 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| |||||||||||
02-27-2008, 09:46 AM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Just to clear something up. Atheist = Against religios beliefs. Agnostic = No religion I am a Christian gone agnostic gone atheist. The process has taken many years, and I can assure you I am now against religion to great extents. And although Atheist will openly accept anyones views, however, I will question and make arguements against your views to see how much you really know. If you are unhappy to accept arguements against your beliefs then be ready to cry XD Just Kidding :P  |
|
02-27-2008, 10:21 AM
| |||||
| |||||
| @t SxSnipeR Quote:
I'm an Agnostic who doesn't believe in God, but also don't exclude the possibility that this "God" exists in other forms than we think. I guess I'm reading it wrong but doesn't this sound really arrogant? Quote:
|
|
02-28-2008, 04:45 AM
| ||||
| ||||
|
How is it arrogant? Most people will not freely accept others ideas. Other people just chat plain bollocks without thinking about something from any other angle but their own. Some Atheists are just like extremists from other religions, just overly against the matter. And yes Agnostic = no religion, which is basically what you've just told me. If you wish to call it a religion because this is what you believe then please do. It is not technically a religion... like jedi... now that really is a religion. So I'm sorry if I read it wrong, but not only agreeing with everything I wrote but in a different itteration then calling my acceptance arrogance leads me to believe this is due to your ignorance. Besides, I shouldn't be in this "youth" section. |
|
02-28-2008, 08:43 AM
| |||||
| |||||
| Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm sorry that i pissed you off (which you make clear by saying "Besides, I shouldn't be in this "youth" section.") but i did not mean any harm by what i said. I sometimes hate to talk on forums, or IM for that matter because in this kind of conversations we can't hear how people say things, and miss the vital part of the words said; emotion. We can only depend on having guessed a persons feelings right. |
|
03-02-2008, 01:09 AM
| |||||
| |||||
| Summa What-ica It seems to me like everybody is in too much of a hurry to exclaim “God is dead!” (alla the madman in God is dead by Nietzsche). To tell the truth, I have never understood the atheist position (logically that is). Its counter rationalist to me and further anti-philosophical. Its the hight of human hubris. Think about it. Do we really, with absolute certainty, know that god does NOT exist. Can you definitively say something does not exist because you have not seen it physically with the senses? Our buddy Descartes would have a problem with that assumption. Also, by assuming a drastic stance like "I am atheist" or "I am Religious" limits our ability to reason and rationalize. Philosophy is meant to expand, not to contract. No, God may in fact exist, but RELATIVELY… he is dead. And much like the theory of relativity, it is just that… a theory that is widely excepted, but not fully proven. Don’t fight over who disbelieves in God the most, it doesn’t solve anything. And also, Vasska, religious extremists can uphold a decent conversation… look at Professor Ratzinger turned Pope Benedict. I have yet to read a more competent and complex Bull (catholic proclamation) more coherent than his. To Benjamin90… A perspective-based philosophy on life is admirable and I applaud you rationale. It also seems to me like you're a budding existentialist, you might want to read up on that branch on philosophy if God cannot provide any answers. Dreaming is admirable as well. Aristotle in the metaphysics applauded Hesiod who speculated on the origins of substance as folk and story because he dared to think outside of the box. Religion can indeed limit your perspective on the universe… but then so can atheism… they are both closed systems. If you are not sure, take no view at all, yet listen to all of them. Your parents understand religion in a practical way, that is, in practice, but not in theory. Perhaps you may indeed realize that the practical approach to religion is not as viable as the cerebral method... if the practical approach is indeed un-cerebral. If you are daring, read Albert Schweitzer’s Reverence for life. It’s interesting. Proposition Six... Last edited by VideCorSpoon; 03-02-2008 at 01:33 AM. |
|
03-02-2008, 06:03 AM
| |||||
| |||||
| Quote:
Quote:
God is dead has been one of Nietzsche's finest sentences for it says that the god we believe in is dead, however it does not state that ALL gods are dead, so there might be another God that is watching over us that didn't make the word in 6 days, rests on the 7th, toys with humans for a few hundred years (according to the bible) and never looks back again. I do not exclude the fact that there can be a higher power out there, but i think the God we are looking for is long since dead and something or someone else took his place. Quote:
Quote:
|
|
03-02-2008, 08:07 AM
| |||||
| |||||
| Quote:
No we don't KNOW with absolute certainty that there isn't a god, just as we can't KNOW with absolute certainty that there isn't unicorns out there. But we have to ASSUME that there isn't either of them because there isn't any proof to back up the existence of a god but if you have some I would love to hear them, especially as I have yet to see some EVIDENCE to back up anything the bible (as a example since this is the religion I have been argueing most against.. but you could take some supernatural example from any of the other world religions...) says but we can prove that alot of things it does say is crap, and nothing more. A fairytale for grown-ups to belive in, follow like laws, deny their nature for, stay stupid for and even kill for..
