|
On October 13 2009 13:17 IdrA wrote:
your post originally said "of course i do not!"
of course you dont! a supreme being who throws lightning bolts is far more ridiculous than a zombie jew who will cleanse us of the sins of a woman who ate an apple because a talking snake tricked her, but only if we eat his body.
the point is theres a whole host of gods and religions that you and any religious person would consider absolutely ridiculous. and alot of them have followers just as devoted your own (if you're religious). but somehow or another you just happened to choose the right one. which coincidentally happened to be the one that your family taught you.
...You quick and incorrect judgments about me kind of makes me wonder what people think about you back in Korea. So, are you saying that a Christian who denies Paganism is an atheist? The definition of atheism is someone who denies the existence of any type of deity. You are not an atheist if you believe in one deity.
but somehow or another you just happened to choose the right one. which coincidentally happened to be the one that your family taught you.
I was raised in a Christian family and converted to atheism. Nice deduction.
|
judgements? i said "if you're religious" if you're not it doesnt apply directly to you but the point is the same.
|
"Atheism doesn't have all the answers" is a misnomer. Atheism doesn't claim to have ANY answers. It's up to individuals to find answers for themselves, the best way they can. Atheism is just the belief that all religions give wrong answers.
Most atheists generally look to science for answers, because the scientific method is the best way we as a species have found to give us answers that can actually impact our lives.
|
Pardon me Greg but that part is trivial in my previous post. However, you said "but somehow or another you just happened to choose the right one. which coincidentally happened to be the one that your family taught you.". You mentioned "if you were religious" but that did not apply in the sentences after that. Not only that, you did state that "you just happened to choose the right one. which coincidentally happened to be the one that your family taught you.". which was directly stating that I was choosing the religion my family chose.
|
^^ He also didn't capitalize correctly, so obviously you win.
|
You are taking his statements as specifically about you, which is not the point.
|
On October 13 2009 13:30 Mori600 wrote:
Pardon me Greg but that part is trivial in my previous post. However, you said "but somehow or another you just happened to choose the right one. which coincidentally happened to be the one that your family taught you.". You mentioned "if you were religious" but that did not apply in the sentences after that. Not only that, you did state that "you just happened to choose the right one. which coincidentally happened to be the one that your family taught you.". which was directly stating that I was choosing the religion my family chose.
You understand that IdrA's talking in general terms, right?
Stop taking everything as a personal insult when you're the only one dishing them out.
|
Im not religious or god-believing at all. What follows is basically a brief introduction to the thought of Danish thinker Søren Kierkegaard who would delight in rebutting the "godly" Richard Dawkins and his cult of personality.
on the leap of faith
Jesus was both the son of god and a mortal. That is a contradiction. It never was supposed to make sense when using the "scientific method" as a guide. If you need science to validate your religion then you have lost your faith- which is what an authentic relation to God requires. "Doubt is conquered by faith, just as it is faith which has brought doubt into the world". Doubt is an element of Faith. It is impossible to gain any objective certainty about religious doctrines such as the existence of God or the life of Christ. The most one could hope for would be the conclusion that it is probable that the Christian doctrines are true, but if a person were to believe such doctrines only to the degree they seemed likely to be true, he or she would not be genuinely religious at all. Faith consists in a subjective relation of absolute commitment to these doctrines.
No such evidence could ever be enough to pragmatically justify the kind of total commitment involved in true religious faith or even romantic love. Faith involves making that commitment anyway. To have faith is at the same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt one's beliefs about God; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought involved in weighing evidence, without which the faith would have no real substance. Someone who does not realize that Christian doctrine is inherently doubtful and that there can be no objective certainty about its truth does not have faith but is merely credulous.
on Christianity and its sheep
Secularised "Church" congregations are meaningless: The idea of congregations keeps individuals as children since Christians are disinclined from taking the initiative to take responsibility for their own relation to God
Christendom has become secularised and political: Churchs are corporations and controlled by individuals whose bureaucratic mission is to increase membership and oversee the welfare of its members. More members mean more power for the "pastors": a corrupt ideal. This mission would seem at odds with Christianity's true doctrine, which is to stress the importance of the individual, not the whole.
