|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:14 pm
I always used to say I was athiest (and I am a firm pastafarian), and I still enjoy arguing about how religion is kind of silly, and arguing against the existence of god. However, I still say the lords prayer in our school assemblies, sing along with the hymns, and sometimes ask god for stuff. And duh, I celebrate christmas. So what should this be classed as? My father likes to think of his belief as lazy christianity: i.e. he believes in the morals but can't be arsed to spend any of his time worshipping god. To be honest, although I would say that I was atheist (I mean, come on... it just sounds so stupid...), I still have doubts and feel a little guilty when I say there's no such thing as a soul, or there is no heaven etc. I leave you with one of my favourite athiest quotes: Quote: If god is able to prevent evil, but not willing, then he is malevolent. If god is willing to prevent evil, but not able, then he is not omnipotent (therefore not god). If god is both able and willing, then whence cometh evil? And if god is neither able nor willing, then why call him god?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:12 am
iain7 I always used to say I was atheist (and I am a firm pastafarian), and I still enjoy arguing about how religion is kind of silly, and arguing against the existence of god. However, I still say the lords prayer in our school assemblies, sing along with the hymns, and sometimes ask god for stuff. And duh, I celebrate Christmas. So what should this be classed as? My father likes to think of his belief as lazy Christianity: i.e. he believes in the morals but can't be arsed to spend any of his time worshiping god. To be honest, although I would say that I was atheist (I mean, come on... it just sounds so stupid...), I still have doubts and feel a little guilty when I say there's no such thing as a soul, or there is no heaven etc. You are not unique in this regard (maybe a little by knowing pastafarianism) you are just another person in America who has been raised in a country that is based on Christian philosophy. Note the difference between religion and philosophy. As a philosophy, Christianity promotes good selfless actions over evil selfish ones, it has a dual system of morality in this sense, and it promotes a better well-being for its inhabitants as a whole. While most of this may seem obvious, this is not universal across the world nor for all religions. To love Christianic element only comes from once loving Christianity. Though I definitely feel your pain in this regard. After I stop believing in God, it used to hurt even writing this phrase and saying it out loud still irks me. But it is still something I feel to be true. Don't get me wrong; if I found out that there was a definite God with a definite plan I would cry for being so happy. But there isn't, and we must live in the world we have, rather than the one we might want. I think the reason why it still might bother us (or me in any case) is because that by saying there is no God, we are saying that there is no "safety net" to catch us should we fall; that there is no inherent "goodness" that we can rely upon. However, I feel this makes the human "soul" more noble because we have to do be good on our own cognizance and not because someone put goodness into us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 12:34 pm
whynaut iain7 I always used to say I was atheist (and I am a firm pastafarian), and I still enjoy arguing about how religion is kind of silly, and arguing against the existence of god. However, I still say the lords prayer in our school assemblies, sing along with the hymns, and sometimes ask god for stuff. And duh, I celebrate Christmas. So what should this be classed as? My father likes to think of his belief as lazy Christianity: i.e. he believes in the morals but can't be arsed to spend any of his time worshiping god. To be honest, although I would say that I was atheist (I mean, come on... it just sounds so stupid...), I still have doubts and feel a little guilty when I say there's no such thing as a soul, or there is no heaven etc. You are not unique in this regard (maybe a little by knowing pastafarianism) you are just another person in America who has been raised in a country that is based on Christian philosophy. Note the difference between religion and philosophy. As a philosophy, Christianity promotes good selfless actions over evil selfish ones, it has a dual system of morality in this sense, and it promotes a better well-being for its inhabitants as a whole. While most of this may seem obvious, this is not universal across the world nor for all religions. To love Christianic element only comes from once loving Christianity. Though I definitely feel your pain in this regard. After I stop believing in God, it used to hurt even writing this phrase and saying it out loud still irks me. But it is still something I feel to be true. Don't get me wrong; if I found out that there was a definite God with a definite plan I would cry for being so happy. But there isn't, and we must live in the world we have, rather than the one we might want. I think the reason why it still might bother us (or me in any case) is because that by saying there is no God, we are saying that there is no "safety net" to catch us should we fall; that there is no inherent "goodness" that we can rely upon. However, I feel this makes the human "soul" more noble because we have to do be good on our own cognizance and not because someone put goodness into us. This is an oddly disspasionate and very depressing outlook. It sounds almost painful to read, though very beautiful and artistic. I think the best piece of advice that can be offered to either of you is to be very careful what your "reasoning" leads you to. Just because you cannot prove something does not mean it does not exist...just because there are certain questions that do not have knowable answers does not mean there are no answers. And one last point, on your favorite Atheist quote: Quote: If god is able to prevent evil, but not willing, then he is malevolent. If god is willing to prevent evil, but not able, then he is not omnipotent (therefore not god). If god is both able and willing, then whence cometh evil? And if god is neither able nor willing, then why call him god? If God is able to prevent evil...but wise enough to know the consequences of doing so would he? I think not. If God is willing to prevent evil....and yet wise enough to know the consequences of a world without it would he do it? I think not. If God is both willing and able.....to prevent evil and yet wise enough to know that without it then there is no free will and thus humanity is not but drones and nothing more then pigs for the slaughter then....I suppose the wisest choice would be to allow this evil so that a greater good could surface itself....to know nothing but utopia is hardly to know good....it is only to live not to be "alive". If God is neither willing nor able....we would certainly have mistaken him for someone else. Not to mention it's question begging as to where we get the terms "good" and "evil" from in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 6:32 pm
