Faith vs blind faith

[Dicky Underpants]

Well not focussing on a set of rules does make very thing a bit harder and the words of Jesus can be jarring but it does help us from falling into legalism.

Well, I'm sure that's a devilish trap worth avoiding. But it still doesn't help us get a grip on this area of moral realism you are talking about (this sort of thing of course has its own thread). From your point of view, it's supposedly somewhere in the scriptures, and there is a sort of feel of 'goodness' about some of the statements of Christ and St Paul - and also a lot which we might be happy to dismiss. Not because the bar is being set too high, but because we realise that we live in different times, and have learned that the commands of Jesus (insofar as they were accurately reported) and the injunctions of St Paul were extremely temporal. They both, after all, tailored their ideas according to the conviction that the world was shortly coming to an end.
As for maintaining some vague idea of 'love' as a guiding principle (Jesus and Paul both strong on this), this has often been put into practice according to the adage "Love the sinner, but hate the sin". The latter part of that phrase brings you right back into the niceties of legalism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, I'm sure that's a devilish trap worth avoiding. But it still doesn't help us get a grip on this area of moral realism you are talking about (this sort of thing of course has its own thread). From your point of view, it's supposedly somewhere in the scriptures, and there is a sort of feel of 'goodness' about some of the statements of Christ and St Paul - and also a lot which we might be happy to dismiss. Not because the bar is being set too high, but because we realise that we live in different times, and have learned that the commands of Jesus (insofar as they were accurately reported) and the injunctions of St Paul were extremely temporal. They both, after all, tailored their ideas according to the conviction that the world was shortly coming to an end.
As for maintaining some vague idea of 'love' as a guiding principle (Jesus and Paul both strong on this), this has often been put into practice according to the adage "Love the sinner, but hate the sin". The latter part of that phrase brings you right back into the niceties of legalism.

God is love Dicky and therefore God is morality. God is the moral standard. Who'd have thought that eh, certainly not the materialists who would have us look for somekind of physical phenomenon or an element Moralanium. Legalists would have the law without the spirit of the law.
Loveists have the spirit of the law.

 Morality cannot be an impersonal sort of thing we are all, on a moral day, homeostatically trying trying to achieve. Be Holy says the Bible. In terms of temporal morality we are not expert at all. Now that may not sound like out fault but it is because we are talking about moral expertise which is a different domain from knowledge or skill.

Moral irrealism is a non starter because it has no power or ability for moral arbitration and as for morality being taste, well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

ROFLMAO! - Big time!

I don't know why you are laughing. I don't find it very clever at all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, Vlad seems to have converted Christianity into an engineering project.   I wonder if this will catch on.   A bit like worshiping Brunel.   O mighty Isambard Kingdom, thine is the kingdom indeed, and we gather today to worship at your project, only, do you think you could alter the machine code a bit, so the whisky bottle doesn't empty as quickly?

What's wrong with engineers or engineering.
Is it beneath counselling or something.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

God is love Dicky…

Faith claim 1.

…and therefore God is morality.

Faith claim 2.

God is the moral standard.

Faith claim 3.

Who'd have thought that eh, certainly not the materialists…

Well, that bit’s true at least.

…who would have us look for somekind of physical phenomenon or an element Moralanium.

…and that bit isn’t.

Legalists would have the law without the spirit of the law.

Loveists have the spirit of the law.

“Loveists” eh? You’ve collapsed now into incoherence.

Morality cannot be an impersonal sort of thing we are all, on a moral day, homeostatically trying trying to achieve. Be Holy says the Bible. In terms of temporal morality we are not expert at all. Now that may not sound like out fault but it is because we are talking about moral expertise which is a different domain from knowledge or skill.

And now you’re in the incoherence groove you’re sticking with it…

Moral irrealism is a non starter because it has no power or ability for moral arbitration and as for morality being taste, well.

And the big non sequitur to finish. Go tell it to the medical ethicists.

And the judges are going into a huddle – there’s a hush in the crowd – and finally the scores are up, and...

... OH MY WORD IT’S A CLEAN SWEEP! ZEROS ACROSS THE BOARD FOR CONTENT AND FOR STYLE!!!! THE CROWD ERUPTS, WE”VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS. EVEN THE JUDGE FROM VLADISTAN HAS SCORED HIM BUGGER ALL ON BOTH COUNTS! ASTONISHING SCENES HERE...

And now we return to the studio...

...David.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't know why you are laughing. I don't find it very clever at all.

Funny that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What's wrong with engineers or engineering.
Is it beneath counselling or something.

Nothing's wrong with either - they've just got bugger all to do with theology is all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Nothing's wrong with either - they've just got bugger all to do with theology is all.

Me and PZ disagree

LOL.

[wigginhall]

What's wrong with engineers or engineering.
Is it beneath counselling or something.

O Lord, thy crankshafts are pale like the early morning moon; thy connecting rods are like the doves fluttering in the sky; thy compressor provides nectar to my taste; thy lubricating oil is the fountain of delight.   How could I seek more than this excess of love, that my four-stroke cycle is complete in thee?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Me and PZ disagree

LOL.

1. It's "PZ (Myers) and I".

2. No he doesn't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Nothing's wrong with either - they've just got bugger all to do with theology is all.

That's only in the land of I don't believe it's theology where I believe it comes in yellow and blue plastic tubs. Ha Ha

Time for a spot the difference competition put a pencil circle around the differences......

