is also interesting.

yup, goddidit.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:see Dr. Torch post in churchill thread for evolution part........I'm not referring to the theory of evolving from one organism into another, but the creation theory aspect, i.e the first human or organism or whatever...vs. the Creationist(God Created) theory and worldview.

I'm referring to the 'big bang theory' as our creation I guess, a godless theory with which the darwinist world view is centered. Its not scientifically possible to get something from nothing, life from non-life and order from chaos. Which is how most Darwinist believe we got here and evolved, there are those that are trying to split the issue, "i.e. God created but used evolution and big bang theory"...but Darwinism is not science and has not been observed.

So you redefine Darwinism or evolution to whatever you want it to mean and then debunk that? That's called a strawman.

well, you should notify GTS of this. He's the one that brought Darwinism up in the context of Creationism which he calls ignorant.(what the founders beleived).......as the alternative to Creationism being Darwinism according to him.

Quote:If Atheist were to follow their world view logically, that everything is here by pure chance and is always evolving, then the laws of science would evolve yet they do not, as one example.

See that's just making stuff up.[/quote]

how so, if the Atheist worldview isn't that everything is constantly evolving and changing and we got here by pure chance as matter or energy was colliding together.....then what the heck is it? Do atheist now believe in a creator??? What is their creation theory?

the Scientist who discovered the Scientific Theory had a Christian/ Creationist worldview, the one that is in the bible. That was his pressupositions he used to discover the Scientific Method. Christians have the presupposition that the world/universe is uniform and therefore science is possible. That is why science as we know it today was launched out of the reformation of the church in the 16th century. Atheism as I understand it has chance/randomness as a foundation/belief and therefore science is impossible. the laws of logic and science never change.

Brookes Owl Wrote:But from a logical standpoint, if your major premise is merely that there is only one God, then it is possible to get to Soph's point that religion A's teachings could be just as reasonable as religion non-A's (as long as neither of them is anti-God of course).

I disagree.

For example Christianity is more than just "there is a God." It's that there is a God, He has a son who He sent to die on a cross for our sins. And that only through His son can we be granted the grace necessary to spend eternity with God. We'll call that A.

Islam doesn't recognize the diety of Christ, nor does Judaism, Hinduism, Buddism or virtually any other "ism" out there. Those are non-A.

Both cannot be true. If Christianity states that Jesus is the only way to eternal life, and Islam teaches that he is not, then one is right, one is wrong from a religious standpoint. You simply can't say, "Well both could be true" when one argues A and the other argues non-A.

The issue isn't as you stated, is another religion's teachings reasonable, it's are they true. If Jesus is the only way to eternal life, then Islam cannot be true. If He is not, then Christianity is wrong.

That's why the idea that all paths lead to God can't work.

GTS made a good point earlier. the founding fathers weren't infallible. the inclusion of slavery tells us that. times change, ignorance subsisdes ever so slightly, science progresses, and our society moves forward. i would think the great enlightenment figures that gave us our nation would agree with that wholeheartedly.

check out the discoveries in modern science and guess what the worldview was of these Scientist, one of which I've mentioned:

Quote:

The Scientific Method - Sir Francis Bacon and Robert Boyle
Antiseptic Surgery - Joseph Lister
Bacteriology - Louis Pasteur
Calculus - Isaac Newton
Celestial Mechanics - Johannes Kepler
Chemistry - Robert Boyle
Comparative Anatomy - Georges Cuvier
Dimensional Analysis - Lord Rayleigh
Dynamics - Isaac Newton
Electronics - John Ambrose Fleming
Electrodynamics - James Clerk Maxwell
Electromagnetics - Michael Faraday
Energetics - Lord Kelvin
Entomology of Living Insects - Henri Fabre
Field Theory - James Clerk Maxwell
Fluid Mechanics - George Stokes
Galactic Astronomy - Sir William Hershel
Gas Dynamics - Robert Boyle
Genetics - Gregor Mendel
Glacial Geology - Louis Agassiz
Gynaecology - James Simpson
Hydrography - Matthew Maury
Hydrostatics - Blaise Pascal
Ichthyology - Louis Agassiz
Isotopic Chemistry - William Ramsey
Model Analysis - Lord Rayleigh
Natural History - John Ray
Non-Euclidean Geometry - Bernard Riemann
Oceanography - Matthew Maury
Optical Mineralogy - David Brewster
Logarithms - John Napier
You name it, he did it - Leonhard Euler

all Creationist beleivers, all heavily influenced by what took place in the Reformation in the 16th century

Does anyone not find it telling that other religions weren't able to produce these discoveries that have drastically altered our lives.......the above discoveries are true Truth.

Quote:1 Thes 5:21 (NIV) "Test everything. Hold onto the good."

John 16:12-13 (NIV) "I [Jesus] have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth."

the list is long....

Luther was the first to translate the Bible and distribute it to common people, the rest is history.

GGniner Wrote:how so, if the Atheist worldview isn't that everything is constantly evolving and changing and we got here by pure chance as matter or energy was colliding together.....then what the heck is it? Do atheist now believe in a creator??? What is their creation theory?

The only thing that you can attribute to all atheists is that they lack a belief in a god. Everything else is up for grabs.

Sir William Blackstone, published in 1765-1769: "Commentaries on the Laws of England ", this was more widely read in the colonies than in England and heavily influenced the founders. Here is some stuff from him, that anyone that has read the Declaration of Indpendence will recognize. If you go to a law school and they don't cover him, then you went to a bad law school:

Quote:Mankind are endowed by God with certain unalienable rights.
"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal [or state] laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislation has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner [of the right] shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." - William Blackstone

To protect human rights, God has revealed a code of divine law.
"The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found by comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity." - William Blackstone

fascinating guy and subject.....decade later these words and wisdom found their way into our founding documents.