Gaming World Forums
General Category => General Talk => Topic started by: gentileCheerios on July 28, 2013, 08:23:19 am
-
Just trying to get a discussion started.
I used to be an atheist during my childhood and adolescense until my early twenties, until I actually bothered to pick up Thomas Aquinas and realize that I never had any real philosophical basis for my belief. Yeah, there are criticisms to his ontological arguments, but in the end you'll still have something with divine powers, but that thing will be matter itself or the universe or some other bullshit materialist theory like that. Then I actually bothered to read the history books and realized that no society other than the ones with well established christian traditions gave birth to liberal democracies that truly respected individual freedoms. Countries where anti-religious experiments took place, such as China and Russia don't seem to fare better on social issues than the ones such as Iceland, Denmark, Sweden et cetera. Gay people enjoy the casual bashing by the police in Russia, while they have full rights in the United States, being able to own firearms and property, all in a "backwards and retarded and conservative christian nation".
So, I guess you could say I'm a born-again christian, though I recognize that many Christians also base their faith on simply rejecting any other possibility, which is what I was doing as an atheist.
-
Then I actually bothered to read the history books and realized that no society other than the ones with well established christian traditions gave birth to liberal democracies that truly respected individual freedoms.
you seem to be implying a causal relation without giving any evidence for it. it's one thing to say that only christian societies have some arbitrary degree of popular influence on policy—which isn't true (just think of where democracy was invented in the first place)—but another thing to state that one follows naturally from the other. just to give an example, when we look at one interesting experiment with anarchism in the deeply christian aragon and catalonia, in which there was far greater public influence on policy than any current Western democracy, we can't find any link between it and religion whatsoever. even if you can find a link, try proving that it's something specific to christianity.
accordingly, in light of the previous example, liberal democracies are hardly the pinnacle of public influence. when we look at Western democracies today, such as the US, we see they're best described as plutocracies with deep internal problems. huge swaths of the population are de facto disenfranchised and there's a huge amount of internal repression. ok, that's the respect for individual freedoms. and when we look at the horrors that are being inflicted by the US on large parts of the world, it can hardly be seen as one that respects human beings.
Countries where anti-religious experiments took place, such as China and Russia don't seem to fare better on social issues than the ones such as Iceland, Denmark, Sweden et cetera. Gay people enjoy the casual bashing by the police in Russia, while they have full rights in the United States, being able to own firearms and property, all in a "backwards and retarded and conservative christian nation".
gay people don't have full rights in the US and still face a huge amount of harassment. both in the amount of legal rights they have as well as beyond that. but even if it were different, it's completely irrelevant. we can find neither a correlation, let alone a causal relation, with (christian) religion. if you can find one, I'd like to see it.
-
:fogetthumbsup:
-
your signature is gone :(
-
ps I don't know if this is a joke account or whatever but I don't really care
-
Gay people enjoy the casual bashing by the police in Russia,
Don't like to sound like I'm attacking you in anyway but you very obviously haven't experienced the problems homosexual people have in even the most progressive countries.
also everything dada said because i was totally gonna say all of that. specifically: It's a joke to use gay rights as an example trying to defend Christianity.
I do find it very intriguing to know people's reasoning behind changing/finding faith, though, so I appreciate you sharing. A few years ago I stopped identifying as Atheist because not only does that have huge evangelical connotations that I don't want to be associated with, I was recently brought to the realization that it is rather silly to define yourself by your lack of belief in something. I'd need an infinite list of nouns to do that.
-
it really doesn't make sense no matter how far you stretch the imagination. brazil is about as christian as the US and it's far more lethal there to be gay. holland is far less christian than the US and it's much better. there is no correlation because it doesn't have anything to do with christianity—it's a general developmental problem. and it's not limited to gay people; every specific group that has a weakness to exploit is stepped on. it's the predictable result of general class oppression.
but then, it's said, it's really the "christian roots" that makes the difference. for one thing, nobody understands what that means. and if you do understand it, try finding some causal relation. there's just no arguing with this kind of fantasy. I can't take it seriously. the enlightenment/libertarian concept of personal liberties, which was the first step towards them being taken seriously, was specifically a move away from established christian dogma.
-
oh boy. I feel a big post coming on from me...
But yeah I actually I agree with Dada. Furthermore, Christianity as an organized religion has had I'm sure positive influence and negative influence but really most of the christian influence you see these days in popular interpretation is that are judgmental and intolerant. This is probably tied less to the specific religion itself and more to ignorance (possibly willful), paranoia (us against them), and traditionalism (fear of progress or change) but this doesn't excuse Christianity of essentially reinforcing this and as almost any organized religion it brings about a sometimes subtle but always very stubborn fanaticism.
There are aspects of Jesus's teachings that I admire as an agnostic atheist but I find the vast majority of modern Christians ignore much of the whole hippy 'love and forgiveness' stuff.
