Nerd02

Do they? I think most of Lemmy still prefers online freedom, it should be one of the reasons that brought us here. Plus, the people you are gonna meet even by changing instance are going to be more or less the same. The number of instances you are barred from by staying on .world is pretty small.

One can hope…

You know, in a way I am glad that we managed to implement such a piss poor implementation of a PiRaCy ShIeLd. They are going to have to roll back or disable this piece of crap in a matter of days and that will hopefully be the end of these silly internet restrictions for good.

Had the implementation not sucked ass this bad, we would have needed to wait for some EU infringiment procedure or ECJ order to shut it down. Instead, this way it’s gonna end way more quickly.

His work in eradicating gang violence was impressive, I get why the few Salvadorians who aren’t behind bars would vote for him. Although I can’t help but wonder about how many people might have gotten unjustly incarcerated because of how much power he’s given to the police.

Ok so first off, thank you for typing out a well thought argument.

I posted a summed up version of the five ways, rather than the full text, and now I realize that probably was a mistake. I just wanted to make sure people would have read it, most would have ignored a wall of text. Instead, I will directly quote the full text in my answers here.

Here is a TL;DR, cause this will be long:

Thus beginning a long standing religious tradition of using scientific rhetoric where its helpful and attempting to shoehorn philosophy in where it contradicts or fails to uphold.

I don’t think he tried to use scientific rethoric at all, nor that any philosophical shoehorning has happened. Rather, it’s entirely philosophy. Doesn’t mean it’s perfect or necessarily correct, but we gotta call it the way it is. I also think you might be trying a bit too hard to interpret it as science, while that’s not really what the Summa was meant to be. Some of your conclusions were drawn from the summary I posted not being accurate (sorry about that, btw) and I adressed them by quoting the full text.

Starting from the fourth way:

Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

You correctly criticized his mistake in using fire as the source of maximum heat and mixing in scientifical evidence with philosophy, but the full text tells a more nuanced story.
Fire here is more of an example, rather than pure scientifical evidence. It’s also not the basis of the point he is adressing here. That would instead be more abstract (and wouldn’t you know it, philosophical) concepts like “good” and “true”. So while your discussion on splitting natural sciences and philosophy makes a lot of sense, I don’t think it applies here.

Onto the fifth way:

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

In truth, I think this is the most beautiful of the five ways and the one that, to me,makes the most sense from a scientific perspective. I remained of the opinion that Aquinas wasn’t trying to bring in natural sciences into this one, but since you brought up “modern scientifical understanding” I will do my best to make some sense of it, according to modern science.

The message here is not as easy as water flowing because of gravity. It’s also not as easy as “what was before the Big Bang?”, because that would be, like you said, vulnerable to the “God of the gaps” counter argument.
Rather, starting from the universal constants such as the Boltzmann constant which regulates all of thermodinamycs; the speed of light in a vacuum, which regulates all existing radiation or the gravitational constant, which regulates how all matter and time interact; through science we get a very clear picture of how many pieces needed to fall into place for reality as we know it to come together, let alone life to be possible. According to this modern interpretation, the fifth way states that in order for the universe to exist as we know it, defined according to these specific constants, it must have happened through a higher being, a creator. Here, actually, is the only place where I see a possible mistake, because on a logical level he doesn’t prove definitively that the existence of God is the only solution to the problem, the hypothesis of a coincidence remains on the table. However I personally think, when put in this perspective, the religious hypothesis remains the more believable one.

On your last point, I don’t see how the fifth way would violate what he has established from the first way. The fifth claims that motion of inanimate objects happens naturally and repeatedly because of “some intelligent being […] [whom] we call God”. The first instead says that God was the first who put everything in motion, and that because of that things have been kept in motion ever since the universe began. I think these two point go hand in hand, rather than being opposed:
God first created the universe, by putting things in motion. God also defined the patters according to which things should have moved after his initial “push”. This makes perfect sense to me.

Quite funny really

I know, right? Like I said it was mostly a semantics issue, I wasn’t sure what OP meant. When they kindly clarified their question I gave them my answer, coming from a different perspective from most of the commenters.
Then in you came, and started slandering my religion. Like you might have guessed it didn’t quite sit right with me. Assuming you are an Atheist, it’s like I came at you saying that “Atheists have no morals” or “Atheists are nothing but hedonists”. I don’t think you would have liked it. So I tried my best to provide sensible answers to your remarks. I guess that makes me too an apologist; I don’t really have a problem with that label.