Niniva whynaut iain7 I always used to say I was atheist (and I am a firm pastafarian), and I still enjoy arguing about how religion is kind of silly, and arguing against the existence of god. However, I still say the lords prayer in our school assemblies, sing along with the hymns, and sometimes ask god for stuff. And duh, I celebrate Christmas. So what should this be classed as? My father likes to think of his belief as lazy Christianity: i.e. he believes in the morals but can't be arsed to spend any of his time worshiping god. To be honest, although I would say that I was atheist (I mean, come on... it just sounds so stupid...), I still have doubts and feel a little guilty when I say there's no such thing as a soul, or there is no heaven etc. You are not unique in this regard (maybe a little by knowing pastafarianism) you are just another person in America who has been raised in a country that is based on Christian philosophy. Note the difference between religion and philosophy. As a philosophy, Christianity promotes good selfless actions over evil selfish ones, it has a dual system of morality in this sense, and it promotes a better well-being for its inhabitants as a whole. While most of this may seem obvious, this is not universal across the world nor for all religions. To love Christianic element only comes from once loving Christianity. Though I definitely feel your pain in this regard. After I stop believing in God, it used to hurt even writing this phrase and saying it out loud still irks me. But it is still something I feel to be true. Don't get me wrong; if I found out that there was a definite God with a definite plan I would cry for being so happy. But there isn't, and we must live in the world we have, rather than the one we might want. I think the reason why it still might bother us (or me in any case) is because that by saying there is no God, we are saying that there is no "safety net" to catch us should we fall; that there is no inherent "goodness" that we can rely upon. However, I feel this makes the human "soul" more noble because we have to do be good on our own cognizance and not because someone put goodness into us. This is an oddly disspasionate and very depressing outlook. It sounds almost painful to read, though very beautiful and artistic. I think the best piece of advice that can be offered to either of you is to be very careful what your "reasoning" leads you to. Just because you cannot prove something does not mean it does not exist...just because there are certain questions that do not have knowable answers does not mean there are no answers. And one last point, on your favorite Atheist quote: Quote: If god is able to prevent evil, but not willing, then he is malevolent. If god is willing to prevent evil, but not able, then he is not omnipotent (therefore not god). If god is both able and willing, then whence cometh evil? And if god is neither able nor willing, then why call him god? If God is able to prevent evil...but wise enough to know the consequences of doing so would he? I think not. If God is willing to prevent evil....and yet wise enough to know the consequences of a world without it would he do it? I think not. If God is both willing and able.....to prevent evil and yet wise enough to know that without it then there is no free will and thus humanity is not but drones and nothing more then pigs for the slaughter then....I suppose the wisest choice would be to allow this evil so that a greater good could surface itself....to know nothing but utopia is hardly to know good....it is only to live not to be "alive". If God is neither willing nor able....we would certainly have mistaken him for someone else. Not to mention it's question begging as to where we get the terms "good" and "evil" from in the first place. Always remember that atheists are always foolish to use their logic against the existence of God. Nimiva said that it is not possible to figure out if God exists or not. Quote: Quote: We would say that "I clearly cannot see GOD or even experience GOD or his existence, does that mean he doesn't exist? No. It does not." Would you call this FAITH? No, I'd call that logic. Is it not true that you are not entitled to claim God doesn't exist simply because you have had no experience of him? Logically it is true. What you have said above is logical.....the real troubling question comes when the question of "Yes but God is intrinsically a being your COULDN'T possibly EVER have any experience of....isn't that akin to mystic mentalities and not logical?" I don't know if it's not logical persay, but it is certainly much more troubling. Quote: So, what say you on this? The atheists rely on logic and reasoning. It is easier to say God does not exist but there is one more thing. How can we deny the existence of God if we do not intially acknowledge his presence? Therefore we will never know in this lifetime whether if he exists or not . What say I to this? I say that since God is a being that you could never possibly experience then logic can only show us what we are entitled to say about his existance, but since we couldn't ever possibly experience him then the logic works equally on both sides. So logically I am not entitled to say he does exist, but an atheist is also not at all entitled to claim that by simply using reason and logic God doesn't exist. So based solely on an impass an atheist is a fool for believing logic and reason are capable of allowing him to say God doesn't exist...but no more then a person of any sort of faith. To sum it all up. smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:52 am
Quote: Always remember that atheists are always foolish to use their logic against the existence of God. Nimiva said that it is not possible to figure out if God exists or not. That is because any logic used to defend the non-existance of God could just as well be used to defend His existance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:04 pm
