| Kasz216 said: A) Except... you didn't. You've thought you did, but haven't because you lack an actual understanding about what you are argueing. Furthermore this wasn't about Christianity. It was about that exact statement. Of which you've failed to prove contradictory. You keep trying to broaden the point because you have no sufficient arguement for the one at hand... if you wish to admit your fault and continue. Feel free, but lets deal with the arugement you started. However, I've got a surprise for you... Christianity as a whole does pass Immanent criqute. (When you do it on an idividual basis) Pretty much all religions do. No amount of wishing is going to prove otherwise. Also as a warning, true Immanent Critique of a whole religion generally is going to be the size of a disertation.
C1) We are using Immanent critique to criqute that statement. Which means it's good, because it's good, because it's stated as good. That's how immanent criqute works. Also, if such cultures and animals exist... feel free to show it. What you'll often find when you reseaerch is... they don't not really. You usually find such stuff like that is often delibritly misreperesented. C2) If your not discussing free will... then your just wrong... because you aren't still looking through things through immanent criqute. I mean first off, one doesn't have to follow gods laws to get into heaven, hell the whole basis of Christianity is that man CAN'T follow gods laws and even the greatest man will slip up once. Hell, not even Jesus is shown as perfect. Additionally, people who follow the same laws don't have indivudality? Is there NO room to be an individual in Romania? Heck, in (most branches) Christianity, you could be a homosexual rapist murderer, and still get into heaven... if Christianity has no room for individuality, then clearly no society with rules has any room for individuality.
D) It may seem like i'm not replying to what your argueing because a lot of your arguements are either poorly defined or completely irrelevent. You've just used this baseline statement to go way out of the original scope of your arguement to go into yet another anti-religion rant. Is there any point to seeing a movie when you know what's going to happen? So, you've never rewatched an old movie? Again, you've ignored the entire point of agency. A father, often lets his son fail rather then not let him try, because in failing it teaches him a lesson.
What you are missing, yet again, is that god cares about all of those he creates, including the sinners, and would not wish to rob them of their agency or of their expierences in life. In general, you are going to continue to fail at immanent critique because you feel passionatly about the subject, and don't have the compacity to look at subjects you feel strongly for rationally... as was shown recently in the price gouging arguement where you admitted logically I was right, but said you thought there was a better way but just didn't know it. In effect, ironically, relying on faith. Which ironically, you do far more often then you'd like to admit.
E) As for why I think life is meaningful. That in of itself would take a long time, and a lot of explination and generally probably wouldn't help you. If you want a better reason for living, I suggest messaging Stof. Not even sure he checks the boards anymore, but he's generally who i'd go to for Atheist "spirtual" advice. Or philosphical advice if you'd prefer. |
A. But does Christianity in any way or form have any relation to reality, as it claims? Any system can be thought up to pass Immanent Critique, however religions have no value outside of themselves (which would be somethign necessary for a belief system claiming to perfectly explain the world).
C1. Really? States as good by whom (not to mention that "it's good because I say it's good" is a logical error)? We were not referring to Christianity in this point, so you can't use Christianity as a referrence. We actually were not referring to any belief system whatsoever. I challenged you to prove that "helping others" is intrinsincly good, the same way being red is an intrinsic quality of fire ants. Of course, you will not be able to do this. "Goodness" is itself a subjective quality, which has no value outside a belief system. You can't prove that anything is objectively good.
C2. No, I was not discussing free will because it had nothing to do with my issue with his statement. One has to either follow god's laws to get into heaven, or repent for his/her "sins" (thus acknowledging god's laws and their superiority). People who disagree with god are doomed to eternity in hell, because what they think is irrelevant.There is no room for individuality in Christianity, because ultimately you have to renounce it if you want to be "with god".
Human laws are meant to assure a peaceful coexistence. They're meant to protect humans, and their individuality. If I find that a law is unfair, I can make attempts to change it. You cannot change god's laws, and they do not have human's best interest at heart.
D. There's no point in seeign a movie, if knowing what happens is all that matters. Why are agency or experiencing life important in the first place? If God loves everybody, then why does he send people to hell. You can say that those who reject him chose to go to hell, but does anyone want eternal suffering? God is the one who created hell, and made it so those who reject him go there, so can it be said that he loves everyone, when he condems those who don't love him to eternal torture?
Also, isn't your definition of immanent critique only limiting to internal critique?
"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"
"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."
(The Voice of a Generation and Seece)
"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"
(pizzahut451)
