I promise this isn't an ambush

[Furion]

Whatsisface gave it a like. There. That's your one.

Maybe her finger clicked it by mistake. You need to provide empirical evidence for your claim. It would be the wize thing to do.

 

[Whatsisface]

Maybe her finger clicked it by mistake. You need to provide empirical evidence for your claim. It would be the wize thing to do.

I deliberately liked the post, Less.

 

[5wize]

Maybe her finger clicked it by mistake. You need to provide empirical evidence for your claim. It would be the wize thing to do.

I gave you one. Now why don’t you share one of your kids thoughts seeing as you don’t have any

 

[SkullKrusher]

As an atheist (speaking only for myself), I'm never afraid of being intellectually ambushed; ask me leading questions which are ultimately intended to get me to contradict myself, or otherwise reveal some problem in what I believe or value. Please do this, as often as you think you can. As long as you're sincere (rather than trolling), I will sincerely answer your questions, because if there IS a problem in what I think/value, I want to know about it too.

I've been reading this forum for a little while, and I suspect many of the atheists here would say something similar.

---

Like several posts your OP has received, I accept #1 and #2, but take issue with #3. Sure, the terminology is loaded a bit (re. Christianity's concept of a fallen creation), but my main objective is that #3 is redundant/unnecessary. "We're fallible" includes "we're fallen"; moral fallibility is entailed by fallibility. I'm fallible, and everything I do or think has at least some chance of failing, being less-than perfect, or otherwise being wrong/bad. That includes moral judgements or actions, as well as my choice of clothing, driving my car, investing in the stock market, raising children, etc.

I don't see why moral fallibility needs to be included explicitly in your list.

Thanks for the feedback -- I certainly see your point. I would also certainly agree that moral fallibility could simply be included in the broader category of a general fallibility.

The '3 Fs' mnemonic originated in a different context, and I am kind of used to thinking in those categories & find it personally helpful; in part, I'm trying to gauge its utility in this application.

However my argument develops, I do know morals/ethics will be central, and I do think it may be helpful to distinguish a general fallibility that has no moral or ethical aspect from issues which certainly do.

I would also say that even fallibility could be seen an extension of finitude. There are certain similarities to all three; each has a slightly different focus. TBH, thinking through your reply has helped me clarify something in this regard (I'll need to put some work into it to make sure it's clear and clearly relevant). For now, finitude pertains to us all inherently; fallibility pertains to us inherently, but more specifically in our ability to understand and relate effectively to the world around us; 'fallenness' (for lack of a better word at present) pertains to us in community with other people.
(Not rocket science, I know)

Thanks again. I really appreciate your input.

 

[mikeT]

Thanks for the feedback -- I certainly see your point. I would also certainly agree that moral fallibility could simply be included in the broader category of a general fallibility.

The '3 Fs' mnemonic originated in a different context, and I am kind of used to thinking in those categories & find it personally helpful; in part, I'm trying to gauge its utility in this application.

However my argument develops, I do know morals/ethics will be central, and I do think it may be helpful to distinguish a general fallibility that has no moral or ethical aspect from issues which certainly do.

I would also say that even fallibility could be seen an extension of finitude. There are certain similarities to all three; each has a slightly different focus. TBH, thinking through your reply has helped me clarify something in this regard (I'll need to put some work into it to make sure it's clear and clearly relevant). For now, finitude pertains to us all inherently; fallibility pertains to us inherently, but more specifically in our ability to understand and relate effectively to the world around us; 'fallenness' (for lack of a better word at present) pertains to us in community with other people.
(Not rocket science, I know)

Thanks again. I really appreciate your input.

You're welcome. I hunger for actual discussion; between people who may be ideological opponents, it's incredibly rare these days. I'm interested in seeing how your argument develops

 

[hatsoff]

I'd appreciate some input from athiests & agnostics on something fairly basic: three self-evident (IMO) facts about human existence and experience.

1) We are all finite.
2) We are all fallible.
3) We are all fallen.

Granted, you may prefer a less theological term for the third, and I won't split hairs over that at this point -- call a ever-present tendency to moral compromise, moral failure, whatever.

