Whatever needs to be discussed

This thread is for any questions, comments, or ideas about all forms of religion. Any topic goes, as long as it's religious in nature and appropriate. This could get ugly, so be warned: If you're not prepared to defend your views, don't post them.

The ideology of 'God' is socially constructed. "Universal design" is socially constructed.

Feel free to explain your reasoning for that comment, especially your definition of "ideology of God", "Universal design", and "socially constructed. otherwise, arguments will erupt without anyone being clear on the definitions, leadiing to confusion, anger, and hatred. C.S. Lewis once talked about an argument about the "personality" of the devil for a half hour before realizing that by personal, the man simply meant having a physical body. So please clarify as to avoid such a meaningless, useless argument. And back it up with facts, as this is supposed to be semi-friendly discussion, not people arguing angrily and meaninglessly about abstractions.

social constructionism- means that our knowledge is a human construct. That there is a diversity of beliefs. That their is no universal absolute 'truth'. I'll elaborate below.

'God' and 'Universal Design' is socially constructed.

Our brain is developed to interpret senses that detect internal and external physical properties of your surroundings (which makes up our image of reality- as this is what we only perceive). reality only exists in the mind. Therefore, obviously, the only way we can reason reality of 'god' is through our own 'image' of reality. Peoples philosophical thoughts, theories, spiritual ideas of 'God' and or a 'creator' are natural by-products of your brain attempting to question your existence. The ideology of 'God' is merely a superstitious thought. Theologists take a 'desperate refuge' short-cut, by accepting the paranormal. They collapse with, "Oh well, it must be a miracle which we weren't meant to understand".

The tragedy with theologists, is that they think they can know the universal truth in regards to their ideology of "God" who "created universal truth". Universal truth is an empty abstraction. If truth must account for all the facts, and if accounting for all the facts results in inconsistency; only the most empty abstractions can be true. If we knew all the facts, one individual's "truth" would be inconsistent with another's, and therefore universal truth is false. All truth is relative. Certainty is an illusion, certainty stifles thought. Uncertainty frees it. Whatever beliefs we hold they are provisional. If there was universal truth then there would certainly be only one rational course of action open to us.
This means that the way we perceive the world, together with our knowledge is socially, culturally, and historically determined. Human social diversity concedes different values, moral systems and thinking systems. Context of an individual or community shapes their values.

I don't belong to a religious group. Certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact.

C.S. Lewis, Norman Geisler, and any theologan worth a second thought don't collapse into "Oh well, it must be a miracle which we weren't meant to understand". They provide very good reasons for why God exists.

Is it an absolute truth that there is no absolute truth? Is the "truth" that truth is relative true for everyone, or is it an exception to itself? If so, why can't religous truth be an exception?

As for first principles not being certain, do you know why they're called first principles? Because thought is impossible without them. There are three main ones:

1. Law of Noncontradiction: two opposite things cannot both be true.

2.Law of Identity:something is what it says it is-A is A

3.Law of excluded middle:it nis either A or non-A (but not both)

Please, try to refute these. I need only poiint out why your attempt contradicts itself by using these.

quote:

---

Is it an absolute truth that there is no absolute truth?

---

it is individual truth. It is not universal.

quote:

---

Is the "truth" that truth is relative true for everyone, or is it an exception to itself? If so, why can't religous truth be an exception?

---

to accept all truth is to claim universal absolute truth. If there was universal truth then there would certainly be only one rational course of action open to us, which is obviously not the case, considering everyone has differing views.

quote:

---

As for first principles not being certain, do you know why they're called first principles? Because thought is impossible without them. There are three main ones:
1. Law of Noncontradiction: two opposite things cannot both be true.
2.Law of Identity:something is what it says it is-A is A
3.Law of excluded middle:it nis either A or non-A (but not both)

---

Perceptual phenomena are objects of exact. I think therefore I am. Ever hear of relativity? Please attempt to point out the appearence of contradiction.

Allright, any attempt to say that the there is no truth and the Law of Noncontradiction is false does 2 things. First, it assumes that it is true as opposed to false, and thus gives the Law of Noncontradiction (LNC from now on) meaning. Second, You say there is no such thing as truth while at the same time insisting there is a such thing as truth-the truth of your own view. Thus, the attempt fails.

If "there is no absolute truth" is an individual truth and not universal, then why are you attempting to convince others of your personal truth? Are you assuming that your view really is universal, or are you just trying to annoy people?

Ditto for the second one. Also, you are missing the third option-People have different views because some of them are wrong. I am saying that it is true thatyou are wrong and that I am right. If you must have your personal truth, then STOP TRYING TO FORCE YOUR TRUTH ON OTHERS! You cannot accept that truth is relative without accepting that for some people, Truth would be universal, because, truth being relative would only affect certain people, by its own effect. So answer my questions: Why are you attempting to convince others of your personal truth? Are you assuming that your view really is universal, or are you just trying to annoy people?

These first principles (including LNC) are individual perception, not universal absolutes. Its that simple.

My view is an individual absolute, not an universal absolute. I am not trying to convince people, I am providing a valid different perception, that can not be disproved, through relativity. Its that simple.

It's not that simple. Some people say Christians are intolerant, that we can't accept other's ideas. There is a reason for that. In Christianity, love>tolerance. Christians argue, not because we are intolerant or angry people with too much time on their hands, but because we care. If you believed someone was going to Hell if you didn't convert them, you'd fight too. And I've read Inferno, so I have an all too vivid image of Hell. That is why I argue with you, is because I don't want you to be in Hell when you die thinking, "Gee, I guess I was wrong about Truth." You argue simply to provide a valid different perception, that can not be disproved, but I argue to halt an infinite ammount of suffering. Who has more at stake here? Seeing as how you deny all reason, let me quote this: "If we are Christian and are wrong, nothing happens. If we are not Christian and Christianity is true, we are condemned to infinite suffering The wise choice is to be Christians, as, in the long run, it is safest." I don't know where it is from and have heavily edited it, but it is what kept me a Christian until I found better reasons. I g2g and can't post until later, maybe even not tommorow, so later.

quote:

---

If we are Christian and are wrong, nothing happens.

---

What about living a life of illusion? Of bothering others with your morality when they think there's nothing wrong with their life? Can't I replace the word Chrisitan with Muslim, Hindu, or existantialist?

exactly Attolia. It would be interesting to here others opinions as well.

I've also got a few questions for religious fanatics:
How can you determine that one's belief system is more correct over other beliefs. For example, what makes a christian more right than a Muslim, or a Buddhist more correct than a Hindu. How can you be sure that your 'God' exists but other 'Gods' don't? What makes one religion more genuine, realiable, legitimate, accurate, sincere, trustworthy, than others?

faith

No faith doesn't explain how christianity is more genuine, realiable, legitimate, accurate, sincere, trustworthy, than others. Faith is such a poor substitute for reasoning that the apparent 'God' exists.

god says it is. and they beleive it. if that doesnt get it, i dont know what will.

and they have faith in their scriptures as well, that should cover everything religious, adn if it doesnt, assume i did. and that is what faith is.

your point follows to the result of my opinion- that they can't compare other religions. Christians simply can't justify and explain how christianity is more genuine, realiable, legitimate, accurate, sincere, trustworthy, than others. A lot of them are simply brainwashed through an illusion.