I am REALLY struggling with this. Please someone try and disprove this:
~if a belief is an assertion and commitment that a certain proposition is true, then accordingly, the opposite of that proposition MUST be believed to be false.
Does this mean then, that judgement is inherent in belief?
I know that people do not follow this rule, ie those who believe murder is wrong, but are okay with the death penalty. that doesnt prove the above statement false, it just means that many people are not consistent with their beliefs, which is a HUGE pet pev with me.
The background behind this is the following: christians say they don’t judge, only god does, but through their active belief in the bible aren’t they judging others? I just don’t see how they arn’t. It seems like an easy way to not take responsibilities for judgments. It makes it okay for people to say “oh no, although I don’t believe in sex before marriage, I’m not judging you for doing it”. But, they are. It can’t be both ways.
If someone believes christ is the way to heaven, doesn’t that automatically mean that they also believe everyone elses viewpoints that do not match to that are wrong? How can a person have a close honest trusting respectful equal friendship when one party thinks the others fundemental way of thinking is absolutly wrong?
It depends on if you allow uncertainly. I happen to agree with the above, if a person believes a certain proposition is true, then yes, the opposite (and in fact anything incompatible) must be believed to be false- with the qualifier that the person cannot belief a proposition to be false if they have not heard of it. So, if I think "Paris is in France" is true, then I must think "Paris is not in France" is false. I may have no opinion on "Paris is in Spain" simply because I've never had occaision to consider it. Upon considering it, though, I must find it to be false.
Well, don't apply prepositional logic to complex issues like that, either. Being against murder, but for the death penalty need not be logically inconsistent- the reasons a person is against murder, and the reasons a person is in favor of the D.P. can be so complex that a simple syllogism won't contain it.
Absolutely. If we believe the Bible is right, then we believe that things that contradict the Bible are wrong. If we think being wrong is a deficiency, then we think people who are wrong are deficient. But here again, you are making things much more simple than they are. There are subtle differences in the way words like "Judge" are used. Christians know they aren't to be judgemental of people, but at the same time, they need to be very instructive (which requires judgement) of people's actions. Also, realize that morals can contradict because when stated, they are always devoid of context. The Bible says,
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. "
and then it immediately says there after,
"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. "
A contradiction? It would seem so. But if this is a true contradiction, we should be able to point out one of them as being wrong. If you can see as I see, that they are both right if the context is right, then you’ll see that applying contradiction to moral dictates is a tricky thing indeed.
People are weak. What should be said is “I don’t believe in sex before marriage, I would prefer if that you don’t discuss that sort of thing around me, and if you feel you must persist, please leave my house and don’t return.” That’s the proper attitude. Judgemental- in a sense. But it is leaving one to live their own way, while putting them in the proper attitude towards their wrong behavior.
You must know the answer to this- no matter what you think of religion, you too think that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, you have no choice. Do you feel capable of having a respectful equal friendship with these wrong-headed people around you? Some can do it, some can’t.
I agree strongly with Uccisore but I would like to add this dimension which is particularily appropriate here.
The reason I am a weak atheist is that I do not believe the question “does god exist?” is the sort of question we can establish an answer for outside of our own beliefs.
I cannot prove he doesn’t exist, and a Christian cannot prove he does. Therefore, I must recognise that while I feel I have good reason not to believe in god, those reasons are not compelling.
Its true on one level that yes, because I believe that god does not exist I must not believe that god exists. However, recognising that I cannot prove the claim one way or the other, I do not make a claim that god does not exist. I simply state the fact that I believe that god does not exist.
So, for something like god’s existence, I don’t believe that theists are wrong, I recognise that they have different beliefs than me.
It does become more difficult for other sorts of beliefs like the death penalty and such, I’ll have to give it some more thought.
While I doubt that a Jew/Christian can prove that the biblical God exists, I wouldn’t be so sure that they can’t prove that a creator exists. You state your own limitations…why so sure in the limitation of others?
the first one of murder and the death penalty is a matter of defining terms. murder and the death penalty arent the same. the similarity is that someone dies if all your opinions on death are the same then you can say theyre the same but otherwise they are seperate.
the last one… you cant. unless you believe there are two truths you cant believe that youre right and that someone else could be right. you coulud not know which is usually the case with religoin because no one “knows” for sure or you can believe in multiple truths but if you dont then you cant say two things are true.