Actually though, I do have one main question for you that I must bring up: Why pick Christianity? Why any particular organized religion? I say I'm an agnostic atheist because I merely lean heavily towards there not being a god, but acknowledge the possibility of one. If I were to sway in the other direction in the future I wouldn't become an agnostic christian. I'd become a agnostic deist. Becoming an agnostic christian makes about as much sense as becoming an agnostic hindu
after becoming a agnostic atheist after being a christian. Sure you could say that you are just sticking to the popular local flavor of 'god' because that is what you grew up with, but there actually is little logic in that. The Christian god, the Jewish god, the Islamic god, why does it really matter?
I have much more to say on the matter, but I have to leave for a graduation party.
-
gentileCheerios did give reasons for picking christianity specifically, that was pretty much the entirety of the post. presented with that evidence, I can see no reason to pick a religion other than christianity. It'd be pretty weird to say "All progressive cultures were founded on Christianity, so I'll be a Jew!"
-
it really doesn't make sense no matter how far you stretch the imagination. brazil is about as christian as the US and it's far more lethal there to be gay. holland is far less christian than the US and it's much better. there is no correlation because it doesn't have anything to do with christianity—it's a general developmental problem. and it's not limited to gay people; every specific group that has a weakness to exploit is stepped on. it's the predictable result of general class oppression.
but then, it's said, it's really the "christian roots" that makes the difference. for one thing, nobody understands what that means. and if you do understand it, try finding some causal relation. there's just no arguing with this kind of fantasy. I can't take it seriously. the enlightenment/libertarian concept of personal liberties, which was the first step towards them being taken seriously, was specifically a move away from established christian dogma.
Well, it is true that countries with a catholic tradition tend to be shitholes in general, see Mexico and most of Latin America, but it's a different story with countries with protestant tradition, which are usually the more progressive and gay loving countries in the world, such as Sweden, where even gender itself is seen as nothing more than a social construct.
I used to be upset at the fact that protestant nations turned out to be far better than the rest, but it's a fact, what the hell can I do about it?
Read Weber.
-
then I actually bothered to read the history books and realized that no society other than the ones with well established christian traditions gave birth to liberal democracies that truly respected individual freedoms
lol!
ya, Atheist Pride is pretty lmao. and yeah, there are some beautiful things about the teachings of jesus. it's really up to you what you want to believe, but I do think you're making the same mistake as gamer atheists by placing the whole axis of the world upon the specific supernaturals people believe in. it's no wonder you returned to your western belief system, it doesn't sound like you ever really left.
-
So let me get this straight. First you were an atheist, but then sort of had a crisis with that when you realized you had no philosophical basis for truly believing in it. But then you become a Christian not because of some profound change in your own heart, but rather because you looked at the world and noted an observation about how countries centered on "protestant christian theology" are generally "better off" than countries that are centered around some alternative to that.
So my question to you is simply this: You do recognize that other Christians also base their faith on simply rejecting any other possibility, does that imply that you personally believe that this is the only requisite for having true faith in the Christian version of God, and that it is enough of a basis to form a real sense of conviction where Jesus Christ holds a permanent place in your heart as the one true Lord?
I just want to get a grasp if your new-found conviction is simply based on this correlation you noticed, or if the correlation itself was just a single point in time that triggered you into philosophizing or rationalizing and basing your conviction more specifically on how or why Christianity has this correlation with how developing countries closer to being completely centered around it operate on a ethical and/or sociocultural level.
(Also it's looking like you are making all these statements operating under the assumption that Christianity itself is fundamentally unique from every single religious theology that preceded it, and I can't help but find that is just absolutely adorable!)
-
The realization that, liking it or not, theism was the only correct metaphysical explanation for reality is what made me grow out of atheism.
Christianity was pretty much an arbitrary choice for me, based on historical facts alone. If I had to pick one, it had to be the one that took the man to the moon, that had produced free, tolerant and productive societies, not the one that creates a society where there is widespread belief in magic potions that can only be made to work by rape.
Reducing religion to nothing but a set of beliefs and rituals is a common mistake. For example, I don't know for a fact that Jesus will come again. Maybe he won't, maybe he will. I don't know if the Genesis is the literal history of the creation of the Universe. It is impossible to prove that.
Throughout my studies I have noted that societies can organize out of either religion or anti-religion, there is no other choice. There is no void that lasts too long. If its role is not fulfilled by an "anti-religion" (communist countries), a "secular religion" (vulgar materialism and utilitarian morals) or something like that, then it is eventually fulfilled by a proper religion, which is how religion appeared in first place, and which is how Islam is becoming popular in Western Europe.
-
it's impossible to respond to all the bad assumptions you're making, but the biggest is this correlation between religion and your logically (but not socially) arbitrary measure of success in societies. it also seems to show a complete lack of understanding or attention to the methods by which our perfect successful protestant societies managed to become "successful".
