Relativism

[MistOfTheSea86]

Originally posted by Belteshazzar
Mist-

What fact?

How can you say the evidence is lacking? (as fact)

Do you believe that God "must be" defined by some mathematical formula? (if so, ...that would be a weak little "god")

Or do you mean evidence of His existance?

Unless you can explain [WITH EVIDENCE] the origin of life and the physical universe, ....then you can not logically say "evidence is lacking" ....for life and the physical universe may be all the evidence you need.

shaz

Yes you pretty much got it, I mean physical matter. An event that somehow justifys everything humans have been going through the past thousand years.

I can't explain it, hence my point Shaz, what I am saying is that going back to my first post. Is how come somehow preach the truth when even the truth is relative.

When it comes down it, that's what YOU believe and this is what I believe. Simple as that.

[Belteshazzar]

Originally posted by MistOfTheSea86
I can't explain it,

Hence my point.

Mist ...you can say that "YOU" don't know, but you cannot say [FOR FACT] that NOBODY knows.

Also, ...you said "the truth is relative"

Is that ABSOLUTELY true?

shaz

[MistOfTheSea86]

Originally posted by Belteshazzar
Hence my point.

Mist ...you can say that "YOU" don't know, but you cannot say [FOR FACT] that NOBODY knows.

Also, ...you said "the truth is relative"

Is that ABSOLUTELY true?

shaz

You got it, *golf claps*:)

[Belteshazzar]

Okay Mist- ...tell me if I have this right?

Nobody has the knowledge of God ....thus lacks the truths of origin, morality, purpose, meaning and destiny. Yet *somehow* ...truth is relative, and that is "absolutely true" even though there is no such thing as absolutes. While this is unlogical and makes no sense, we can believe it to be "true" because that is the way we "feel". Therefore, "feelings" are reliable and logic is unreliable, unless of course, it [logic] agrees with our "feelings".

Sounds a bit like "squared circles" and "hot ice" to me, Mist.

Welcome to the world of postmodern deconstructionism. :rolleyes:

shaz

[FLipsiDE]

I go away a week to teach and come back to this... it is confusing Santine and feel free to join in whenever. :)

Bel:

"How can you say the evidence is lacking? (as fact)

Do you believe that God "must be" defined by some mathematical formula? (if so, ...that would be a weak little "god")

Or do you mean evidence of His existance?

Unless you can explain [WITH EVIDENCE] the origin of life and the physical universe, ....then you can not logically say "evidence is lacking" ....for life and the physical universe may be all the evidence you need."

No, Mist doesn't need to provide evidence for everything to prove there is no God. You are making the claim and it is your burden to provide the proof that He does exist. Specifically your Mono God, as proofs that support the existance of God alone support Pagan positions as much as Christian positions.

And as for Pluralism and Agnosticism being void of critical thinking... :Cue Sarcastic Voice: I don't know man, that's a pretty amazing statement coming from a guy who professes literalist belief in talking snakes, evil apples and a worldwide flood that left no signs of it's existance (but luckily we were saved by stuffing a bunch of EVERY ANIMAL ON EARTH into a boat.)

When I think of Pluralism I think of a political statement not a theological one. Unless you mean tolerance of other religions, in which case yes, I do think that literalist Christianity has a problem with pluralism and that is why I posted questions here on this thread. Last time I checked the Raelians weren't trying to get Pagans banned from the military, Jews have never had their spokesman say 'I don't believe Wicca is a real religion and I don't think we should be supporting it'. As a Majority religion it's easy to look at other religions and say "that's not a real religion", or "it's just a fad"... it's even easier to try and pass laws or set up an atmosphere that is hostile to other religions all in the name of your own beliefs. (Judge Moore, pay attention here) Most of the freedoms we have here in the states are directly related to protecting the minority from the majority. Whether or not Pat Robertson or President Bush believe Wicca or Paganism are 'real religions' doesn't change the fact that we do.

Bel:

"Also, you said "When it gets down to it, none of us knows if he/he exists, ".

This begs the question. What knowledge do you pocess that you can *KNOW*, or determine that nobody knows? If you have the knowledge that "nobody knows", then such a great knowledge would consequently know if God exist or does not exist."

