I may have missed something as I haven't read absolutely every post in this thread, but I am stunned to see that Aaron believes humans are basically "bad", and that this has somehow led him to believe in Christianity, which states that humans are made in the image of a benevolent and all-powerful god. I have the same belief, which led me to reject Christianity.

Be careful of overstating my position. The observation of human brokenness certainly played a role, but it's not as if I made that observation and on that basis alone went towards Christianity.

The starting point is the acknowledgement that humans seem to be broken in a particular way, but the recognition of that brokenness requires there to be a sense of unbrokenness. But what is that sense of unbrokenness and where does it come from?

It is either from us, or it's not from us. If it's from us, then seems like it's just an arbitrary thing (see dynamite's comments that echo this perspective). But if it were arbitrary, there's not a sufficient reason to adopt some particular sense of brokenness/unbrokenness, and the basis upon which we're making judgments of actions is really quite unstable. At the core, it feels as though morality is ultimately just relativistic, not based on any "reality" of moral/immoral actions, but on "opinions" about morality (which is just some made up thing anyway).

If it's not from us, then where does it come from?

---

On the topic of "made in the image" I would simply warn against oversimplifying the narrative. It seems you took the position of "If God is good and people to be good, then there would be no bad people." I struggle with the idea that good is identifiable as different from bad if bad doesn't exist. I think that if God imposed "goodness" on everyone by force of will, then "goodness" would cease to be good.

So the narrative is more that God created people with the capacity for both good and evil. As people started to choose evil, evil became the norm, and we're only left with echoes of good, which is that which Christianity seeks to bring out of people.

I just took the position that if god were all good, and humans were created in his image, humans would be at least "mostly good". If mostly bad, it seems that we aren't really in his image. And there is no evidence that humans were more good in the past than they are now.

Maybe we should step back and clarify what you think "in [God's] image" means.

You shouldn't be stunned by Aaron's view here as it is standard Christian theology. Christianity's core myth is about how humans were created good, but through willful disobedience have become sinful, selfish creatures. The message of the gospel is that it is through faith in god (and his grace and love towards us), either directly for Protestants, or more collectively for Catholics and Orthodox, that humans are able to become good again.

Hmm, well I was raised reading the bible and went to Catholic schools. Pretty sure I was taught that people are mostly good. Protestant theology may be more pessimistic though.

I think it does tend to be emphasized more in Reformed theology, but it is also present in Catholic theology. Here is the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church on Original Sin:

Notice in particular the section on the consequences of Adam's sin for humanity.

Hi, d2_24.

How about your basic humanity, and gosh, the fact that conscience is what you have have when nobody is looking.

Religious people's instinct towards a lack of integrity and self-control is revealed by statements like "without religion, we wouldn't have morality". What you people actually mean is, "if I didn't think someone was watching, I'd be doing all sorts of bad stuff". Never mind though, you do it anyway, but god forgives you and it's all good. Welcome to the Republican party.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, Aaron. Come to the other side. Even I'll forgive you.

This ever present battle of Man with the powers of evil , according to the above, is "contracted" not "committed" as Chillrob has stated( in a basic sense he has studied contracted). In the Protestant sense Man is perverted and responsible after having committed the act by working within the seduction of Lucifer, it appears to be done consciously.

This leads to the two venues of "free will" and "determinism"as the Roman Catholic sense, as referenced, does give hope to the future of Man via Christ in works.

The Protestant sense, as delineated (written by a Roman Catholic) above states that there is nothing Man can do for matters are predetermined . This type of theology is expressed especially in Calvin's Presbyterianism( chosen Presbyters) but I don't believe that the Methodism of Wesley speaks in this way(not sure of this) .

Interesting enough,Augustine, who is also referenced in the matter of predestination or a determinism might be called the forerunner of this particular bit of theology. I say this for the idea of "free will" which is expressed in Aquinas, the philosopher of the
Roman Catholic Church appears to contradict Augustine and so it does, but both sides still pay homage to Augustine.

Augustine, prior to his conversion was a Manichean and from what I can tell somehow saw that there would be the destruction or exclusion of the human being and therefore predestined but his perception only saw the physical body of man.

Nations ,peoples and physical bodies will rise and fall to be eliminated from the warp and woof of the human experience and to put it succinctly he saw the "evolution of the body" whereas not the "evolution of the soul/spirit" who is Man and lives within the immortal.

Evolution of the body ; therefore the end of times period.

'Evolution of the soul / spirit"; as Man moves on and in this he not only redeems himself through Christ but even REDEEMS Lucifer himself who in one aspect has brought man to a higher state.

The Savior of the world dying an ignominious death on the Cross yet in this Mankind returns to the pre Luciferic realm (not the same of course as every and all beings evolve) renewed with a personality or "I" or "Ego' that very body of man who works within Good and Evil .

Well, if it's the misogynistic, bigoted, cruel, whimsical and arbitrary god of the old testament, then I'll concede that a lot of people, and most US Republicans were created in that image. If you have some other image in mind, please proffer it.