-
gentileCheerios did give reasons for picking christianity specifically, that was pretty much the entirety of the post. presented with that evidence, I can see no reason to pick a religion other than christianity. It'd be pretty weird to say "All progressive cultures were founded on Christianity, so I'll be a Jew!"
I wish I had gotten back earlier to respond to this, but EDC actually says it better than I could have anyway. I suppose I read his post and couldn't take that as reasoning for belief because it felt more like a general concession based on a vague idea of history.
It almost sounds like like gentileCheerios isn't really a 'christian' but a theist that happens to support protestants a lot because of his perception of their positive influence on society. Its just sort of an odd thing to combine with the reason that he suddenly stopped being an atheist in the first place. That is, a 'logic' based move rather than a 'historical' based one.
The realization that, liking it or not, theism was the only correct metaphysical explanation for reality is what made me grow out of atheism.
Christianity was pretty much an arbitrary choice for me, based on historical facts alone. If I had to pick one, it had to be the one that took the man to the moon, that had produced free, tolerant and productive societies, not the one that creates a society where there is widespread belief in magic potions that can only be made to work by rape.
Reducing religion to nothing but a set of beliefs and rituals is a common mistake. For example, I don't know for a fact that Jesus will come again. Maybe he won't, maybe he will. I don't know if the Genesis is the literal history of the creation of the Universe. It is impossible to prove that.
Throughout my studies I have noted that societies can organize out of either religion or anti-religion, there is no other choice. There is no void that lasts too long. If its role is not fulfilled by an "anti-religion" (communist countries), a "secular religion" (vulgar materialism and utilitarian morals) or something like that, then it is eventually fulfilled by a proper religion, which is how religion appeared in first place, and which is how Islam is becoming popular in Western Europe.
The only only correct metaphysical explanation? I am really curious as to how to came to that conclusion. IDK if you intended this, but in the way you worded that it comes off as fairly stubborn and set. Which, coming from yourself seems odd since you moved from christian to atheist to christian again.
You mean it was arbitrary in the aspect of actual belief is what I'm assuming you intended by saying this, which than by most peoples definition of Christianity, you aren't really a christian. You may root for it and even participate in its traditions but if you don't actually worship and believe in its god (for instance that Jesus will return) its really odd to claim that you are one.
I don't reduce religion to beliefs and rituals. Its just that, you can philosophically agree with many teachings within any religion, that doesn't make you one of them necessarily.
Communist countries? What I think you mean is countries with a large concentration of power in one place tend to be awful places to live, and religion is one of the things a tyrannical power will use through either snuffing it out or creating and maintaining one that reinforces the ones in power. Communism and capitalism has little to do with this issue.
-
Well, it is true that countries with a catholic tradition tend to be shitholes in general, see Mexico and most of Latin America, but it's a different story with countries with protestant tradition, which are usually the more progressive and gay loving countries in the world, such as Sweden, where even gender itself is seen as nothing more than a social construct.
Are you just sort of arbitrarily making things up in this thread? I mean, first you claim the US is progressive re: gay rights and now you're claiming Sweden is some sort of post-sexism utopia. None of this is true.
-
gentileCheerios did give reasons for picking christianity specifically, that was pretty much the entirety of the post. presented with that evidence, I can see no reason to pick a religion other than christianity. It'd be pretty weird to say "All progressive cultures were founded on Christianity, so I'll be a Jew!"
I wish I had gotten back earlier to respond to this, but EDC actually says it better than I could have anyway. I suppose I read his post and couldn't take that as reasoning for belief because it felt more like a general concession based on a vague idea of history.
It almost sounds like like gentileCheerios isn't really a 'christian' but a theist that happens to support protestants a lot because of his perception of their positive influence on society. Its just sort of an odd thing to combine with the reason that he suddenly stopped being an atheist in the first place. That is, a 'logic' based move rather than a 'historical' based one.
I stopped being an atheist for a logical reasons, and arbitrarily picked Christianity because I wanted to be part of that group, instead of any other.
The realization that, liking it or not, theism was the only correct metaphysical explanation for reality is what made me grow out of atheism.
Christianity was pretty much an arbitrary choice for me, based on historical facts alone. If I had to pick one, it had to be the one that took the man to the moon, that had produced free, tolerant and productive societies, not the one that creates a society where there is widespread belief in magic potions that can only be made to work by rape.
Reducing religion to nothing but a set of beliefs and rituals is a common mistake. For example, I don't know for a fact that Jesus will come again. Maybe he won't, maybe he will. I don't know if the Genesis is the literal history of the creation of the Universe. It is impossible to prove that.
