I post mostly messages and commentary about religion and politics, and the scary occasions when they collide.
I am a: Liberal, Green, Christian, Math teacher
Lover of Math, Philosophy, Animals, Civil Rights, and Arguments of all kinds.

25th August 2014

Quote reblogged from Craig Wells with 7 notes

Beware of the person of one book.
— Thomas Aquinas (via craiganthonywells)

25th August 2014

Question with 24 notes

thread-of-fire said: Since I previously saw you wondering about morality, it turns out there is good philosophical grounding for it (regardless of god belief). It is outlined in Sense and Goodness Without God by Richard Carrier, and he uses the work of other philosophers there too.

I appreciate the book suggestion. My issue with morality without God is not that I’m not aware of the work of any philosophers attempting to resolve the question, but that their answers are unsatisfactory. Moreover, many atheists give the impression(or state outright) that they have never considered the question at all. And just so I’m clear, the argument is not that a single atheist cannot be a good person(of course they can), but whether the concept of “good” even makes sense without an objective, non-human being that defines it. 

There are, however, several religions that provide answers to the moral debate without God(Buddhism would be one), and philosophers since Plato that have attempted to define goodness, with or without deities.

Tagged: religionphilosophyatheism

2nd August 2014

Photo reblogged from Grenzauslotung with 8 notes

grenzauslotung:

liberalchristian:

grenzauslotung:

liberalchristian:

grenzauslotung:




You’re right in the sense that what he has written does not imply God, but his conclusion contains God anyway. That’s why I added the ommited premise, which is neccesary to come to that conclusion. If he just concluded to “a being” there would be no problem, but he didn’t and this is what I counter.

If you’re saying that you’re the one who added that original premise, then you apparently altered what the OP stated(and made it circular) solely for the purpose of mocking them over your own inability to follow their logic. Classy. And I’m done, you have nothing to add to the debate.

grenzauslotung:

liberalchristian:

grenzauslotung:

liberalchristian:

grenzauslotung:

You’re right in the sense that what he has written does not imply God, but his conclusion contains God anyway. That’s why I added the ommited premise, which is neccesary to come to that conclusion. If he just concluded to “a being” there would be no problem, but he didn’t and this is what I counter.

If you’re saying that you’re the one who added that original premise, then you apparently altered what the OP stated(and made it circular) solely for the purpose of mocking them over your own inability to follow their logic. Classy. And I’m done, you have nothing to add to the debate.

2nd August 2014

Photo reblogged from Grenzauslotung with 8 notes

grenzauslotung:

liberalchristian:

grenzauslotung:




You interpret my polemic as a counter argument. My counter argument was the circularity and yes to reach to “this being is God” from this argument you have to put God into the premises or else “being” cannot be further classified. So you imply God to conclude to God which is circular.

No, that makes no sense. Either you’re not understanding what I said, or you’re reaching for something to convince yourself that you’re still right. There exists a definition of ‘being’. Used here, it means “to exist”. Nothing else about that existence is implied by me. You’ll note that in my own revision of the argument, I did not state, “This being is God.” That the OP said it does not make them stupid(and the only reason I didn’t state it is because then I’d need to define God), and it is certainly not to your credit to attack people for minor mistakes rather than trying to understand what they’re saying.
The OP’s argument(and mine) does not imply God to conclude God. It implies that design indicates intelligence, and concludes in the existence of an intelligent creator. That is the point you need to counter.

grenzauslotung:

liberalchristian:

grenzauslotung:

You interpret my polemic as a counter argument. My counter argument was the circularity and yes to reach to “this being is God” from this argument you have to put God into the premises or else “being” cannot be further classified. So you imply God to conclude to God which is circular.

No, that makes no sense. Either you’re not understanding what I said, or you’re reaching for something to convince yourself that you’re still right. There exists a definition of ‘being’. Used here, it means “to exist”. Nothing else about that existence is implied by me. You’ll note that in my own revision of the argument, I did not state, “This being is God.” That the OP said it does not make them stupid(and the only reason I didn’t state it is because then I’d need to define God), and it is certainly not to your credit to attack people for minor mistakes rather than trying to understand what they’re saying.