So what if Joe Shmoe in lower Romania KNOWS that God exists. What good does that do us? How do we know he is any less or more sane than another guy who thinks he's Elvis or his buddy who is an alien plant? The big deal is nobody can objectively prove a particular Divine agent exists or not. It is a pretty difficult step to say "A exists but I can't prove it, you just have to believe" It's an even tougher step to say "Not only does A exist but he says not to eat pork."

When it comes down to it, Christians have no more proof of the existance of their God than a Pagan has of her Goddess. That's what I get from Mist's posts.

"no such thing as an Absolute Truth" is a statement of an absolute truth. I can see what you are saying there. Is the pluralistic view that "all paths can be paths to God" really an absolute statement though? Or is it a political statement of openness and acceptance to all, in the face of a world that doesn't give us an objective means of determining the nature of the divine for once and for all? It's less a statement of theological law and more of community. It's the same as saying "I accept that you have a view of the divine and your own approach to worship and faith. It doesn't make you better or worse, just different." A literalist Christian cannot make the same statement and that's pretty sad. There IS something to be said for having a solid doctrine and a clear heirachy... politically such a setup is superior for enforcing your views on the world and providing services to people. But your only option when it comes to other faiths is "my way or the brimstone birthday suit."

That's why I so prefer "e pluribus unum" over "in God we trust". I can tell you which I feel is a better representation of what America, the great melting pot, really stands for.

Bel: "why challenge my claims as to spiritual truth and not others?" Others haven't created a thread called "Dianic appologetics" yet. ;)

Actually, I don't want to challenge your claims to Spiritual truth as far as you yourself are concerned. Have your religion, live it, love it, be healed by it, share it with those who would hear. Blessed be to you and yours. But I DO ask that you realize what you support when your voice is gathered behind your leaders... I know that YOU believe your religion to be right and I can assure you that there are plenty of Pagans and Muslims and Buddhists and Jains and Shiks and others who have just as firm of beliefs in their faiths as you have in yours. So in the interest of creating a country and an atmosphere where we all live and work and play together without fear, I hope you learn some appreciation for pluralism. Your theological ancestors fled to America to try and set up their way of life BECAUSE the old world had the same disrespect for pluralism that you are showing.

[FLipsiDE]

Bel:

Nobody has the knowledge of God ....thus lacks the truths of origin, morality, purpose, meaning and destiny. Yet *somehow* ...truth is relative, and that is "absolutely true" even though there is no such thing as absolutes.

But somehow Christianity has access to these absolute truths... origin, morality, purpose and destiny?

Your reply implied that Christianity somehow had these absolutes that other religions (or athiests or agnostics) didn't. If that's not what you meant then ignore the remainder of this post. :)

Christians have an origin but so do the Hopi and the Norse... Why is yours better or more true? Christians have an origin, but the physical history of the world doesn't support such as physical evidence goes. Why did God create fossils and DNA? Is He trying to mislead us? Or did Satan plant the fossils ?

Christian objective grasp of the Absolute Truth of morality has led them to destroy the Cathars, wage a series of crusades against the Muslims, an inquisition, the salvation of the Native American people and Phelps with his "God hates Fags" placards?

Purpose, Meaning and Destiny? Looking forward in eager anticipation of a Final Battle between Good and Evil makes for great Hollywood writing but in reality it would be absolutely hideous. The Revelations style apocalypse is appaling and the not so vague threat it implies to those who hold different faiths is chilling. I know that it's easy to overlook such but I honestly can't... the thought of a God who would create a universe in such a way... eternal torture for the dumbest of sins (ignorance), especially a sin so easily remedied by an all powerfull, all loving diety is beyond my ability to comprehend let alone feel a bond with.

I don't claim that Pagans have access to these truths, I know many Christians who do not claim to possess them either. But I think to claim that your denomination does is rather bold. This lack of being perfect is what led Pagans to the "each path has pieces of the truth" pluralism... we KNOW we don't have it down and we know we are making some mistakes. By learning from others we hope to find the best of theirs and mix it with the best of ours... pluralism acknowledges our lack of perfection, our ability to make human mistakes and also acknowledges our ability to learn from our friends and neighbors.

[MistOfTheSea86]

Originally posted by Belteshazzar
Okay Mist- ...tell me if I have this right?

Nobody has the knowledge of God ....thus lacks the truths of origin, morality, purpose, meaning and destiny. Yet *somehow* ...truth is relative, and that is "absolutely true" even though there is no such thing as absolutes. While this is unlogical and makes no sense, we can believe it to be "true" because that is the way we "feel". Therefore, "feelings" are reliable and logic is unreliable, unless of course, it [logic] agrees with our "feelings".