Throughout my studies I have noted that societies can organize out of either religion or anti-religion, there is no other choice. There is no void that lasts too long. If its role is not fulfilled by an "anti-religion" (communist countries), a "secular religion" (vulgar materialism and utilitarian morals) or something like that, then it is eventually fulfilled by a proper religion, which is how religion appeared in first place, and which is how Islam is becoming popular in Western Europe.
The only only correct metaphysical explanation? I am really curious as to how to came to that conclusion. IDK if you intended this, but in the way you worded that it comes off as fairly stubborn and set. Which, coming from yourself seems odd since you moved from christian to atheist to christian again.
You mean it was arbitrary in the aspect of actual belief is what I'm assuming you intended by saying this, which than by most peoples definition of Christianity, you aren't really a christian. You may root for it and even participate in its traditions but if you don't actually worship and believe in its god (for instance that Jesus will return) its really odd to claim that you are one.
I don't reduce religion to beliefs and rituals. Its just that, you can philosophically agree with many teachings within any religion, that doesn't make you one of them necessarily.
Communist countries? What I think you mean is countries with a large concentration of power in one place tend to be awful places to live, and religion is one of the things a tyrannical power will use through either snuffing it out or creating and maintaining one that reinforces the ones in power. Communism and capitalism has little to do with this issue.
Well, yeah. If the Universe is there, it is because something made it possible, i.e: God. If there is no God, then the Universe makes itself possible; it is a materialistic version of God. I'm accepting the premise that something that transcends reality created reality, and I'm choosing to be part of the christian "group", even though I wouldn't subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible. This isn't a black or white issue. You can agree with only 1% of christianity and still be part of the "group", and you could agree with 99% of it and not be a part of it.
Communist countries as in countries that were ruled by the communist movement, which IS a materialistic and anti-religious movement by principle. Like with religion, you cannot reduce communism to a set of principles and beliefs. It too, has a history, it's a culture by itself which is not stagnant, but evolves through a dialectics of its own.
Well, it is true that countries with a catholic tradition tend to be shitholes in general, see Mexico and most of Latin America, but it's a different story with countries with protestant tradition, which are usually the more progressive and gay loving countries in the world, such as Sweden, where even gender itself is seen as nothing more than a social construct.
Are you just sort of arbitrarily making things up in this thread? I mean, first you claim the US is progressive re: gay rights and now you're claiming Sweden is some sort of post-sexism utopia. None of this is true.
I think you're mistaking rights that gay people are entitled for the "gay rights" movement, which is a "social movement" or something like that, which is essentially a part of a larger movement that seeks to establish cultural hegemony. Read Antonio Gramsci's Prison Notebooks. In Iran gay people are entitled to be hanged. In US gay people are entitled to stay alive, own property, firearms and consume like the rest of society, they have very basic human rights. In Sweden they're entitled to adopt children, but that is likely to change as the majority of that country's population eventually turns to Islam.
-
it's impossible to respond to all the bad assumptions you're making, but the biggest is this correlation between religion and your logically (but not socially) arbitrary measure of success in societies. it also seems to show a complete lack of understanding or attention to the methods by which our perfect successful protestant societies managed to become "successful".
I base success in societies as how much I'd like to live in them. I'd hate to live in Congo, for example, so it's a failure by my scale.
-
i'd hate to live in chicago
disgusting faux-italians
-
I don't think that there's a point in getting into a debate, so I'll just say congrats on finding something that makes you happy.
-
Are you suggesting that capitalism isn't materialistic? As for religion's relationship with capitalism, at best capitalism would embrace it for its profit potential and nothing more.
Well, yeah. If the Universe is there, it is because something made it possible, i.e: God. If there is no God, then the Universe makes itself possible; it is a materialistic version of God. I'm accepting the premise that something that transcends reality created reality, and I'm choosing to be part of the christian "group", even though I wouldn't subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible. This isn't a black or white issue. You can agree with only 1% of christianity and still be part of the "group", and you could agree with 99% of it and not be a part of it.
Where's god come from? but yeah, there is no inherent logic in assuming that the universe was created by some being vs just is and/or always was or perhaps just spontaneously came into being due to an accident. Arguably, if you were to try and take the most logical route, you'd accept that WE DON'T KNOW (as far as practical 'knowing' goes) and probably never will rather than just believing god does or doesn't exist. You could perhaps sway in one direction or another when it comes to probabilities though.
In fact, the concept of 'god' is so arguably unknowable that even if it appeared that you had proof of his/her/it's existence or non-existence staring you in the face you could still never be truly sure if you were seeing something real or perhaps a hallucination or fever dream.
There are a myriad of other issues with believing in a god (and to a lesser degree, being sure of no god), but this one seems most cut to the point.
-
Communism's philosophical bases are materialistic, as you can see here:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/one4.htm#v14pp72h-075 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/one4.htm#v14pp72h-075)
It all started with Marx's upside-down interpretation of Hegel and of metaphysics, but the point is that matter itself plays the role of the divine.