My question is, does anyone have any fundamental dispute with or objection to the accuracy of these statements?

Thx, SK

I agree basically with the three points, but with some quibbles.

First of all, when you say we are "finite", what exactly does that mean? We live a finite number of years I guess, which is what I assume you were getting at. But if so, then just say that!

Second, I definitely agree we are all fallible. I have no quibbles there.

Third, I do not agree with the wording 'fallen'. But, I do agree that humans are deeply flawed. To borrow C. S. Lewis' language, we are a bent race. And I certainly agree with Lewis on that point.

 

[4tune8chance]

Have you ever heard of the Pax Romana? It was a world at peace. Wars and rumors of wars were non-existent.

Ah yes the conquered buckling under, that's not pease. Learn your history.

Wars are not decreasing. For the most part, they've just been redefined as "conflicts".

Redefining does not make a war not a war. So you're just factually wrong.

As Aristotle pointed out, all democracies devolve into tyrannies, and what we see in the world today are tyrannies, albeit with a higher standard of living than in the past, but nonetheless tyrannies just the same. The US imprisons more people than all other first world countries combined. That neither denotes enlightenment of those imprisoned, nor those who feel the need to imprison others.

As Winston Churchill noted, (paraphrased) "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those others". So what China kills more people than anyone else! get your facts straight and don't rely on ancient Greeks for your philosophy because it doesn't make you look smarter.

So-called democracies are lobbing bombs on non-combatants all over the world causing massive migrations of hundreds of thousands of people. Economic sanctions have never provided the results intended as the people being sanctioned see that it is not their own government who is doing the sanctioning.

What are you, a Russian or Chinese Bot?

The global monetary system is inherently corrupt. Being given the ability to legally counterfeit currencies is dishonest, immoral and just plain evil. Inflationary monetary policies rob people of their hard-earned savings through debasing the money supply. It is nothing less than theft by fraud.

So, blame the rich then, that is the one constant here.

Everyone and just about everything on this planet is born with trace amounts of chemical compounds which have broken down from plastic, petrochemicals etc.

Would you rather be a hunter gather in the ancient past?

People are so sick that the medical community around the world now believes that everyone should be vaccinated every three to four months because human beings have become alienated from their own planet.

Now your a anti vaccination conspiracy theorist. Vaccines have saved more lives than any form of medicine.

Human being, the pinnacle of evolution (or if you prefer, creation) don't have enough sense to seek higher ground before a tsunami drowns them. It is one of the most bizarre things to see when dogs, cats, rats, and even birds will begin to flee to higher ground long before a single human being even notices that the ocean has begun to suddenly recede. Even then, too many will just stand there in dumbfounded amazement waiting to be thrown into cars, buses, high rise apartments by tens of thousands of tons of incoming water. These people are zombies. They're walking around unconscious of much of anything other than the latest notification on their smartphone. These people are not enlightened.

This is just stupid.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Human being, the pinnacle of evolution

Humans are not "more evolved" than anything else.
Every species alive today is "as evolved" as every other.

There are only two "levels" of evolution: not extinct, and extinct.

 

[Eightcrackers]

But, I do agree that humans are deeply flawed.

Surely this is a matter of opinion... what would a flawless human be like?

 

[shnarkle]

Ah yes the conquered buckling under, that's not pease. Learn your history.

Learning how to spell comes before learning history.

Redefining does not make a war not a war. So you're just factually wrong.

Your reading comprehension problem makes any further discussion pointless.

As Winston Churchill noted, (paraphrased) "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those others". So what China kills more people than anyone else! get your facts straight and don't rely on ancient Greeks for your philosophy because it doesn't make you look smarter.

Perhaps, but compared to this response, I'm a genius.

What are you, a Russian or Chinese Bot?

More Ad Hominem.

So, blame the rich then, that is the one constant here.

Fiat currencies are not real wealth. One doesn't have to be rich to be corrupt.

Would you rather be a hunter gather in the ancient past?

I prefer it today as well.

Now your a anti vaccination conspiracy theorist. Vaccines have saved more lives than any form of medicine.