        An intelligent designer of a universe who is independent of that universe and is separate from it.

        and

        An intelligent designer of a universe who is independent of that universe and is separate from it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Funny that.

No .it isn't.

[wigginhall]

That's only in the land of I don't believe it's theology where I believe it comes in yellow and blue plastic tubs. Ha Ha

Time for a spot the difference competition put a pencil circle around the differences......

        An intelligent designer of a universe who is independent of that universe and is separate from it.

        and

        An intelligent designer of a universe who is independent of that universe and is separate from it.

You missed out, an infinite supernatural being which is love, and the source of all goodness and morality.    Spot the difference.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That's only in the land of I don't believe it's theology where I believe it comes in yellow and blue plastic tubs. Ha Ha

Time for a spot the difference competition put a pencil circle around the differences......

        An intelligent designer of a universe who is independent of that universe and is separate from it.

        and

        An intelligent designer of a universe who is independent of that universe and is separate from it.

Both differ in their fundamental respects from theism, as you’ve had explained several times only you keep ignoring the explanation.

Would Jesus be proud of you for your dishonesty do you think?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

You missed out, an infinite supernatural being which is love, and the source of all goodness and morality.    Spot the difference.

He also missed out the difference between a conjecture and an assertion of fact, the difference between, "a" universe and "the" universe, the difference between a smart alien and a deity, the difference between...etc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You missed out, an infinite supernatural being which is love, and the source of all goodness and morality.    Spot the difference.

Missed nothing pal.
.
To pretend that you, Bluehillside and the posse haven't been arguing against an intelligent designer who creates a unverse but is independent of it is either amnesia or turdpolishing of Cecil B. De Mille proportions.

[Nearly Sane]

Missed nothing pal.
.
To pretend that you, Bluehillside and the posse haven't been arguing against an intelligent designer who creates a unverse but is independent of it is either amnesia or turdpolishing of Cecil B. De Mille proportions.

or lying

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

To pretend that you, Bluehillside and the posse haven't been arguing against an intelligent designer who creates a unverse but is independent of it is either amnesia or turdpolishing of Cecil B. De Mille proportions.

Why are you lying again? No-one "pretends" any such thing. What some of us actually do is to point out the many and significant differences between the necessary conditions for the SU conjecture, and the necessary conditions for the theism assertion.

Each time you claim that theism requires only "a" creator of "a" universe you're lying. As you're so easily caught out in the lie, why bother? 

[Maeght]

That's only in the land of I don't believe it's theology where I believe it comes in yellow and blue plastic tubs. Ha Ha

Time for a spot the difference competition put a pencil circle around the differences......

        An intelligent designer of a universe who is independent of that universe and is separate from it.

        and

        An intelligent designer of a universe who is independent of that universe and is separate from it.

Is this still going on?

There are two simple points. One us that there is more to God than the above. On every basic level the comparison is valid but soon as you introduce other elements associated with God then it falls apart. The second point is that SU is nothing more than an hypothesis and no one here is claiming it as fact or even a belief.

Beyond that, where us this discussion going?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is this still going on?

There are two simple points. One us that there is more to God than the above. On every basic level the comparison is valid but soon as you introduce other elements associated with God then it falls apart. The second point is that SU is nothing more than an hypothesis and no one here is claiming it as fact or even a belief.

Beyond that, where us this discussion going?

I'm afraid they are both descriptions that atheists and antitheists and especially Hillside has been arguing against for years.
I seem to recall Hillside particularly baulking at the idea of anything being outside the universe. Now because it has become the stuff of multiverse theories it is now OK and they didn't mean the outside of that universe and no deist or theist ever described God in those terms or that it isn't the minimal qualification for a God.

Next we will be treated to how intelligent design isn't to be understood as religion anymore because words change and ideas go extinct etc, etc, etc.

You guys are specially pleading.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ode to atheist responses to Dr NDG Tyson

To be sung as a round to the tune ''London's Burning''

Simulation
simulation
special pleading
special pleading
Myers Myers
Myers Myers
Call Bluehillside
call Bluehillside

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm afraid they are both descriptions that atheists and antitheists and especially Hillside has been arguing against for years.
I seem to recall Hillside particularly baulking at the idea of anything being outside the universe. Now because it has become the stuff of multiverse theories it is now OK and they didn't mean the outside of that universe and no deist or theist ever described God in those terms or that it isn't the minimal qualification for a God.

Next we will be treated to how intelligent design isn't to be understood as religion anymore because words change and ideas go extinct etc, etc, etc.

You guys are specially pleading.

The trolling is strong on this one. Do you intend to keep on lying about the "a" vs "the" universe problem though?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Ode to atheist responses to Dr NDG Tyson

To be sung as a round to the tune ''London's Burning''

Simulation
simulation
special pleading
special pleading
Myers Myers
Myers Myers
Call Bluehillside
call Bluehillside

Just out of interest, do you actually believe the lies when you tell them or do you just spew them out anyway because you don't give a damn?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The trolling is strong on this one. Do you intend to keep on lying about the "a" vs "the" universe problem though?

a or the is a complete irrelevance Hillside it is still basically theology and always will be.

[Owlswing]

I don't know why you are laughing. I don't find it very clever at all.

Of course you don't! You only find jokes funny when it is you taking the piss out of others!

If you can't take the heat stay out of the ruddy kitchen!