Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectRE: hold on...
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=29666&mesg_id=29827
29827, RE: hold on...
Posted by moot_point, Thu Mar-31-05 06:51 PM
>Of course it remains. Declaring that it's the end of the
>world is 1) a bigger task than I'm capable of accompolishing.
> 2) Moot, if you have predetermined that the book which
>suggests an "end to the world" is false.


>I'm only raising the point that there have been A LOT of
>earthquakes. That, taken into consideration along with what
>we have witnessed in the 20th century concerning the
>annihilation humans, an attempt to relativize good and evil,
>an the development of the means by which to destroy the entire
>planet many times over... all this gives me, a believer in
>that book (mentioned above) pause to think.

Then all things considered, I think we have nothing further to discuss on this point.

>>If there is such a causal link (and we are to believe the
>>media), then did your God initiate the tsunami that hit
>>Thailand, in order to force MORE children into sex slavery?

>Better question: If this God, nor any other exists, what's
>wrong with sex slavery? Good luck with that.


Before I consider the better question, are you willing to withdraw what you wrote on the other post (re: the tsunami/Thai sex slavery)?

Of what incidence is the existence of a God in a 'real' sense when I or others develop a sense of right and wrong? It is my belief that western religion has developed to mythicize by use of metaphor/narrative (and therefore make understandable) each man's individual struggle with psychomachia. In other words, man made God - in part - to police each individual's struggle to conform with what society prescribes as right and wrong. I've no problem with this reading of religion. I was brought up in the Church. The Church did not fully develop my sense of right and wrong but it DID contribute greatly to it. I do not have to believe that there is a real God who has the capability to punish the Thai population for their promiscuity to know that the sex trade there is deplorable.

>You misunderstand. "Reason" is "how" you argue. Any
>particular argument though begins with an
>assumption/pressuposition of some kind. ANY argument.

>But let's accept your answer for a moment. Use your
>presupposition then, "reason", to explain to me WHY you begin
>with that presupposition.
>

reason (JUDGMENT)
noun
the ability of a healthy mind to think and make judgments, especially based on practical facts. (Cambridge Online Dictionary)

Because in the final analysis, reason is a process, not a presupposition. In any case you are moving further into semantics and away from cogency.