Christianity becomes an empty religion: Thus, the state church political structure is offensive and detrimental to individuals, since everyone can become "Christian" without knowing what it means to be Christian. It is also detrimental to the religion itself since it reduces Christianity to a mere fashionable tradition adhered to by unbelieving "believers", a "herd mentality" of the population, so to speak.
Dawkins is the voice of disgruntled nihilism en vogue. This is an old discussion and most of his arguments are lifted from previous thinkers. If you want to read about this subject for other reasons than looking cool and/or worshiping... an athiest... here is some suggested reading:
Confessions, St Augustine
The Concept of Anxiety: a simple psychologically orienting deliberation on the dogmatic issue of hereditary sin, S. Kierkegaard
The Antichrist , F. Nietzsche
|
On October 13 2009 13:30 Mori600 wrote:
Pardon me Greg but that part is trivial in my previous post. However, you said "but somehow or another you just happened to choose the right one. which coincidentally happened to be the one that your family taught you.". You mentioned "if you were religious" but that did not apply in the sentences after that. Not only that, you did state that "you just happened to choose the right one. which coincidentally happened to be the one that your family taught you.". which was directly stating that I was choosing the religion my family chose.
it doesnt apply to the sentences after that? what?
obviously if you're not religious im not talking to you directly when i say "you just happened to choose the right one" when one means a religion. stop being purposely obtuse.
|
On October 13 2009 13:39 omninmo wrote:
on the leap of faith
Jesus was both the son of god and a mortal. That is a contradiction. It never was supposed to make sense when using the "scientific method" as a guide. If you need science to validate your religion then you have lost your faith- which is what an authentic relation to God requires. "Doubt is conquered by faith, just as it is faith which has brought doubt into the world". Doubt is an element of Faith. It is impossible to gain any objective certainty about religious doctrines such as the existence of God or the life of Christ. The most one could hope for would be the conclusion that it is probable that the Christian doctrines are true, but if a person were to believe such doctrines only to the degree they seemed likely to be true, he or she would not be genuinely religious at all. Faith consists in a subjective relation of absolute commitment to these doctrines.
No such evidence could ever be enough to pragmatically justify the kind of total commitment involved in true religious faith or even romantic love. Faith involves making that commitment anyway. To have faith is at the same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt one's beliefs about God; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought involved in weighing evidence, without which the faith would have no real substance. Someone who does not realize that Christian doctrine is inherently doubtful and that there can be no objective certainty about its truth does not have faith but is merely credulous.
This would all be fine and well, if it were truly the way Christianity operated or the way most Christians thought. Speak to the average self-proclaimed "true believer", and one would find overwhelming certainty, not doubt.
Furthermore, based on such admittedly uncertain foundations, some very certain proclamations concerning morality and the nature of reality about us are pronounced. Surely you can see the flaw with this line of thought?
|
I don't view unwavering faith in something that you admit to be illogical as a good thing, and honestly I don't know why others do.
|
On October 13 2009 13:59 Lemonwalrus wrote:
I don't view unwavering faith in something that you admit to be illogical as a good thing, and honestly I don't know why others do.
Because we are not robots. Also, because truth contains contradiction.
Romantic love is very illogical also. Idra desiring to be come a progamer in korea two years ago. That was illogical too.
|
Romantic love is not illogical, it is evolutionarily useful to the protection of the species.
And IdrA had his meals/housing handled by a company while doing the thing that he loved and getting a small chance at becoming pretty darn famous in the gaming community, of which he is a member...what part of that is illogical?
Edit: I'm also going to venture a guess that getting laid for being good at starcraft is far more likely in Korea than it is in the U.S., so definitely not illogical. 
|
On October 13 2009 13:57 Draconizard wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 13 2009 13:39 omninmo wrote:
on the leap of faith
Jesus was both the son of god and a mortal. That is a contradiction. It never was supposed to make sense when using the "scientific method" as a guide. If you need science to validate your religion then you have lost your faith- which is what an authentic relation to God requires. "Doubt is conquered by faith, just as it is faith which has brought doubt into the world". Doubt is an element of Faith. It is impossible to gain any objective certainty about religious doctrines such as the existence of God or the life of Christ. The most one could hope for would be the conclusion that it is probable that the Christian doctrines are true, but if a person were to believe such doctrines only to the degree they seemed likely to be true, he or she would not be genuinely religious at all. Faith consists in a subjective relation of absolute commitment to these doctrines.