Capitalism isn't an ideology, a religion, a movement or anything, is just the way by which humanity sustains itself through economic activity that consists in accumulation of capital. For example, even a "socialist" --in proudhounian terminology-- economy with no private property would be capitalistic since there is capital (means of production) and it is accumulated over time (you develop technology to further develop technology with the goal of increasing material comfort).
A God that existed before the timespace and matter existed is the ultimate cause, the cause without a cause, so it didn't "come from" anything, but that also makes it inconceivable, it transcends reality and, in christian narrative, only becomes immanent when Jesus is born. It's a premise; you can either accept it to be true without any "proof" (you have faith in it) or deny it, also without any proof, but by doing that, by negating something that precedes matter you're merely stating that matter is the ultimate cause and you already know what that means.
-
I base the nature of my faith by starting with the assumption that God exists, and then trying to use my limited knowledge of the reality shaped by him to infer what little I can about the nature of what such a being would want based on thinking that reality itself is an outcome of God's will to fulfill such desire.
If it is truly God's wish to be worshipped by those who resulted from this creative act, then the lack of unity and surplus of strife that results from our limited grasp of what nature or form such worship should take, makes it evident that some aspects of the Christian image of what I can only call "God's personality" are faulty and self-conflicting. I think the very notion of a force that by its nature operates outside of reality itself even having something akin to "personality" is very demeaning and biased to our own outlooks on the nature of the abstract concept we personally identify as "understanding".
If God had a careful plan in defining the very nature of reality and how it unfolds through our own biased perception of time, (to the point that we can say that our very own abilities to apply reason and logic are likely divine gifts delivered directly from this creator) then by using the logic God granted our species, we can infer through observation that for God to have a personality, it must be that this personality has no desire to dictate the nature of it's will to those it caused to exist. Any claims to the contrary can always be sourced to a being that is deeply rooted in reality itself.
Speculation on the nature of God or divinity is fine, as long as we are willing to acknowledge our own existence's limitations as biases that will always conceal true understanding. But to speculate on how to execute the will of such a being, might as well be tantamount to blasphemy. Any time I hear a person say "God's will", my conscious brain will always translate this phrase to "I know more about what God wants than God does". Even by taking at face value those stories involving God's heralds coming to earth to deliver His word to mankind directly, even those words straight from the Angel's mouth lose every last shred of credibility, in terms of being from a truly divine source, the very instant they entered a human ear.
Basically, the very notion of religion itself is the negation of the assumption that the nature of God's fundamental existence, and the nature of reality itself are entirely separate from each other. Yes God himself is an existence that precedes matter, but for religion to actually exist, we rely on the hidden assumption that some pieces (or configurations) of matter are more intricately connected to God's own divinity, than other pieces of matter in some other shape. The easiest example I can think of is matter in the shape of printed text taking words from The Holy Bible, being of a form that qualifies as more "interconnected with divinity" than matter in the shape of printed text re-creating words of the Koran.
If we take the word "Atheist" entirely literally, it actually does not require not believing in God, at least not how you define it. Atheists probably disagree with me, but I do not see their fundamental stance as "God does not exist". At face value, It's alot like saying quaggleplorphs don't exist. Saying something doesn't exist when it is literally impossible to know what it is, by definition has absolutely no implications whatsoever. I tend to interpret the statement "God does not exist" as something more along the lines of "I view the concepts of "God" and "existence" as entirely separate and in no way connected". If God is not connected to existence itself in any way whatsoever, but still created all of existence while remaining entirely separate from it, then the question of whether or not to believe in him is a moot point.
-
my god awards points for freakin the normies
-
Well, it is true that countries with a catholic tradition tend to be shitholes in general, see Mexico and most of Latin America, but it's a different story with countries with protestant tradition, which are usually the more progressive and gay loving countries in the world, such as Sweden, where even gender itself is seen as nothing more than a social construct.
gender is still very far from being seen as being just a social construct in Sweden.
since you've ignored everything else I've said, I'm guessing you now agree with me that it was all nonsense and that such a correlation does not exist.
-
everything else you've said since then is also patent nonsense btw.
you're basically just making everything up and vaguely linking them together with selective historical data.
-
like you say "[an] economy with no private property would be capitalistic since there is capital (means of production)" which is not even worth responding to [[but ][/[but]]. you don't even understand the meanings of the terms you're using. whether means of production exist (they always exist) doesn't determine whether a society is capitalist or not.
-
i mean maybe the topic is not a dialogue but a monologue? maybe we're supposed to post our wack-ass crystal prison beliefs in monologue and not listen everyone (it's close... dumb topic whistles and eyeballs elsewhere)? austerness or autistisms... i wonder if there is a trialogue? man i'm starving, jesus i'm actually starving, what a nice feeling to feel after like FOREVER.