Please get your next booster.

This is just stupid.

And pointless in going on any further.

 

[shnarkle]

Humans are not "more evolved" than anything else.
Every species alive today is "as evolved" as every other.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

There are only two "levels" of evolution: not extinct, and extinct.

Redefining evolution to mean anything that is alive does not sound like a promising way to deflect a discussion.

 

[hatsoff]

Surely this is a matter of opinion... what would a flawless human be like?

I don't think anyone genuinely thinks that humans have no flaws. But the depth of our flawed-ness is a matter of opinion, sure.

It varies from human to human, obviously. But if you look at the aggregate of suffering we cause to each other, it's hard for me to reach any other conclusion than that of Lewis. If you reach a different conclusion, then I would have to wonder whether you fully appreciate just how terrible we have made things for each other.

 

[Lucian]

Third, I do not agree with the wording 'fallen'. But, I do agree that humans are deeply flawed. To borrow C. S. Lewis' language, we are a bent race. And I certainly agree with Lewis on that point.

I agreed earlier. It's odd to me that many non-religious people, of which I am one, are so hostile to the doctrine of original sin. It's plainly a true doctrine, once secularised. The truth of it would have seemed obvious to Paul even in the first century, but after the twentieth it takes a special kind of stupidity to deny that people are inherently wicked.

 

[hatsoff]

I agreed earlier. It's odd to me that many non-religious people, of which I am one, are so hostile to the doctrine of original sin. It's plainly a true doctrine, once secularised. The truth of it would have seemed obvious to Paul even in the first century, but after the twentieth it takes a special kind of stupidity to deny that people are inherently wicked.

Just to quibble a bit, I would say that people have an inherent wickedness, not that they are inherently wicked (which has the connotation of muscling out any goodness).

But yes. I am also puzzled when people try to deny this.

 

[4tune8chance]

Learning how to spell comes before learning history.

mmmmm, no, it doesn't.

Your reading comprehension problem makes any further discussion pointless.

Your non response is pointless.

Perhaps, but compared to this response, I'm a genius.

Well don't put it to the vote.

More Ad Hominem.

Well not if your actualy Bot because then it would be Adautoma.

Fiat currencies are not real wealth. One doesn't have to be rich to be corrupt.

Your factually wrong again, because its what you can exchange for your wealth that matters. Be it Gold, shares, bitcoin or cash, it boils down to trust. It can all change in an instant if circumstances change. If you can get something for it, its wealth.

I prefer it today as well.

Good.

Please get your next booster.

Way ahead of you.

And pointless in going on any further.

Then make real arguments, not the drivel you first came up with.

 

[Furion]

I gave you one. Now why don’t you share one of your kids thoughts seeing as you don’t have any

She won't give you any solid endorsement, sorry. You tried.

 

[5wize]

She won't give you any solid endorsement, sorry. You tried.

Try here. Now please hand the keyboard over to one of your children. I too am sure they will fare better. You have completely devolved in this conversation.

 

[Algernon]

I agreed earlier. It's odd to me that many non-religious people, of which I am one, are so hostile to the doctrine of original sin. It's plainly a true doctrine, once secularised. The truth of it would have seemed obvious to Paul even in the first century, but after the twentieth it takes a special kind of stupidity to deny that people are inherently wicked.

No doubt that there are many "wicked" people. Many of them Christian.

How is it reasonable to extrapolate from that to the doctrine of original sin?

 

[mikeT]

I agreed earlier. It's odd to me that many non-religious people, of which I am one, are so hostile to the doctrine of original sin. It's plainly a true doctrine, once secularised.

How in heck does one secularise original sin without excluding the fundamentals?

One of those fundamentals is the Christian God's definition of "sin", which cannot be secularised.

 

[shnarkle]

One of those fundamentals is the Christian God's definition of "sin", which cannot be secularised.

Why not? It's not like it's a word that is only used by Christians. The Greek word from which it originates means "to miss the mark" as in archery. Even "repent" gets its meaning from a nautical term meaning to change course. So the fact is that it is the other way around. The secular world has provided these terms for the Christian to use.