LOL - It's like you don't even understand that the thing that was posted stands in direct opposition to your OP. This, perhaps above all else, shows the depth of delusion and lack of intellectual content inside your head.

What about it? Do you think something you said stands in contradiction to something I've said? I mean, of course you do, but that's just because you don't think about anything carefully before typing.

Right. You *totally* understand what I've stated. Absolutely 100% bigly understand.

Ummmmm... Do you even know what that phrase means?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sunli...t_disinfectant

...

No thanks. Your side seems to be without intellectual merit and without intellectual integrity. Why would anyone choose to perpetuate that upon themselves?

Seems pretty cool to me, I'm down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

How is "rationalism is the view that regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge or any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification. More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive"

in direct opposition to my OP?

You seem to be unable to grasp the slightest point of nuance on my part, seemingly because you think I am incapable of it. I meant exactly what that aphorism means, in relation to what I said previously, about not needing someone to watch over you. Read it in context, my son, and ye shall see the light. If you need a more visceral analogy, think about some sinner confessing in a dark cubicle.

You're quick to hop on to anything you perceive as lack of intellectual prowess on my part. I mean, congratulations, you are right a lot of the time. I just don't have the inclination to write long-winded replies to your bloviating posts. Well done though, you win the internets.

I'm going out on a limb and bet that you're a losing poker player.

Gee... I don't know. Maybe if you spent some time reading the words that were given to you in the post, you might see it. Or not. I don't care enough to completely stop you if you want to go down the path of stupid.

Yeah, ok, got it. Descartes, he was the guy with the coordinates, right? Great guy, gonna go on to do bigly things.

Joking aside, I misread the poster's quote from my OP as a quote from Descartes.

Is there any evidence he believed in a "literal" god? I don't really want to read a thousand-page Wikipedia article to find this hidden nugget of treasure.

Ummmm... yeah. So by "nuance" you mean "completely wrong and has nothing to do with the original quote"? Got it.



...

Just as quick as you are to make the dumb comments in the first place.

Apparently, you also don't have the inclination to think before posting. And you're slow to admit error (and in many cases never do). It's not *just* that you're saying/doing dumb things and making dumb posts. It's that you almost seem proud of yourself for doing so. You seem to wear your mistakes like badges of honor. Repeated errors do not cause you sufficient reason to pause and think.

Awwwww... are you sulking because you fail at thinking? The passing of blame is a common move for weak-minded individuals who are unable to accept their own failures. If you would just stop yourself from posting stupid things by thinking before posting, and not always falling into your knee-jerk defensive posture and literally making up things, then maybe you wouldn't fail as badly in the future.

But since you have shown no inclination towards improvement, I think I can reasonably expect that you're going to continue onward in ignorance.

Do you see how desperate you are? There's a thing that's literally saying that you're wrong, but you're trying to turn it around to create enough alternate facts to declare yourself to be right. This is basically identical to what you did with William Ockham at the start of the thread.

You're so proud of your ignorance that you're willing to repeat your follies. Like a dog returning to its vomit.

Aaron, I laud you for proving me wrong on most points. **** it, every point, if you like.

Why do you argue on the internet in support of religion? Is it to persuade others, or to persuade yourself?

Edit: I have held my beliefs all my life, but I have never felt the need to share them with strangers before. I do now, because of the current political climate. I feel that religion plays a large part in the election of extremist candidates in otherwise democratic societies, the US in particular. That is my reason.

Neither. I argue on the internet for a combination of entertainment and increasing my own level of knowledge. If others learn things through the process, that's a serendipitous by-product.

I am generally of the belief that argument one way or the other on the internet is extremely unlikely to change minds on core beliefs. (Your posts in this thread is what I consider to be the typical thing to happen. From the beginning, I pegged you as behaving extremely similar to the religious people that you so desperately desire to mock, and I've been proven right repeatedly on that read.)

On occasion, there will be moments of honest conversation that really push more deeply into new ideas. But they're pretty rare. And I'm not always sure that persuasion really happens there, but just an opening of minds and a releasing of preconceived notions. For people who are following along intellectually, persuasion at that level happens much more during times away from the internet, where people can be alone with their thoughts and can push past the defensiveness that comes with things that challenge core beliefs.

You do now because you're angry. And the fact that you've held your beliefs your whole life actually reveals how little you've engaged in self-reflection of those beliefs. If you had reflected more, you would be less wrong more often. It would show in your posting.

You're welcome to feel whatever you want. And you're welcome to remain uninformed and bolster your beliefs with all the false information all you want.

Or you can grow up.

This is a really good response, and a really good post.

Aaron, we agree on most things, just not on the axioms.

If Bob started arguing flat earth to you, or that you can't ever find the roots of a quadratic equation, or that you can square or the circle, or trisect the angle, or build a perpetual engine, you would surely mock Bob, no matter how many so-called arguments Bob put forth for his position.

You would take exactly the line I am taking with you now. Now replace "Bob" with you, and add in the fact I'm pretty salty, because nobody murders other people due to the fact they think they can or can't square the circle, and that's pretty much where we are.