-
it was obvious from the start that this would happen (but w/e)
-
like you say "[an] economy with no private property would be capitalistic since there is capital (means of production)" which is not even worth responding to [[but im stupid i will respond anyway]]. you don't even understand the meanings of the terms you're using. whether means of production exist (they always exist) doesn't determine whether a society is capitalist or not.
What is your antithesis, Dada?
-
dumbtopic made me an ex-atheist
-
The ultimate irony of this topic is that the discussion itself could easily be interpreted as proof that God does not exist, since a kind and loving God would never let someone believe in him purely based on such faulty premises.
Oh no, now it's I who doesn't understand the meaning of terms I'm using! Quick, everybody run! It's SPREADING!
-
The ultimate irony of this topic is that the discussion itself could easily be interpreted as proof that God does not exist, since a kind and loving God would never let someone believe in him purely based on such faulty premises.
Oh no, now it's I who doesn't understand the meaning of terms I'm using! Quick, everybody run! It's SPREADING!
This is hardly a new discussion (check Augustine of Hippo).
Not that it is any related to that point, but the thing about atheism that bugged the most is that it is almost always presented as something "modern", in opposition to Christianity, which was around during the middle ages which were so backwards, all while ignoring the contributions scholastics made to philosophy and science in general, when the entire debate about the existence or not of God is probably as old as humanity itself.
-
They only think of it like that because they view the world of modern scientific achievement as something that is continuing to make their case of God being absent for them. They see God not as something that fully encompasses that which is truly unknowable about the nature of reality, but rather as a go-to excuse to fill in the blanks for literally any phenomena that does not already have an explanation rooted in reality. Even if they did see God as the full embodiment of that which is impossible to know, the state of what is possible to know and that which is impossible to know is still always in a constant state of flux. All thanks to the consistent and reliable advancement of scientific thought, that has probably been going on for just as long as the entire debate about the existence of God.
My problem with the very nature of the debate is that it is impossible to really have a consensus on what "God" actually means. Yes you can give definitions, but they are all rooted in our understanding of reality, so none of those explanations can ever be proven or dis-proven for the context that's both within our universe and separate from it. You can have an atheist argue God does not exist, and a theist argue God does exist, and they could be talking about two entirely different things! They both see it as the exact same concept simply because there is not a better word to assign to their own personal understanding of what it is they are even trying to argue over!
-
That second paragraph is actually a good point. Without agreeing on definitions, they could both believe in the very same thing but using different names for it. Rejecting the existence of a flying bearded old man ghost is as easy as rejecting the possibility of a flying spaghetti monster or a unicorn, it requires no further metaphysical investigation, just as accepting either of those creatures to fill the gaps requires no further empiric testing. It is true that our definitions are based on our own understanding of reality; every definition requires a prior definition, in order to define anything at all you must accept the principle that something is identical to itself and nothing else, which is a statement that can't actually be proven. You merely accept it as a self-evident truth, a valid premise that requires no further proof, and base your subsequent reasoning on it. And it happens to be adequate enough that the entire scientific knowledge bases itself on it.
In the end we're simply stuck with having to deal with something that is completely out of our comprehension. There is no way around it.
-
like you say "[an] economy with no private property would be capitalistic since there is capital (means of production)" which is not even worth responding to [[but im stupid i will respond anyway]]. you don't even understand the meanings of the terms you're using. whether means of production exist (they always exist) doesn't determine whether a society is capitalist or not.
What is your antithesis, Dada?
:|
-
it's interesting to see christians who state that their religion is just a way of explaining the unexplainable, the regions that simply do not exist in the domain of science or rational inquiry, which I think is true, but then turn around and try to somehow introduce their faith into precisely those domains. it's having your cake and eating it too. when you step inside those domains, you lose that claim to innocence.
-
It's interesting to see atheists believing in stuff that can't be proven either, and yet feel morally superior, as if you had science on your side, and everyone else didn't. I was once in that position, I know what it is like.
Newsflash: Christianity does not nullify empirical testing, and empirical testing doesn't nullify the need for metaphysics.
-
There really is no objectionable "need" for metaphysics. It's all philosophical drivel that only serves to satisfy the collective ego of our entire species. (Unless you are one of those people who assume that Ethics cannot even exist without Metaphysics to justify it, but I tend to view people who think like that as self-serving asshats who need nothing short of divine intervention just to treat a fellow organism like its something even worth being treated with respect)
Empirical testing on the other hand, has led to practically every advancement you could imagine needing for living in a society you'd actually want to live in. That doesn't mean empirical testing can do anything for the realm of metaphysics, nor does it mean it is going to simply make the concept of metaphysics outdated in of itself.
