Kasz216 said:

C1) How does what he said have nothing to do with Christianity?

B.  Show one culture where this exists.  You say you've shown it, but all you've done is said "this exists" without even being able to go so far as name a specific culture.

C) Yes I can, and I did.  There will NEVER be a society or culture that belives helping others isn't good, because culture couldn't exist otherwise, and therefore good and evil couldn't exist otherwise.

D) Actually, no, your wrong.

On both counts.  Hell is a state of being primarily and a place secondly, and god doesn't send you anywhere... and in general you still don't get Eastern Orthodx Christianity.  I can't blame you though, if I got dragged to a church I didn't believe in, I suppose I wouldn't pay any attention either.  Though, then again I doubt i'd be argueing about it.

"God becomes powerless before human freedom; He cannot violate it since it flows from His own omnipotence. Certainly man was created by the will of God alone; but he cannot be deified [made Holy] by it alone. A single will for creation, but two for deification. A single will to raise up the image, but two to make the image into a likeness. The love of God for man is so great that it cannot constrain; for there is no love without respect. Divine will always will submit itself to gropings, to detours, even to revolts of human will to bring it to a free consent." Vladimir Lossky, Orthodox Theology: An Introduction

And considering you didn't even know what immanent critque was 72 hours ago, i'm guessing your just throwing a name out there without any clue what he was actually talking about.

A very dangerous thing to do when talking about philosphers.  

Espiecally when you are trying to disregard moral universalism.

Because well... he's a moral universalist... and generally that's part of his problem with immanent critique.

Basically to adopt his point, you have to give up your arguement that there are no moral absolutes and claim that moral relativism is infact false... well or moral nihilism.  

Either stance I really wouldn't have atrributed to you, because it would either suggest that

A) Homosexuality was evil, but isn't in some parts of Europe and in the USA, but STILL is evil in some parts of the world like Africa and China.

or

B) That murdering a child is neither good nor evil, no matter how you get pissed off when his murderer gets released early from jail and gets a new life.

However by argueing that there are no moral universalism or moral absolutes you are argueing one of the above two positions.

Well that and he thought that rather then immanent crique having just one person, should have more then one uninterested party having an arguement rather then one person argueing himself... since it's hard for most people to outhink each other in a chess game and similarly without two unimpassioned indivudals, the single indivdual may miss proper criticism or create improper criticism because... well it's hard for most people to argue themselves or play chess vs themselves.

In otherwords, at this point you basically have to sacrifice an arguement, with basically no payoff here, since the two arguements basically contradict your points, yet not mine.  If anything, all Habermas' views do is suggest you were even less qualfied to judge that statement then I suggested... and in general if anything would help christianity in the process and not hurt it.

C) Yes it did, it's within the conversation.

B) Yeah, like I said, articles like that tend to greatly exagerrate something to make your point.  If you looked for it you'd find you were wrong.

D1) So then, you admit your wrong.

D2) It makes total sense, you just didn't read it correctly.

Habermas' problem with immanet critique is that he rejects the theory that there are no moral absolutes.  According to Habermans where immaninet critque fails is that it doesn't address moral univseralism.  IE that some morals are the same across all cultures.  And that in doing so, causes problems with social justice. 

Therefore, if you want to continue with Habermas' arguement against immanent critique, you must in fact give up moral relvativism.

Or actually Moral Nihilism based on your last statement.

In otherwords, currently your arguement in this thread does not hold up to immanent critque and the only way for you to attempt disregard immanent criqute, is to in fact, disregard your entire arguement.  You've pretty much put yourself in a philisophical checkmate.

Because we are not robots nor animals, we can control ourselves.For example, lets say we are really rich and we really want those extra 10 000 dollars for ourselves, but we EVEN WITH THAT WISH AND NEED for 10k$  we donate it to some childern chairity. So we CHOOSE not to be greedy. Or you can choose to keep to money to yourself and be greedy. And like I said we determine our choices and in the end they determine, or ''make''. Our personality doesnt have to play the role in our actions if we dont let it, because we can controll ourselves and think, what would YOU WANNA do.