Niniva Quote: Always remember that atheists are always foolish to use their logic against the existence of God. Nimiva said that it is not possible to figure out if God exists or not. That is because any logic used to defend the non-existance of God could just as well be used to defend His existance. Then allow me to put this another way. It is not that "know" that God does not exist, but I do not care if he does. God is a non-figure in my life. God's "existence" reveals itself in no way to me. If we were to hypothetically imagine a universe where God never existed, how would that universe be any different from the universe we are in now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:45 pm
whynaut Niniva Quote: Always remember that atheists are always foolish to use their logic against the existence of God. Nimiva said that it is not possible to figure out if God exists or not. That is because any logic used to defend the non-existance of God could just as well be used to defend His existance. Then allow me to put this another way. It is not that "know" that God does not exist, but I do not care if he does. God is a non-figure in my life. God's "existence" reveals itself in no way to me. If we were to hypothetically imagine a universe where God never existed, how would that universe be any different from the universe we are in now? That depends on who you ask and how important God actually is to it's existance. It could be said....and logically supported....that God is a necessity to this universe therefore it is impossible to imagine a universe where he does not exist and you are simply imagining this one and claiming God doesn't exist there just like you are in this one. *shrugs* But, claiming you don't care one way or the other doesn't make you an Aeitheist it makes you a theological Nihlist. There is a large difference between claiming that God doesn't exist and saying you don't care that he does or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:18 am
Niniva That depends on who you ask and how important God actually is to it's existence. It could be said....and logically supported....that God is a necessity to this universe therefore it is impossible to imagine a universe where he does not exist and you are simply imagining this one and claiming God doesn't exist there just like you are in this one. *shrugs* But, claiming you don't care one way or the other doesn't make you an Atheist it makes you a theological Nihilist. There is a large difference between claiming that God doesn't exist and saying you don't care that he does or not. Perhaps you are right and this does not make me a true atheist (whatever that means). But going back to existentialism I need to experience some kind of existence before I can even consider that something is real or not. I do not believe in God because I see no manifestation of his existence at all. Does this mean God does not exists? No, of course not. But by this logic it really leaves the door open for anything to be true. I cannot disprove invisible pink unicorns, or ninja platypuses that hide outside our scope of vision, heck, I cannot even prove/disprove the existence of Yersinia pestis because I have never experienced the Plague before or known anyone who has. My claim is that if something affects me in no way, then I do not have to react as if it does. Even if the Black Plague was real (and it probably is), I do not need to burn rats and scrub myself every two seconds and act as if it threat because it does not and has never affected me (though if it does, I'll be the first one to light the rat torches). Likewise, I do not need to go to church or believe in a god because that does not affect me either. Anything I prescribed to a God (omnipotence, all "goodness", etc.) could only be construed as wishful thinking at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:18 am
whynaut Niniva That depends on who you ask and how important God actually is to it's existence. It could be said....and logically supported....that God is a necessity to this universe therefore it is impossible to imagine a universe where he does not exist and you are simply imagining this one and claiming God doesn't exist there just like you are in this one. *shrugs* But, claiming you don't care one way or the other doesn't make you an Atheist it makes you a theological Nihilist. There is a large difference between claiming that God doesn't exist and saying you don't care that he does or not. Perhaps you are right and this does not make me a true atheist (whatever that means). But going back to existentialism I need to experience some kind of existence before I can even consider that something is real or not. I do not believe in God because I see no manifestation of his existence at all. Does this mean God does not exists? No, of course not. But by this logic it really leaves the door open for anything to be true. I cannot disprove invisible pink unicorns, or ninja platypuses that hide outside our scope of vision, heck, I cannot even prove/disprove the existence of Yersinia pestis because I have never experienced the Plague before or known anyone who has. My claim is that if something affects me in no way, then I do not have to react as if it does. Even if the Black Plague was real (and it probably is), I do not need to burn rats and scrub myself every two seconds and act as if it threat because it does not and has never affected me (though if it does, I'll be the first one to light the rat torches). Likewise, I do not need to go to church or believe in a god because that does not affect me either. Anything I prescribed to a God (omnipotence, all "goodness", etc.) could only be construed as wishful thinking at this point. I see an understand your point. Though there are other reasons that are non-philosophical why people have faith in God, perhaps they are psychological or perhaps there is something just plainly different about it, but the Truth of the matter (note the capital T) simply cannot be proven by conventional cognative or metaphysical means. It may in fact be the case, but that does not mean it can be absolutely proven to be the case. It is outside of the realm of Philosophy. To use philosophy as some form of proof for why you should/should not have faith in God is a mistake. Theology and Philosophy, while useful to each other, do not determine one another (nor should they) thus it is possible that there is quite literally real things out there that we can say nothing meaningful about. Does that mean we should then, therefore, dissreguard their existance entirely as though they don't matter? I'm no so sure, you choose your own path.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
