Universe - Life - Purpose - Existence?
- Thread starter aphexcoil
- Start date
"wacky".
and you're normal??
i am whacked in the head.
so am i.
LOL
It is interesting how someone can deduce something from absolutely nothing.
I did not say I am an atheist.
I did not say I am a believer.
I basically said I am logical. I go with the facts.
And when I do not know something, I do not pretend that I do. I come out and say I do not know.
That is the mark of an intelligent person.
Some things there is just no answer for.
Stupidity is one of them.
I did not say I am an atheist.
I did not say I am a believer.
I basically said I am logical. I go with the facts.
And when I do not know something, I do not pretend that I do. I come out and say I do not know.
That is the mark of an intelligent person.
Some things there is just no answer for.
Stupidity is one of them.
Hi darkhorse,
Please excuse my jumping in on your response to Gordon, he does enough of a good job rebutting your pros, but there are a couple of things I would say.
I am rather surprised to hear you say that God's existence is now only primarily a philosophical thing. I always understood the theist purported God's existence as TheTruth..When did this change. It is no longer such ?
Faith has value but is opinion only. Faith in itself is closed, it allows no tolerance or knowledge for truth unless it can be examined for mistakes.
The human experience however requires that a faith or a belief resident in an idea or thought should be scrutinized and examined before relying on it as conclusive or as a conviction. Not to do so renders the theist prerogative for the existence of God put forward as fact, into basic assertion.
An argument based only on intuitive understanding is equally relevant on both its sides for and against... but it is essential to disprove one side or the other by alternative argument based on definition.
Anything else leaves the theist in a black void of blind faith. Such a state is akin to switching off the human mechanism of thought enquiry and knowledge. It denies unique existence.
If you hold the intuitive belief that there is a God then you should argue to establish there is a God, it's not for someone else to show there isn't. If I were to state -There is no God- then I must define my stance for it to be argued from. If you hold your argument as only a philosophical and / or intuitive one, then religious arument is akin to music. It's an art form. Some still like Run DMC, some don't. That is not a faith per se, it is simply a preference and has no other overreaching associations.
I notice you still like to slip into the classical authoritative assumption darkhorse. The contradictions are still there. On one hand you say...
The idea that religious faith is gained by "doing it right" is like a Bishop standing on the edge of a cliff encouraging people to jump, watching them perish and saying "oops you didn't do it right....next....oops.". The Bishop pronounces he did it right though .......yeah like right ...you can rely on his understanding of right ok !
It's the old con trick which declares 'there are only a few of us who know about this......'.
Please excuse my jumping in on your response to Gordon, he does enough of a good job rebutting your pros, but there are a couple of things I would say.
I am rather surprised to hear you say that God's existence is now only primarily a philosophical thing. I always understood the theist purported God's existence as TheTruth..When did this change. It is no longer such ?
I don't want to be antagonistic (honestly) but you giving Gordon lessons on religious fanaticism after your concluding post in another thread is laughable.
To use the intuitive argument technique after all your contemplations is in my view disappointing to say the least. I was hoping to see a more interesting approach, nevertheless I am glad you are now able to post again.
Faith has value but is opinion only. Faith in itself is closed, it allows no tolerance or knowledge for truth unless it can be examined for mistakes.
The human experience however requires that a faith or a belief resident in an idea or thought should be scrutinized and examined before relying on it as conclusive or as a conviction. Not to do so renders the theist prerogative for the existence of God put forward as fact, into basic assertion.
An argument based only on intuitive understanding is equally relevant on both its sides for and against... but it is essential to disprove one side or the other by alternative argument based on definition.
Anything else leaves the theist in a black void of blind faith. Such a state is akin to switching off the human mechanism of thought enquiry and knowledge. It denies unique existence.
If you hold the intuitive belief that there is a God then you should argue to establish there is a God, it's not for someone else to show there isn't. If I were to state -There is no God- then I must define my stance for it to be argued from. If you hold your argument as only a philosophical and / or intuitive one, then religious arument is akin to music. It's an art form. Some still like Run DMC, some don't. That is not a faith per se, it is simply a preference and has no other overreaching associations.
I notice you still like to slip into the classical authoritative assumption darkhorse. The contradictions are still there. On one hand you say...
I wonder then if that's the case, why make the determined conclusion that....
From the unpin able down-ness of metaphysics you determine God exists and further, he has no need to let anyone know. You sure need blind faith to reach for that.
The idea that religious faith is gained by "doing it right" is like a Bishop standing on the edge of a cliff encouraging people to jump, watching them perish and saying "oops you didn't do it right....next....oops.". The Bishop pronounces he did it right though .......yeah like right ...you can rely on his understanding of right ok !
It's the old con trick which declares 'there are only a few of us who know about this......'.