Everything before your last sentence presupposes your personal interpretation of your god.

No, it is the interpretation of the Catholic Church, which is the church followed by most Christians on this planet.

I’m not looking for philosophical evidence […]

Alright, you do you then. It seems to me that you are trying to explain God through science, and I’m not sure whether that is possible. Science, from a Christian perspective, is the study of God’s creation. Inferring knowledge about the creator from His creation seems like an arduous task to me. I think using reasoning and philosophy would be a more reasonable option.

Clearly this is the Christian god of the Bible and definitely not any other god humans have believed in […]

One step at a time. Once we are both on the same page that a higher being exist and the universe and life aren’t just the product of mere coincidence we can discuss why I think the “Christian God”, like you called him, is the right interpretation. But first you would need to accept religion(s) in general.

I mainly write JS and not having a backtick on my keyboard annoys the fuck out of me. Other than that the Italian keyboard is alright, never had any other problems with it.

I literally quoted a source. Want more? This is the Cathechism of the Catholic Church on the topic of free will:

1730

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. “God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.”

1739

1739 Freedom and sin. Man’s freedom is limited and fallible. In fact, man failed. He freely sinned. By refusing God’s plan of love, he deceived himself and became a slave to sin. This first alienation engendered a multitude of others. From its outset, human history attests the wretchedness and oppression born of the human heart in consequence of the abuse of freedom.

If instead you were looking for philosophical evidence for God’s existance, I recommend reading Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways.

That is spot on. Contrary to Protestant (and in particular Evangelical) belief, the Catholic Church teaches that there are four senses through which one can read Scripture: one is literal, while the other three are spiritual (allegorical, moral and anagogical) and can help us interpret Christ’s message and how we should or should not behave during our earhthly lives. This is the relevant section from the Catechism.

I am not familiar with Orthodox theology, but I would assume they would have a similar position on the topic.

I’m sorry that you felt the need to compare those who spread Christian doctrine with rape apologists and Nazis, but there are some things I don’t like about your comment. Chances are you are not interested in hearing them (at least judging from the wording you used), but someone else in this thread might be.

Yes, God is an absolute good. Yes, we cannot understand Him. Most “atrocities”, like you called them, come from men being given free will by God and drifting away from His teachings, thus doing stuff that isn’t good. God is good.

If a baby dies and is baptized they go straight to Heaven. If a baby dies and isn’t baptized we don’t actually know for sure what happens (it is never explained in the Bible), but by interpreting other aspects of Christian dogma we can hope and assume that they too would be saved. On this topic I recommend the following read, by the International Theological Commission

[There are] grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us.

If there are other “atrocities” that you can think of and you’d like to discuss, I’d be happy to.

EDIT: boy did this blow up. I’m sorry for the replies I have left unanswered but I don’t have the time or energy to give any more nuanced answers on the topic. I am also not an all knowing expert of Christian / Catholic theology, I am simply trying to spread some awareness and a different view, on a platform that is evidently mostly Atheistic. If you have further questions the Internet will likely have the answers you seek, expressed better than I could anyway. Cheers.

Oh yeah. No doubt about that, you never stop learning. It applies to all aspects of life, not just religion.

Reading that links it looks like I actually did know what the discussion is about and just got confused. I googled “christian apologists” like OP called it, found no exact definitions and so I started wondering if maybe it was something I didn’t know about. Protestant denominations often have weird names and I keep finding out about new ones, maybe there was also a prot denomination called “apologists”. Guess not, though.

Uh I see. I didn’t know any of those people, so I had to google that discussion between Alex O’Connor and Wiliam Lane Craig. Listened along for quite a bit and it was actually very interesting (so thank you, I’ll definitely finish listening to the whole thing later on).

From the way the used that “technique” I am guessing it isn’t really that much about Christianity but rather, as others have said, a way to connect to the other person. People often get understandably heated during theological debates (understandably so, our most important beliefs are being challenged), maybe calling the other person by their name is a way to try and remembering the human and forming a sort of emotive connection that could otherwise get lost during the discussion.

Why specifically Christians? I don’t have an answer to that one. I am guessing it might happen more frequently with religion talks rather than say politics, or other frequent topics of discussion, because religion tends to appeal more often to morality and thus emotions. Just a guess, though.