I'm not saying this as an atheist, just as an agnostic who bases his beliefs almost entirely on what is both rational and practical. People are totally free to disagree with me, but I personally see Metaphysics as something people will always want, while Empirical Testing is going to be something people will always need.
-
An ape can empirically learn that poking a termite hill with a stick is a way to obtain edible termites, but can it speculate about what lies beyond the physical realm he inhabits? I don't know, but humans do that automatically.
People paved the roads for discoveries in physics with philosophical drivel. Kant in his own way anticipated General Relativity. Science is not a novelty invention that makes philosophy obsolete, it's built on it.
-
Well when you put it that way, then it's apparent that I did misspeak. But it is still a mutually symbiotic relationship. Until methods of empirical testing verify the ideas that Kant first put forward, they are all just speculation no different from any other philosophy competing with Kant's idea at the time.
For the one instant a set of empirical tests is put forth that once conducted, verified Kant's philosophy as thoughts regarding "general relativity", then every single philosophical thought (posing an alternate worldview in direct conflict with this one) has just right then been reduced to nothing beyond "philosophical drivel that literally has no purpose left to serve anymore". Philosophy students can maybe later read those accounts in a history book and then philosophize on how those guys who were not Kant had such faulty premises to start with.
Philosophy has just as much to gain though Empirical Testing as empirical testing has to gain through philosophic discourse. But yeah, I agree it is foolish to ever think either one is taking away from the other, when it is apparent that both only have things to add.
-
It's interesting to see atheists believing in stuff that can't be proven either, and yet feel morally superior, as if you had science on your side, and everyone else didn't. I was once in that position, I know what it is like.
Newsflash: Christianity does not nullify empirical testing, and empirical testing doesn't nullify the need for metaphysics.
lol
-
I was still able to substantively reply when you were still making substantive posts but now I don't see why anyone takes you seriously anymore
-
was still able to substantively reply when you were still making substantive posts but now I don't see why anyone takes you seriously anymore
Is this what passes for an argument nowadays?
EDIT: FAUST - Adds nothing to the discussion re: insults. Please keep it civil.
-
In Sweden they're entitled to adopt children, but that is likely to change as the majority of that country's population eventually turns to Islam.
Wow, I was going to stay out of this thread due to OH NO RELIGIONCHAT, but I just have to clarify a few things:
1) You're suggesting that the MAJORITY OF SWEDEN will turn to Islam? What timeframe are you suggesting?
2) Historically, do you know of Western nations taking away rights from a minority group that have been recently won? I'm not aware of any EU member state reducing civil rights of homosexuals, rather than adding to them.
3) You use the word "likely" to change. Could you clarify this evidence-wise?
-
1) Eventually, why not? Muslim families have higher fertility rates than the rest of Sweden. Christianity started as a minority group too, but it eventually became the norm for Rome and countless other western countries mostly through proselytizing. What makes it impossible that the mechanism that turned Christianity the norm for the West also Works for Islam?
2) Germany attempted to take away Jews' right to exist, didn't it? So did Bolsheviks to a lot of other minority groups, but that's probably not the kind of "minority" you're thinking of. Anyway, we're not at the end of history yet, where we have created this utopia where everyone is equal and happy and it can't ever end. In fact, many empires fell just after they felt things were good enough.
3) See 1. See Sharia zones.
-
Sorry but this has gone from just being a silly conversation about """religion""" to downright conspiratorial and racist so we're ending this here. goodbye.
-
AHHHHHHH THE ISLAMIFICATION OF EUROPE!!! OH NO!
-
oh god how did I not notice inri cheetos / gentile cheerios
-
congratulations on finding a racist conspiracy theory that makes u happy. alex jones smiles down from heaven which doesn't exist and was probably invented by some 10000-year old pedophile anyway
-
I also like the part in the bibble where the tree of knowledge is evil DON'T THINK god will make u happy DON'T THINK
-
oh god how did I not notice inri cheetos / gentile cheerios
ya...if it is him he followed the path to a T, going from near(?) criminal to having an epiphany and finding god but not actually being all that different.
the topic seems configured to cause an uproar and allow the OC to become the erudite center of attention, which would have worked on GW circa 2006 or 4chan or a porn forum.