__________________ "When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken." - Benjamin Disraeli http://www.wizzyofsweden.com |
|
03-02-2008, 12:11 PM
| |||||
| |||||
|
Firstly, if your native language is not english, you do a very good job of speaking English. What you are asking makes a few assumptions I am very uncomfortable with. - That theists have no logical reasons for believing in God - That members of revealed religions are accepting certain ideas mindlessly rather than thinking further. Firstly, I am a skeptic at heart, and primarily a rationalist. Unless I found logical reasons for believing in God, I doubt I could. Now, you can argue against my reasons, (that is for another thread) but to deny that theists have reasons, and saying "like they have got no proof or so that for example god exists" is silly. Logic is not a "science" of proofs, but of inferences. Most theists do have valid reasons for inferring the existence of God. Secondly, you seem to think that once you accept a religion you are not allowed to continue thinking and searching for truth, and that accepting a set of beliefs is akin to intellectual laziness. This is a epistemological question, and arguments can be made for both sides. However, for me, accepting a set of beliefs as true for a rational reason, even when some do not make sense to you is more intellectually sound. For example. I accepted Bahá'u'lláh as a Manifestation of God, and thus accepted everything He said as truth. Turns out, there are things He said that I do not understand or agree with. However, were I to determine truth based solely on my own logic or belief, I would be positing a self centered universe, which is obviously false. I have reasons for believing Bahá'u'lláh is what He is, and I accept whatever He says as truth, thus I am acknowledging that truth is bigger than me. I will probably need to explain more, but there is my rebuttal. Now, why do people have religion? I take it you are not asking "Why does God reveal religions?". I think people have religion so that they can become detached from the happinesses and hardships of life. If there is a higher purpose, you need to be too affected by life. You can be happy or sad, but you are not going to let those emotions control you, as you know they are marginal and fleeting. So I would say people have religion to free themselves from the binding effects of life. |
|
03-02-2008, 12:59 PM
| |||||
| |||||
|
First, I’d like to say I’m very impressed by these previous few responses. I’m glad a signed up for this forum. Fist I will address Vasska. It appears you ask three questions. 1.Why does god let bad things happen? 2.God is indeed dead and has been replaced! 3.The existence of God is relative! 4.Show me arguments from the pope! 1.To assume the question “why does god let bad things happen” is to assume that god does in fact exist (though we “know” he may not). Perhaps the problem here is that we refer to God , or “him” as folk (when I say folk god, I say a sexed(male) old white guy with a beard the size of zeus). Not that this is my view, but instead of thinking of God in the folk sense, think of God in a more abstract way… like the unified field theory of quantum physics, that is, the cosmic glue of things in general that makes everything work in virtue of their connectivity. So if God is the glue, who is unable to independently will (assumption) because he may in fact interwoven into the cosmological fabric of time and space, how could he interfere when he hands are tied so to speak? God does not have to be ensouled, you see. So our friends Billy and Jimmy’s situation would seem a bit irrelevant (material wants) compared to Gods job description as cosmic glue. It sounds like you make God out to be the great shyster of our day. So I guess we could say that god lets bad things happen because “it” has and can do nothing about it… further it’s got more relevant things to do than give billy new legs 2.I’m glad you follow Nietzsche so avidly. I’d put the quote from the madman but that’s too much room. So that god has been replaced by something or someone else, I’m guessing you refer to man. You could not be referring to a higher power because that would be a substitute God. I think you would enjoy transhumanist literature. It is a view I subscribe to from time to time. 3.I agree, we must discuss our options. The ultimatum I have been given is steep… Either prove the existence of god or don’t. You supply the spoon and I will eat the elephant. 4.“Today, a particularly insidious obstacle to the task of educating is the massive presence in our society and culture of that relativism which, recognizing nothing as definitive, leaves as the ultimate criterion only the self with its desires. And under the semblance of freedom it becomes a prison for each one, for it separates people from one another, locking each person into his or her own "ego". - Pope Benedict, 2005 Let’s not forget that before Pope Benedict was Pope Benedict, he was Professor Ratzinger. The trick to reading him is not to look at benedicts robes and big white hat and big church/house, but to look and appreciate his rationale and wisdom as a philosopher. He is also a very able logician. He’s critique of relativism is very interesting, that in accepting no definitive answers (which he takes to mean God) we create an elastic prison (our ego) that we cannot escape from. Do I agree with it? Well, the answer is [censored]. LOL! Now Wizzy… I agree with you on the matter that we must assume that neither exists. Descartes, the founder of modern philosophy and first of the rationalists, came to the conclusion that we must doubt everything to know at least something. As for evidence, especially in the bible, that’s the interesting thing to show then, isn’t it. The bible was composed by (and I’m not going to put the historical facts because there boring) a bunch of leading church men of the day trying to unify the theory. It was never meant from its original conception to be taken as historical fact, it’s just that when the book came into the hands of the people, they could not think abstractly about the concepts, and took the words for law. Case in point. Compare these two texts… The Bible and Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Look to the very first page in the bible (Genesis 26), “God creates man in his own image, man begets man…” Now suppose I were an atheist. I would say, this is bull right here. Now look at Aristotle’s Metaphysics, book Zeta, sub-book 7-9. “man begets man by means of generation, like to like, etc.” Supposing I were an athesist, I would exclaim, “now this is rational!!! I can believe this!!! He is a philosopher!!!) But isnt the atheist now contradicting himself? The atheist will not listen to the same argument because of the word God interjected into it. Could it be that the leading scholars of the day when comprising the bible read and understood ancient Greek philosophy, and understood that in order for the common people to understand the abstract notions, they had to fictionalize it? So when I went to church at age seven and heard how god created the universe, could I not have been receiving the foundation for my understanding of cosmology and metaphysics that I come to know today. One question you’re probably asking yourself is “Are you, VideCorSpoon, religious?” Yes and no. Like Socrates, I tread the air and contemplate the sun with all hubris intended. Philosophers… which I certainly am not… have the luxury of proposing a specific theory and defending it. |
| The following users say: THANK YOU - VideCorSpoon for the above post! | ||
|
03-02-2008, 01:29 PM
| |||||
| |||||
|
Perhaps we need a comment from Benjamin90 and those who like him ask the question "why religion?" I fear the debate has taken on a complex nature. Also, we should keep answers and questions straight forward because this is a general forum. |