Actually, the inability of someone to prove something concerns the limitations of the [i]audience[/i] as much as the speaker. I believe that there are rationally justified Christians, and rationally justified atheists- they are justified based on their varying experiences.
gemty
If one looks at only purely logical arguments for the existence or falsity of God, I think it comes out a wash- atheist arguments show that if God is there, He must be very [i]particular[/i]- that is, the general 'nice-guy creator' version of God is the easiest to defeat. If there is a God, He does indeed 'work in mysterious ways', and have particular aims and goals like complex religions like to assign to him. [i]If[/i] He exists- purely logical argument provides no evidence for that. It provides the possibility, but we all know what to do when provided the possibility of a complex entity without any evidence.
So someone with nothing but argument to regard ought to be a cautious atheist. The justified Christian is someone that has [i]evidence[/i] from personal experience- the results of prayer, perhaps, or the testimony of many reliable and dear associates, so on and so forth. Those things can be fine evidence to the individual, but become mere anecdote when told to another.
I think this is where we part ways some. I have a similiar mind about other issues, and they way I would describe myself in your shoes is to say that "I find it [i]unlikely[/i] that God exists, but I can see why some people would think so." In such a situation, I may live as an atheist, and casually use the term to apply to myself, but if pressed, I would have to admit to being an agnostic, by virtue of the fact that I admit that the theists [i]could[/i] be right.
Is this just a different way of wording the same situation, or does this not discribe you?
Gemty, perhaps I will take you up on that offer. I don’t mind stepping out on the ledge and playing defense.
As you can see, I just joined and would like to take some time to see what type of people post here.
So far I see a mix consisting of a small group of intellectuals and a larger group consisting of individuals that do not read the posts of others (some by their own admission) and are posting merely to get attention. This is not surprising… human nature does not adjourn…not even for philosophy forums.
If I was to start such a debate I would want ensure that the people participating have the same goal…that they are only interested in establishing the “truth”, what ever the conclusion(s) may be in the end, rather than just pushing their own views…not giving supporting arguments for…nor considering supporting arguments of others.
Disconcertion is all too tempting when frustrations abound and goals are not aligned.
If you want to keep out the Riff-raff, create a thread with at least one really big word in it (might I suggest, “Omnibenevolence”) and make it as non-controversial seeming as possible. So, “God is FAKE!” is a bad idea, “Omnibenevolence in Modern Understanding” would be perfect- even if it has nothing to do with what we end up talking about.
Or, we could develop an elaborate secret code, wherein 522300008 means ‘A’, 522300800 means ‘B’, and so on.
EDIT: According to my research, the best possible thread title for attracting the right crowd is “Inherent Heidegger in Postmodern Werklempter”, and the worst possible thread title is “Poll: Timecube PoR Psyque, or girls with THE TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM?”.
I dont see why you would want to disprove it . If you did , the world would be very different . Judgement is natural , its how we act on our judgements that matters. And a judgement can sometimes be temporary only .
Perhaps part of the problem is that your not seeing the common bond all religions have , obviously if you make up your mind that someone like christ is king of all things then you would be struggling . Because it cannot be true .
Or did God to send hundreds of saints , mystics & prophets to the world , to India , Tibet , China , all over the world , knowing only one would be the real article ? That would be devious & sly . Some might say its a test , but if God was like that I would,nt want to know him
That would be true . Read the bible & the buddhist scriptures , at first I believed there were contradictions between them , now I see them as the same thing . I think it was only the difference in language and culture that made me see otherwise
There is active and passive judgment.
There is impulsive and then there is thurough judgment.
Judgment is thought.
If the word “judgment” is ever abused–this is the fult of the cultural abuse of the word, as in: the majority of judges aren’t very smart, therefor “judgmental” becomes “bad”.