Blind faith is a term coined and used by those who cannot see the value of genuine faith.
Blindly "following" others, without any personal experience is a different matter, and I think that is what Gordon is referring to.
The real Saints who lived/live on this earth to help souls reach God, always spoke/speak of following God, not following man. They spoke/speak of a direct personal relationship between man and God, not between man and a religious body. Just you and your God is the path they suggest.
That they say the real path of knowing God is in the practicing faith in him directly, that is much different that a path of blind faith, in which the blind follow the blind leaders who have not truly found God, but are locked into their own dogmatic religions.
There is nothing whatsoever dogmatic about having a personal relationship with God, nor is blind faith the path.
The path is open eyed faith, seeing with faith, feeling with faith, and living in faith.
Can someone provide proof of what gravity is?
Not a description of its characteristics or what it does but actual scientific proof of what it is, no theories please.
What is the difference of faith in a scientific THEORY and/or in a religious theory? Are there two types of faith?
I never knew the backside of a $100 bill was better or worse than the frontside.
Not a description of its characteristics or what it does but actual scientific proof of what it is, no theories please.
What is the difference of faith in a scientific THEORY and/or in a religious theory? Are there two types of faith?
I never knew the backside of a $100 bill was better or worse than the frontside.
I was simply going by your own comments. Let's progress through your comments.
First you claim total ignorance. Again note that "I do not know," your first offering, is a completely different answer than "no reason at all." Let's watch as you shift from the first stance to the second:
Here you take a giant step closer to the basic position of atheism (and apparently on emotional grounds, as the reason for such is bad things happening to you?)
Then to slam the door, you clearly articulate that you believe there is no purpose and no plan to life. While you did not say this in the form of a direct statement, you might as well have. Your statement is clear enough in demonstrating that you think there is no plan/purpose. (Or are you psycho with fear right now?)
And last but not least, you seal the deal by moving from a position of uncertainty to a position of certainty in your outlook on the matter. You say you "accept things as is," which logically suggests you have beliefs/opinions in regards to how things are, which is incompatible with "I don't know."
By saying that you do not claim wishes on reality ("not as I wish it would be"), you insinuate that theists do claim wishes on reality (the first of many veiled insults).
You make an appeal to the logic of Mr. Spock and make the meaningless statement "reality is your religion" (which I find amusing, considering that your position seems to be largely based on emotional grounds, again looking at your own statements "so many bad things happened in my life.... psycho with fear.")
So, while you may never have said, "I declare myself such and such case closed," you spoke far more clearly than you realize. You came in proclaiming ignorance (based on your statements) then basically proclaimed atheism (again based on your statements). You even threw in some thinly veiled belittlements to boot.
Your words are your words. So, contrary to your opinion, I did not deduce "something from nothing," regardless of where or how you wish to apply the phrase.
You came out saying I don't know, and then progressed to demonstrate your opinion of what you think you know. This is why I said I had more respect for atheists who back their play straight out without hedging their bets or playing games.
George Soros has a saying that goes something like this: when someone starts telling you how honest they are, put your hand on your wallet. Let's replace "honest" with "logical" here. I'm not sure why you need to assert to me or anyone else that you are "logical" and that you "go with the facts." If your position is logical, or if your mind is logical in general, then it will show up in the continuity and structure of your positions. If not, then it won't. Either way, declaring yourself logical is a waste of time and a little suspect. If you really were logical, there is a high probability you would realize that the proof is in the pudding and that there is no need for you to declare such.
Unless, of course you are making such statement as an insinuated insult, suggesting that your opponents are not logical? If this is the case, then you are disingenuous. It probably is, as you have developed a pattern of hidden barbs.
Quote from bobcathy1:
That is the mark of an intelligent person.
Some things there is just no answer for.
Stupidity is one of them.
LOL
Right on schedule. Do you realize how low brow and immature it is to resort to thinly veiled namecalling? Why not just call me doodyhead or poopypants? Grade school insults degrade the deliverer, not the recipient.
My husband was right. I should not have replied to this thread.
It would turn into a religious debate.
Right now if I had "faith".....would I be able to make sense of why my husband is sick with a bad heart and has bladder cancer that spread to his lung? Would I make sense of why I am crippled with arthritis in my spine? Would it help me to think there is a divine plan to my personal suffering?
No, it would make me incredibly pissed off and angry.
I despise religion.
It would turn into a religious debate.
Right now if I had "faith".....would I be able to make sense of why my husband is sick with a bad heart and has bladder cancer that spread to his lung? Would I make sense of why I am crippled with arthritis in my spine? Would it help me to think there is a divine plan to my personal suffering?
No, it would make me incredibly pissed off and angry.
I despise religion.
i know what you mean. they always act as though they are the enlightened and are privy to something special that you the unfortunate are not.