The OP’s argument(and mine) does not imply God to conclude God. It implies that design indicates intelligence, and concludes in the existence of an intelligent creator. That is the point you need to counter.

2nd August 2014

Photo reblogged from Grenzauslotung with 8 notes

grenzauslotung:

another circular argument from a christian/intelligent design follower

Not exactly a circular argument, it just overstates the conclusion and doesn’t prove the existence of God. The counterargument is more nonsensical(“you can have a ‘dumb design’” is a poor argument and doesn’t mean anything). So…
If there is observed design in creation, it is evidence of intelligence, as design(as opposed to randomness) is exclusively the consequence of intelligent agents.
As intelligence implies consciousness, the intelligence observed in creation must have a conscious mind behind it.
Consciousness implies existence.
Therefore, there exists an intelligent, conscious being responsible for the creation of the universe. Saying that ‘design can be unintelligent’ is inadequate. What the responder needs to do is demonstrate that design/pattern can be created by unconscious, mindless forces… without assuming that the universe is an example(as that would be circular reasoning). If the OP had left off the first line- which wasn’t necessary anyway- it would be a completely reasonable argument.

grenzauslotung:

another circular argument from a christian/intelligent design follower

Not exactly a circular argument, it just overstates the conclusion and doesn’t prove the existence of God. The counterargument is more nonsensical(“you can have a ‘dumb design’” is a poor argument and doesn’t mean anything). So…

If there is observed design in creation, it is evidence of intelligence, as design(as opposed to randomness) is exclusively the consequence of intelligent agents.

As intelligence implies consciousness, the intelligence observed in creation must have a conscious mind behind it.

Consciousness implies existence.

Therefore, there exists an intelligent, conscious being responsible for the creation of the universe. Saying that ‘design can be unintelligent’ is inadequate. What the responder needs to do is demonstrate that design/pattern can be created by unconscious, mindless forces… without assuming that the universe is an example(as that would be circular reasoning). If the OP had left off the first line- which wasn’t necessary anyway- it would be a completely reasonable argument.

1st August 2014

Post reblogged from someday this pain will be useful to you with 19 notes

tunte:

If your religion specifically bans a thing, and you do the thing on purpose and in spite of knowing this, how can you even call yourself a follower of said religion?

Discuss

That would be easily accomplished, given that I’ve never heard of a religion that makes “following every rule and principle at every given moment” a requirement to consider yourself a follower of that religion. This is an ignorant question.

31st July 2014

Question with 1 note

dragonsupremacy said: Are you anti-capitalist?

I’d say it’s more that I’m pro-socialist. Capitalism is a necessary evil, when not taken to an extreme.

31st July 2014

Quote reblogged from could the world be about to turn? with 57 notes

But there is no perfect guide for discerning God’s movement in the world, Contrary to what many conservatives say, the Bible is not a blueprint on this matter. It is a valuable symbol for point to God’s revelation in Jesus, but it is not self-interpreting. We are thus place in an existential situation of freedom in which the burden is on us to make decisions without a guaranteed ethical guide.
— James Cone // A Black Theology of Liberation (via anachronizomai)

Source: godinthebrokenness

30th July 2014

Link reblogged from Antodav with 9 notes

Why Most Atheists Believe in Pink Unicorns | Pensées →

antodav:

This kind of philosophy is way over my head, regrettably, but it’s still deeply amusing to read. XD

Definitely worth reading

30th July 2014

Post with 6 notes

"The Bible was written by humans, and humans are corrupt"

Both are true, and neither implies that the teachings or history of the Bible are false. Nor are they the reason why the speaker believes the teachings of the Bible are false. How do I know that? …Because this same person will never make the argument that evolution is false, or medical science is false, or that mathematics can’t be trusted because they are ideas created by corrupt humans. 

Tagged: religionlogicbiblechristianity