Sounds a bit like "squared circles" and "hot ice" to me, Mist.

Welcome to the world of postmodern deconstructionism. :rolleyes:

shaz

If I believe it to be true then why can't it be to me? You pretty much described a typical human being in your paragraph. We of course listen to our logic but logic itself is illogical. Example: To think that a suicidal person will go to a cliff and think that "I am not going to throw myself I would die, and that would be a bad idea. It is just plain logic." No... A suicidal person would listen to their heart and it is that that is in pain. And instead of thinking "logically" They would think "emotionally" Which is what many people do to find their faith. Think emotionally. So like Flipside said "Live it, love it, be healed by it" Don't try to prove it, because you shouldn't have to justify your faith.

[Belteshazzar]

Welcome back Flip.

Flip and Mist-,

This is a topic-less type thread, and I know that. But both of you are de-railing the debate from the original premise proposed by Mist-.

Mist original reply to me was that (and I am paraphrasing) "we can argue endlessly over theology, so why don't we agree on a pluralistic and agnostic philosophy that nobody could possibly know the truth, (agnosticism) therefore let's all just adapt contradictory logic so that everyone is right (the plurality of "truths")

That is what we are debating over, N-O-T wether the Christian faith is right or not. The core of this debate is not "who is right", but is it reasonable to assume that everyone is right, or everyone is wrong. Which as ridiculous as it is, Mist assumes both.

Even if I had time to respond to Filp's 1000 point rebuttle, I wouldn't do so in this debate. For it would only serve to avoid the original premise of this argument. However, I can't blame either of you for trying, because it is impossible to defend Mist's position without contradicting the very points you are trying to make.

Mist- ....you effort to justify your logical inconsistancy has failed. Your analogy is a non sequitur (logical fallacy). To say you "believe" two radically different and contradictory philosophies is just plain silly. The second you believe one, you are forced to deny the other.

shaz

[MistOfTheSea86]

Originally posted by Belteshazzar
Welcome back Flip.

Flip and Mist-,

This is a topic-less type thread, and I know that. But both of you are de-railing the debate from the original premise proposed by Mist-.

Mist original reply to me was that (and I am paraphrasing) "we can argue endlessly over theology, so why don't we agree on a pluralistic and agnostic philosophy that nobody could possibly know the truth, (agnosticism) therefore let's all just adapt contradictory logic so that everyone is right (the plurality of "truths")

That is what we are debating over, N-O-T wether the Christian faith is right or not. The core of this debate is not "who is right", but is it reasonable to assume that everyone is right, or everyone is wrong. Which as ridiculous as it is, Mist assumes both.

Even if I had time to respond to Filp's 1000 point rebuttle, I wouldn't do so in this debate. For it would only serve to avoid the original premise of this argument. However, I can't blame either of you for trying, because it is impossible to defend Mist's position without contradicting the very points you are trying to make.

Mist- ....you effort to justify your logical inconsistancy has failed. Your analogy is a non sequitur (logical fallacy). To say you "believe" two radically different and contradictory philosophies is just plain silly. The second you believe one, you are forced to deny the other.

shaz

As you wish Shaz, I was not saying Christian Doctrine was false and never would because I do not know. I am sorry you see my views that way. *shrugs* I was actually waiting for this to end because I saw no end to it either. So brightest blessings to you and yours and hopefully in the future we will both understand each other in a more clear precise manner without calling each other "Wrong or condradictory".

[Belteshazzar]

Originally posted by MistOfTheSea86
As you wish Shaz, I was not saying Christian Doctrine was false and never would because I do not know. I am sorry you see my views that way. *shrugs* I was actually waiting for this to end because I saw no end to it either. So brightest blessings to you and yours and hopefully in the future we will both understand each other in a more clear precise manner without calling each other "Wrong or condradictory".

Mist-

Sorry you feel attacked. However, this is not a contest for who can be the "nice-est", but rather a discussion/debate based on philosophical principles. Idenfying contradictions is part of the process of critical thinking. That is what the rules of logic are based on, not emotion or feelings.

Feelings and emotions can be tied to a number of things that have no relation to truth or falsehood. Therefore, I don't trust feelings or emotion, knowing that the attatchments may not be truthful themselves. If I love and admire my dad who is an athiest, so should I base my perception of reality, faith, God etc.. on the feelings I have for my father?