Really, greed in this sense is not limited to money, and a rich person giving money away is less impressive then a poor person. Still, no one donates without pressure unless they'll feel good for doing that (and under pessure means they'd feel worse not doing). People want money so they have things like power, fame and proprierty. But ultimately all of these are only longed for because they make you feel good, so buying a yatch or donating is really the same thing. The impressive donation comes from people who'll actually suffer from the donation and that's absolutelly not the norm. It's the poor guy who hasn't eaten for the past three days and has no idea when he'll get anything else to eat giving food away. Even then we could debate how selfless that really is when you look deep enought, but let's call that selfless for now.

There are two points I want to make out of that, but they're kind of tied togheter, so forgive me if I'm unclear.

First, you have these kinds of "selfless" donation on lots of other animals. It may not be in form of money but various species are capable of sacrificing their lives for others. You may argue they're not reasoning about what they are doing or don't even know what death is (which would be over simplifying the matter) but the fact is that donation is not exclusivelly human nor there's reason to believe very advanced rationality is necessary for that. A rational donation actually would be more in the lines of a buisness proposition, but that's beside the point. So, yeah, by now you realise I do see us as animals, and you can change that vision and yours with naturalistic and creationist in my first post and that should work.

The second point is there are reasons we feel good or bad for doing determined things, and we do have a basis, a natural instinct in ourselves. And those reasons are shared with many other animals. Saying we have free will and are detached from nature while "animals" have none is simply your bias talking. I could just as well point out that just as a child may decide to obey it's parents, so may a dog. You tell him not to do something he's about to do, he has two opposing urges, and this divergence has to be dealt with. How different is that really from "I wanna buy a yatch but donating to this charity would be great for those children"?

I mean, you may point the dog is just crudely balancing his wants and his fear of punishment, but how much would the rich guy be able to enjoy his yatch knowing that decision made all those children suffer? And how good wouldn't he feel helping them? Where's the practical difference? If free will is being able to resolve an internal conflict of interest, then every living being has free will.

Those basic instincts I talked about earlier, they're fundamental to our frame of mind, but as social and learning animals we build on that, and every decision we make we refer to those things. See, some people can buy that yatch and not feel bad with themselves. In fact, most people can. It's also natural to feel good helping others, but our needs and wants are central to us. But the fact is you can't make a choice at all without a personality, a background on which you run and weight your different options, and in our case that's our mind, our very definition of self. That's our identity, so our choises are made by us. They do have and impact on us and that framework, on our minds, but it's not like we decide if we're gonna be happy about donating or indifferent about suffering, we, just as any other animal, don't have that kind of control.

Again, I apologise, I was thinking as I typed and won't take the time to try and polish it up :P

Y

I am sorry, my keyboard and mouse are gone to reparment, I wont be able to use my computer for a day or 2 i am on my iphone, its very hard to browse this forum on it  so could you please make your post shorter so i can read and answer it more easly. Heck this post alone took me 3 mins to type down

I am sorry, my keyboard and mouse are gone to reparment, I wont be able to use my computer for a day or 2 i am on my iphone, its very hard to browse this forum on it  so could you please make your post shorter so i can read and answer it more easly. Heck this post alone took me 3 mins to type down

I guess the gist of it is that I see humans as not removed from other animals, and our personality and needs as the motivations for our actions (making actions reflections of ourselves, even if they do then go on to have consequences on "us"). So you may not be a creationist but as soon as you take humans and animals as different things that will inevitably lead you to a different view from that of someone who doesn't.

That's a somewhat rare view.  Even among complete atheists, the "specialness" of humans is usually something people agree on.  Heck even Evolutionary biologists even admit humans are special.  Though Evolutionary biologists are just a weird bunch.

The difference between man and animal often seen as  analgous to like, the difference between an animal and a plant.

If man wasn't so different from animals we wouldn't need the social and psychological sciences.

Everyone would just be a sociopath.