No such evidence could ever be enough to pragmatically justify the kind of total commitment involved in true religious faith or even romantic love. Faith involves making that commitment anyway. To have faith is at the same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt one's beliefs about God; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought involved in weighing evidence, without which the faith would have no real substance. Someone who does not realize that Christian doctrine is inherently doubtful and that there can be no objective certainty about its truth does not have faith but is merely credulous.
This would all be fine and well, if it were truly the way Christianity operated or the way most Christians thought. Speak to the average self-proclaimed "true believer", and one would find overwhelming certainty, not doubt. Furthermore, based on such admittedly uncertain foundations, some very certain proclamations concerning morality and the nature of reality about us are pronounced. Surely you can see the flaw with this line of thought?
For Kierkegaard, faith and religion only have value insofar as they are subjective and personal. He would not say that his morality is TRUE for everyone but only for those who have made the qualitative leap. Likewise, he would ridicule the so-called tom, dick, and harry christians who claim an authentic relation to god can be found by attending church every sunday and reading a few verses of the bible before bed everynight, for instance.
I did not intend to post some danish philosophy from the 19th century and make god-fearers of you all. i merely wanted to show that there are relevant christian counter-arguments to Athiests. Basically, it is like this. Any christian who will "debate" you for any other purpose than to humor you... does not have authentic faith. Atheists have a real hang up with believers. It is almost pathological the way they have to disprove them. Don't you get it!? Religious types are not to be reasoned with...
|
I just wanted to ask you op that you said "A few people walked out on the talk after a certain quote* (at the bottom of the blog)"
don't really see a quote at the bottom of the blog? Or which are you referring to in the least. Forgive me if I'm somehow missing it.
|
On October 13 2009 14:11 omninmo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2009 13:57 Draconizard wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 13 2009 13:39 omninmo wrote:
on the leap of faith
Jesus was both the son of god and a mortal. That is a contradiction. It never was supposed to make sense when using the "scientific method" as a guide. If you need science to validate your religion then you have lost your faith- which is what an authentic relation to God requires. "Doubt is conquered by faith, just as it is faith which has brought doubt into the world". Doubt is an element of Faith. It is impossible to gain any objective certainty about religious doctrines such as the existence of God or the life of Christ. The most one could hope for would be the conclusion that it is probable that the Christian doctrines are true, but if a person were to believe such doctrines only to the degree they seemed likely to be true, he or she would not be genuinely religious at all. Faith consists in a subjective relation of absolute commitment to these doctrines.
No such evidence could ever be enough to pragmatically justify the kind of total commitment involved in true religious faith or even romantic love. Faith involves making that commitment anyway. To have faith is at the same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt one's beliefs about God; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought involved in weighing evidence, without which the faith would have no real substance. Someone who does not realize that Christian doctrine is inherently doubtful and that there can be no objective certainty about its truth does not have faith but is merely credulous.
This would all be fine and well, if it were truly the way Christianity operated or the way most Christians thought. Speak to the average self-proclaimed "true believer", and one would find overwhelming certainty, not doubt. Furthermore, based on such admittedly uncertain foundations, some very certain proclamations concerning morality and the nature of reality about us are pronounced. Surely you can see the flaw with this line of thought? For Kierkegaard, faith and religion only have value insofar as they are subjective and personal. He would not say that his morality is TRUE for everyone but only for those who have made the qualitative leap. Likewise, he would ridicule the so-called tom, dick, and harry christians who claim an authentic relation to god can be found by attending church every sunday and reading a few verses of the bible before bed everynight, for instance. I did not intend to post some danish philosophy from the 19th century and make god-fearers of you all. i merely wanted to show that there are relevant christian counter-arguments to Athiests. Basically, it is like this. Any christian who will "debate" you for any other purpose than to humor you... does not have authentic faith. Atheists have a real hang up with believers. It is almost pathological the way they have to disprove them. Don't you get it!? Religious types are not to be reasoned with...