-
haha sorry I was a little angry before because I actually had some faith in gentileCheetos (get it FAITH) I'm not even necessarily atheist but I think organized religion still owes us about like 1000 years worth of trolling partially/fully because of the whole boinking children thing. lol @ religion = morals and noreligion = no morals argument. But yeah disappointed because legimate reasoning for christian/any religion in particular turns into anything but one of those moslems
wait what did inriCheetos do when he was inriCheetos/Cheetos the Grey
but yeah religion reminds me of that game Populous where you're like the blue guys with your god and they're the red guys and ooh they must be bad since they're red but basically you look like the same dudes/palette-swapped sprites DIFFERENT RELIGIONS AS PALETTE SWAPS holy shit the creator of this game was brilliant
or religions are Alex and Roger from Tekken and they have the same exact moves/animations only difference is one's a kangaroo and one's a dinosaur
Edit: btw wiki says they were afraid Populous/creator of populous would get a fatwa on it/him that's how you know it's TRUTH
-
if you mean what did he do to warrant "near criminal", a lot of stuff. he was like raskolnikov in the first half of crime and punishment in terms of morals. at first he was like an off-kilter conspiracy guy, and you couldn't be sure if he was serious or mocking. more recently, he posted a lot of really vile bigoted stuff including one episode where he was essentially saying people who practice samba in brazil (generally black street people/urban poor)(also not protestant lol) are sub-human. he'd also physically stalk women. he did some awful stuff then got banned and came back on MinceWobley and got banned and came back as Libtard and did more awful stuff and got banned and possibly came back as gentilecheerios and got banned for more bigot shit. I mean we don't know if it's him, gentilecheerios seems a little too obvious but the personality is a pretty good match.
-
if you mean what did he do to warrant "near criminal", a lot of stuff. he was like raskolnikov in the first half of crime and punishment in terms of morals. at first he was like an off-kilter conspiracy guy, and you couldn't be sure if he was serious or mocking. more recently, he posted a lot of really vile bigoted stuff including one episode where he was essentially saying people who practice samba in brazil (generally black street people/urban poor)(also not protestant lol) are sub-human. he'd also physically stalk women. he did some awful stuff then got banned and came back on MinceWobley and got banned and came back as Libtard and did more awful stuff and got banned and possibly came back as gentilecheerios and got banned for more bigot shit. I mean we don't know if it's him, gentilecheerios seems a little too obvious but the personality is a pretty good match.
i see
-
oh god how did I not notice inri cheetos / gentile cheerios
idiot. get a fucking grip.
-
i can't bel-LllllIIIIIIve that you're the admin of this forum!!!
-
>:^B
-
I'm an ex-calling-myself-atheist. I stopped when I realized how pointless the label is. It's just as useful as calling yourself an "amermaidist". To pick on one facet of humanity's various mythologies and to label yourself based on the rejection of that one thing seems strange to me. I reject all supernatural claims, not just deities.
-
I saw a stupid article a bunch of nerds on twitter were raving about that said like Atheism is a Mental Disease or something and it had some study by harvard showing that people who believe in god are less likely to fall into depression and it was kind of funny to me because it wasn't denying atheist philosophy or anything and basically saying "These people are probably right, but in being right they are vile retards"
-
I saw a stupid article a bunch of nerds on twitter were raving about that said like Atheism is a Mental Disease or something and it had some study by harvard showing that people who believe in god are less likely to fall into depression and it was kind of funny to me because it wasn't denying atheist philosophy or anything and basically saying "These people are probably right, but in being right they are vile retards"
Atheism is a disease of the mind.
It is caused by SIN!!!!
Please send $5 to Faust for further advice on how to avoid this malady.
-
Overtime I've just decided to approach the whole thing in a "I don't give a shit" sort of way. Things live and die in a chaotically cruel way, everyday in every instance of time some four year old is getting plowed in his bedroom by 60 year old geriatric that shouldn't be driving or some fatass, self-absorbed, neurotic piece of shit is stepping on an ant that has just about every right to live as they do. But at the same time things have a way of oddly falling into place, not in a "hey I felt like making spaghetti from scratch and the tomatoes are priced down or finding a quarter when I need one" sort of way but running into someone you grew up with halfway around the world by mere chance.
Or for instance.
I never grew up wanting to be a sailor. I never even thought about it and if you'd asked me when I was fifteen what I was gonna do out of highschool working at walmart would have probably been my best answer. When I was a tot my mom put me in a micky mouse sailor suit and theres still a picture of it hanging on the wall. When I first started with the company I work with now I found out the day I started my training for the job that the company I work for now built the ship I had worked on prior. Which is insane if you think about it. Because it was a military observation vessel constructed in a marine yard mostly used for the oilfield and it was one of the last ships they ever built. I didn't know that until I told the guy training me where I'd come from. They had a picture of it down the hallway and he showed me and he told me that he was actually the crane operator that put that ship together. I found out a couple weeks later that my grandfather worked for the very same company I'm working for now decades ago, when divers used to use those big tin man suits. I don't know jack shit about my grandfather. I've hardly ever spoken to him and I damn sure never set out to be like him, we don't have the same last name and the only reason I found out is because my DEA agent half uncle I hardly know too told me about it.
Some things that happen are just really odd and too coincidental. I definitely don't believe in god though, or in any traditional sense. So I figure if I be as good as I can be without leaving myself too vulnerable and be as mean as I gotta be to terrible people who walk on others, I've done well enough and if paul wants to call me a sack of shit at the gate then oh well.