Comparative Religion: Godmen

Ahnimus

That is all a matter of faith Angelica.

We can't debate matters of faith, unless the individuals involved are willing to take a rational approach to the topic, in which case, faith is irrational.

We are stuck if we choose to respect matters of faith. Then this becomes a sounding board for religion and not a forum for debate.

I suggest that society and politics are best dealt with rationally. Thus we should have separation of church from state, or faiths like yours.

In-fact, I don't even see the point in your argument. It's an argument from incredulity which is major fallacy in logical arguments.

Basically, all you've done is spit out your personal beliefs. Now, there is a difference between an ought and an is. What is, is not always what ought to be. I'm concerned with what is, and that does not include free-will. Certainly free-will ought to be, but it is not.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

That is all a matter of faith Angelica.

We can't debate matters of faith, unless the individuals involved are willing to take a rational approach to the topic, in which case, faith is irrational.

We are stuck if we choose to respect matters of faith. Then this becomes a sounding board for religion and not a forum for debate.

I suggest that society and politics are best dealt with rationally. Thus we should have separation of church from state, or faiths like yours.

In-fact, I don't even see the point in your argument. It's an argument from incredulity which is major fallacy in logical arguments.

Basically, all you've done is spit out your personal beliefs. Now, there is a difference between an ought and an is. What is, is not always what ought to be. I'm concerned with what is, and that does not include free-will. Certainly free-will ought to be, but it is not.

I agree that there's no point in debating these topics. I'm not at all interested in debate. I merely explained why there is no contradiction in the experience of determinism and free-will. They go nicely together.

These have become my personal views, after being shown them through spiritual revelations, yes.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I agree that there's no point in debating these topics. I'm not at all interested in debate. I merely explained why there is no contradiction in the experience of determinism and free-will. They go nicely together.

These have become my personal views, after being shown them through spiritual revelations, yes.

You've only explained what you believe on faith and what you think ought to be.

There is a contradiction. All you've done is said people are morally responsible, for even their unconscious choices. That does not negate the contradiction.

There is no evidence of a universal moral law either and you didn't provide any.

Anthropology and cross-culture studies prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no such thing as a universal moral law. Why would entire cultures of human beings differ in terms of morality, unless morality is a product of the culture and not a fundamental element of the universe.

Even within our own cultures on matters of abortion and homosexuality we have major differences in what we think is moral.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

You've only explained what you believe on faith and what you think ought to be.

There is a contradiction. All you've done is said people are morally responsible, for even their unconscious choices. That does not negate the contradiction.

There is no evidence of a universal moral law either and you didn't provide any.

Anthropology and cross-culture studies prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no such thing as a universal moral law. Why would entire cultures of human beings differ in terms of morality, unless morality is a product of the culture and not a fundamental element of the universe.

Even within our own cultures on matters of abortion and homosexuality we have major differences in what we think is moral.

It sure looks like you are debating matters of faith.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

It sure looks like you are debating matters of faith.

I won't. Be sure that I will refer to this when you choose to debate this in the future.

If at any point you feel you'd like to become more rational and make a real effort to understand reality. I will be here to help.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I won't. Be sure that I will refer to this when you choose to debate this in the future.

If at any point you feel you'd like to become more rational and make a real effort to understand reality. I will be here to help.

Just keep in mind that I am open and choose to continue to express what I see and my points of view. I'm very much interested in sharing my experiences and my perspective. This includes when it does not "fall in line" with what others think I 'should' or 'should not' think or say. I define the way I think, and how I represent that, whether in one moment I'm using reasoning, or if I'm being more holistic in my representation. And it is up to me to set my purposes in each moment, regardless of the opinions of others. So, you might also want to refer to this in the future, when you're looking to define, and pigeon-hole me with presuppositions and your own assumptions, or when you feel the urge to project conflict onto my view.

Ahnimus

You mean when I prefer to talk about reality and provide evidence and logic to refute your universe.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

You mean when I prefer to talk about reality and provide evidence and logic to refute your universe.

Talk about whatever you want. I'll do the same. stating base positions is one thing. Bullying relentlessly over points is another. Opposing views just happen.

Ahnimus

Your view is incredulous