This is exactly the problem. True believers, as your philosopher seems to define them, know they are being illogical; indeed, it is a necessary part of their faith. Unfortunately, our world is not one illogical leaps; even if it is not entirely deterministic, it is most certainly probabilistic. Viewing such a world through the teachings of religions (Christianity in this case) is like purposely wearing glasses with the wrong prescription.
|
On October 13 2009 14:04 omninmo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2009 13:59 Lemonwalrus wrote:
I don't view unwavering faith in something that you admit to be illogical as a good thing, and honestly I don't know why others do. Because we are not robots. Also, because truth contains contradiction. Romantic love is very illogical also. Idra desiring to be come a progamer in korea two years ago. That was illogical too.
romantic love isnt illogical, or at least it has its basis in logic. humans are social creatures because we have to be. a caveman wasnt gonna kill a lion one on one, so its in everybodys best interest to stick together. in the case of romantic love its even more direct. you want your kid to survive, to pass on your genetics, if you leave him alone with some bimbo hes probably gonna die. or, if you're the bimbo, if your kid is left alone with you hes probably gonna die. love is the result of that logical desire to stick together.
not that our behavior is entirely logical, at all, just thats not a good example of it. and truth does not necessarily contain contradiction. it may only appear so because we dont actually know the truth yet.
|
On October 13 2009 14:07 Lemonwalrus wrote:Romantic love is not illogical, it is evolutionarily useful to the protection of the species. And IdrA had his meals/housing handled by a company while doing the thing that he loved and getting a small chance at becoming pretty darn famous in the gaming community, of which he is a member...what part of that is illogical? Edit: I'm also going to venture a guess that getting laid for being good at starcraft is far more likely in Korea than it is in the U.S., so definitely not illogical.
Romantic love protects the species? That's sweet. I will refrain from commenting on the absurdity of the term "evolutionarily useful" (even though i just commented by calling it absurd).
Also,I said the desire of Idra to become a progamer was, at the time, illogical. Moving to korea to get paid and to play after the oppurtunity presents itself is fine.
K, you get one more flame-rebuttal then it's over. It is clear that we probably have no common ground from your dogmatic terminology and failure to grasp the notion that most human desires and actions are "illogical". let's not hog the flame thrower spotlight.
|
I keep trying to debate with you in threads, and you are such a cock-bag about it.
How is 'evolutionarily useful' an absurd term? It is a slightly poorly worded way of saying positively selected...you are so unbelievably dense.
Anyone that disagrees with you is 'dogmatic terminology this' and 'failure to grasp that'.
I haven't flamed you in the thread once before this post, but whatever, go on believing that your iron-logic can defeat all that challenge you, and that disagreeing with you is an admission of being wrong.
|
On October 13 2009 14:23 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2009 14:04 omninmo wrote:On October 13 2009 13:59 Lemonwalrus wrote:
I don't view unwavering faith in something that you admit to be illogical as a good thing, and honestly I don't know why others do. Because we are not robots. Also, because truth contains contradiction. Romantic love is very illogical also. Idra desiring to be come a progamer in korea two years ago. That was illogical too. romantic love isnt illogical, or at least it has its basis in logic. humans are social creatures because we have to be. a caveman wasnt gonna kill a lion one on one, so its in everybodys best interest to stick together. in the case of romantic love its even more direct. you want your kid to survive, to pass on your genetics, if you leave him alone with some bimbo hes probably gonna die. or, if you're the bimbo, if your kid is left alone with you hes probably gonna die. love is the result of that logical desire to stick together. not that our behavior is entirely logical, at all, just thats not a good example of it. and truth does not necessarily contain contradiction. it may only appear so because we dont actually know the truth yet.
my friend, i think you are confusing romantic love with monogamy. I am talking about the infatuation that comes long before insemination and the eventual shitting out of the semen-egg-fusion creature.
monogamy has practical advantages in a condition of scarcity, yep. but there are polygamous cultures which also do very well for themselves in similar conditions. I wonder,on a scale of 1 to 10, how "evolutionarily useful" polygamy is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