I hope you see my point. And I agree to let this one go.

peace and blessings,

shaz

[Illuminatus]

Shaz,

Nice try. You would accuse the typical Pagan of saying "Truth is Relative", as many of us do, and claiming that the statement itself is an absolute one.

For many, it is. But it doesn't need to be. One may also say "Truth is relative, relatively speaking."

This is hypothetical, at least in our two cases. I believe, as you do, in Absolute truth. I just spell it differently.

- Illuminatus!

[Belteshazzar]

greetings Marchosias,

If you are wanting to discuss relativism, it may as well be dead.

This is a busy time of year for a Christian. You know, there are right wing political rallies to attend, homosexuals to harass, witches to burn, abortion clinics to bomb, blacks to hang, and a host of other righteously evil activities. That is, if we are to live up to the liberal definition of what is means to be a Christian.

However, I am shocked that liberlas find those types of activities to be "wrong", if all is relative. But there are a few absolutes ...right? Like do not harm yourself or others ...no? ...yes or no? Or do absolutes exist "until" it becomes private and personal .....is that absolutely true? ..or relative?

[this is where relativist get frustrated and begin making it personal]

You see, "relativism" is the worst circular argument in history. And unless I hear a logical argument [as if one exist] ...then it is a silly waste of time in my opinion. Relativism does prove one thing ...How stubborn and senseless people can be when they set their minds and hearts on it.

The only logical option for relativist is nihilism, and how depressing that is.

If someone can present a logic based [not opinioned based] argument, then I will continue. And no "non sequiturs" ...please.

shaz

[Mithrea]

Hi guys :wave:

Since the Apologetics thread had really gone way off in another direction I decided I would make you all a new place here if you still wanted to discuss relativism. And please guys, I'd appreciate it if you keep it respectful. :)

[FLipsiDE]

This is a busy time of year for a Christian. You know, there are right wing political rallies to attend, homosexuals to harass, witches to burn, abortion clinics to bomb, blacks to hang, and a host of other righteously evil activities. That is, if we are to live up to the liberal definition of what is means to be a Christian.

Bwahahahahaha....

No. Not a Christian. A Fundamentalist Christian. Liberal Christians never do ANYTHING wrong. Nor do Pagans. Nope. Not us. hee hee...


However, I am shocked that liberlas find those types of activities to be "wrong", if all is relative. But there are a few absolutes ...right? Like do not harm yourself or others ...no? ...yes or no? Or do absolutes exist "until" it becomes private and personal .....is that absolutely true? ..or relative?

That's relativism. While I like her books, Ann Rand's philosophy is more of a point than a great social position. Relativism does suck. But it DOES make the valid point that we really can't say for sure it's wrong. We invent a lot of Good/Evil/Right/Wrong things but they seem pretty dependant on era and current society. All of the things you pointed out above HAVE been justified as 'good' or at least 'morally acceptable' by fundamentalists in either the past or present. So relativism may be wrong but so are the alternatives I've seen.

As a Liberal (in many things) I think you are implying that the liberal stance is pure relativism. When I place my vote I try and support laws or candidates who strive to keep things and equal and free as possible. Freedom of speech, freedom of choice, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of press andthe right to bear arms. I also tend to vote strongly pro-environment, because a lot of being free includes not being poisoned and sick because someone else wanted to make a quick buck twenty years ago. I think America needs to deal internationally as the Superpower it is, but we do not need to insult everyone around us just because we are a superpower. I try my best to keep religion and government seperate because we are not a land of the free if the government sponsors or get's too buddy buddy with ANY religion. America is founded on principles that protect the minority FROM the tyrany of the majority. (Early protestants running from the power of the Catholic church in Europe. Mennonites, Puritans, Athiests, Socialists, Quakers... they knew alot about what happened when you mix State and Church.)

In a way, the Golden Rule is the ideal of Liberals. Effectively saying 'I give you the freedoms I wish to enjoy also'. What could be more Christian than: Treat thy neighbor as you would have them treat you? Even when you don't agree with them.

A Fundamentalists instead says "I give you the freedoms I don't mind you having." That's why they try and place the ten commandments in schools and law buildings but complain when a publicly funded college teaches a class on the Qu'aran or when someone hires a Wiccan prison chaplain.