What do you mean when you say: “christian apologists”? I’m afraid I am not understanding your question and that’s me speaking as a Christian.

Do you mean people defending Christian positions in thelogical debates? Or is it the name of some niche sect I am not aware of?

Ok hear an European federalist’s (me) take on this:

Yes, ID and ECR are set to gain a pretty substantial amount of seats, especially compared to the results of the previous election, as the Guardian’s infographic clearly highlights:

However, their conclusion:

As a result, the far-right ID group is projected to gain up to 40 more seats, for a total of 98, potentially making it the third political force and opening up the possibility of a “populist right” coalition (EPP, ECR, and ID) with 49% of MEPs in the new parliament

seems a bit of a stretch. While ID is firmly eurosceptic and ECR is… undecisive, EPP is firmly pro Europe. EPP has been the largest party in the European Parliament for over 20 years, and they are the ones who elected names like von der Leyen and Metsola. I wouldn’t call either “Anti-European”.

As the POLITICO “Poll of Polls” clearly highlights, the top groups aren’t set to change all that much. The most notable changes are Renew losing quite a lot of seats and ID replacing it as the 3rd political force, but EPP and S&D mantain a significant lead.

If ECR and ID ever came to building a “populist right coalition”, I doubt EPP would be on their side. I think it’s way more likely that they’d side with other forces like S&D or RE and try to stop them.

In conclusion: yeah it sucks that Renew has lost so many seats, and it also sucks that far right voters seem to prefer the way more extreme ID to the comparatively more sane ECR, but things aren’t nearly as tragic as the media is portraying them to be.

If it did exist (and it doesn’t), it would be an excessive cause of government spending. Money that could otherwise be used to pay for other services like health or pension spending, or subsidize (read as: “cut taxes on”) necessary stuff like food or petrol.

I think their argument per se does make sense, it’s just the initial assumption that is flawed.

Hi, thanks for the lenghty explanation. Sorry, I should have been clearer in my reply, I am aware of what the confederacy was, historically. My concern was more about what they meant when saying that the GOP might have wanted to return to that. I do know a thing or two about American politics, but I just don’t recall ever hearing about them having similar stances.

Make no mistake, I am not defending the Republicans here. From my point of view they are definitely the worst of the two parties and some of their policies are downright evil (including but not limited to: privatizations, opposing welfare, opposing national healthcare, opposing public transport…).

My entire point in this was just saying: I don’t think they are as bad, evil, dangerous or even criminal as the neo nazi parties currently running in Germany, in particular the topic of discussion, NPD.

Can you elaborate on the “the GOP wants to return to the confederacy” thing? As you can probably tell I am not American, don’t really follow your politics that much. Referencing anything in particular? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of it.

Anyway, I feel like you have kinda overlooked my last point, where NPD is openly claiming areas in the borders of their neighbours. That’s a pretty big deal, coming from a neo nazi party in the country that started WW2. And I don’t recall reading about the GOP having similar policies.

I haven’t actually bothered looking at what AfD stands for (obvious disclaimer: I’m not German, I’m allowed to not care lol)

Just wanted to make it even more clear that this party wasn’t the one causing the people in Berlin to storm the streets.

EDIT: I tried opening your article, and aside from the language barrier, which my browser extensions were able to overcome, it looks paywalled.

No you don’t. As bad as the American Republican party might be, they are not THIS bad.

From the NPD wikipedia page:

The Homeland is a neo-Nazi political party. […]

The Homeland argues that NATO fails to represent the interests and needs of European people. The party considers the European Union to be little more than a reorganization of a Soviet-style government of Europe along financial lines. […] The Homeland is strongly anti-Zionist, frequently criticizing the policies and activities of Israel.

The Homeland’s platform asserts that Germany is larger than the present-day Federal Republic, and calls for a return of German territory lost after World War II, a foreign policy position abandoned by the German government in 1990.

Props to OP for making it clear in the post body, but the headline made it a bit more clickbate-y than it should have been. That article is about NPD, a very minor and actual neo nazi party. The anti-right protests that have been happening recently, instead, are about the AfD (alternative for Germany) party, which is set to gain a sizeable 23% of the votes for its far right coalition ID during the next European elections.

In other words yeah they are cutting funds from a far right party, but not from the far right party.