Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
Print Why only debate one? | |
|
180 Proof
kynic  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Apr 27, 2003 Location: reason's raggedy edge ... Total Topics: 108 Total Posts: 5931 |
 #21
@ dclements -- I think my previous posts sufficiently answer your questions which I assume are not merely rhetorical. the where of space? the when of time? the edge of an unbounded surface? the cause of causality? willing separate from acting? disembodied personality? symphony without orchestra? ideal reality? real concepts? 'higher truth' via contradiction? non-propositional truths? context-free questions? unconditional objects? maps which transcend their terrain? the truth of logic? facts indistinguishable from fictions? answering questions with mysteries? anthropomorphic unknowns? ... o_O only placebos require 'faith'. THINKING won't kill you, but it might make you stronger! |
|
xzJoel
Ennui Elucidator Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Aug 30, 2005 Location: New Jersey Total Topics: 46 Total Posts: 1625 |
#22
What is interesting to me is not just that it is often the "philosopher's god" that is debated, but that it is assumed that the philosopher's god is that of any particular religion. Judaism has many versions of god, some ancient, some new, but each of them articulably different than the others. Christianity, too, has had various views on god, though to a somewhat more limited extent because of the need for the reality of Jesus. People just find it easier to categorize and dispense with rather than understand and contend with. I suppose it seems more exciting to discuss a transcendent god then a mythic god, because in one case you get to argue logic and the other requires some knowledge of reality. It is far easier to show logical contradiction than to actually conclusively determine that the god of war that by his own hand struck down the egyptians does not exist or that some dragon didn't spit out all of existence with bellowing roar. The more you are required to know, the less fun it is to have casual conversation about. To be fair, why debate a petty god? If god can't be all powerful, then all we need do is invent a big enough gun to do away with god. If god isn't all good, why do we care what it has to say about morality? If god isn't all knowing, why should we trust that it provides us with truth during revelation? If you decide to define "god" as the "invisible friend on your shoulder that sings you to sleep at night even though no one else or nothing else can be affected by it", what relationship does it have to my life and why should I spend any time arguing about it? Find a god that makes demands of all the world and that judges each person for his/her failure to meet those demands, and you've found an interesting god worth arguing about. “If a person truly believes that God is good and that everything God does is good, that person can’t be sad. Sadness is actually a sign of atheism.” The Baal Shem Tov I must be the biggest atheist of them all. |
|
dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist  Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 26, 2004 Total Topics: 50 Total Posts: 1569 |
#23
180 Proof wrote: @ dclements -- I think my previous posts sufficiently answer your questions which I assume are not merely rhetorical. Well, if I make an slightly educated guess I'd say that you are not against non-transcendent gods, but I imagine that you think that believing in such gods is not that much different then believing in Santa Claus. I also believe that you are not upset at individual people that believe in God or gods in their own way, but instead you are against organized religions and churches that tell other people what they should do according to their beliefs in God. However if this is your position then your disagreement is about much about ethics then about whether God exists. But of course it is easier to try to undermine the belief God then try to argue against religious people try to influence others through ethical debate. But there are a few things you are over overlooking. Like the fact that the belief in God can not be dismissed by reason or alone. This is because although facts can support or dismiss aspects of the world around us, they can not tell us how or why we should live our lives. No matter how many facts we learn in our lives, there is always left unknown and not understood. Because of this we have to make a biased judgment call as to how to live our lives and can not be sure as to the choices we make are the right ones. The other problem to your position is that the more you argue against God, the less your arguments are about trying to convince people not to believe in God but more about that people should believe in God in the way you perceive him. The belief in God is a type of belief that can only be dismissed by not bothering with it. By arguing against other peoples beliefs you create your own beliefs as to what God is. No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti |
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.