Before I'd ever become a part of a certain religion or faith, a definition of God needs to be proven and explained to me. The way I see it, religions convey the rules of "their God" through (most often) a certain prophet, but what or who God really is happens to always be explained vaguely, especially through doctrine.
By knowing this, for me to have a certain faith would be absurd, but at the same time, atheism is equally (if not more) absurd to me.
That depends... atheism at its core is purely rational - nontheism. Indeed atheism has a broader term where you'd include what some like to call it active/passive atheism or strong/weak atheism, which is when atheism can start becoming equally irrational as any religion (which is what many leading atheists dislike and fight against... which is also why people have advocated nontheism).
But there is nothing absurd by atheism as it should be; nontheism; the lack of a belief in the supernatural. You just don't believe, because there is no empirical evidence - no scientific data - saying there is a deity or supernatual force of any sort. It's completely rational... _________________
Im half an half
My mum is a protestant and my biological dad is a catholic!
I went to a catholic primary school and now I go to a protestant school!
I don't mind what religion people are! _________________
Im half an half
My mum is a protestant and my biological dad is a catholic!
I went to a catholic primary school and now I go to a protestant school!
I don't mind what religion people are! _________________
^Nontheism is more like the category that includes atheism, agnosticism, etc. But atheism itself denies the so-called existence of God because there's no scientific, or like you said, empirical proof. However, there's no scientific nor empirical proof that backs up the claim of that precise nonexistence either, at least not directly.
So on one side of the scale there's theism, atheism is on the other. Those sides represent the "yes" and "no" answers to the question "Does God exist?," and the answers are said by believers of both sides to be answers that they're certain of. The reason I see this approach as absurd is because that exact question shouldn't even be asked, not to mention the lack of substantial proof/reasoning behind both answers.
The ultimate point to this is that we can't even be certain of what the thing we call God really is.
Is it a person; an almighty individual that sits on the heavenly throne?
Is it the thing we call the universe?
Is God a reflection of the human race, or vice versa?
First, the definition of God.
Then the choice of perception of God, a.k.a. religion, later.
I define (and i'd like to say i'm greatly influenced by Kant on this) God as the necessary foundation of moral, the principle of truth. Sure you might say "there is no necessity in morality itself", but i think myself being concious of my own existence is empirical proof that there needs to be an absolute moral principle that would recognize my self-guaranteed dignity. _________________ fut fut fut freestylo!
^Nontheism is more like the category that includes atheism, agnosticism, etc. But atheism itself denies the so-called existence of God because there's no scientific, or like you said, empirical proof. However, there's no scientific nor empirical proof that backs up the claim of that precise nonexistence either, at least not directly.
Lemme say first, just so my lack of ability to explain myself as I go doesn't hurt my argument, that I argue from the stance that an atheist/nontheist is (or should be) a person that "lack a belief in the supernatural" - the supernatural would include a deity of both a theistic or deistic kind... This is perfectly inside the boundries of what atheism is at its core...
Now, what does a lack of belief mean? You have nothing to base a belief on... all the evidence all around you does not in any way point to there being a deity, therefor you cannot have a belief in a deity. There is nothing there, so why raise the question? What is there to answer? We should let our discoveries guide us, not our fantasies. No evidence means you should treat it as a non-existance. _All_ our current evidence points in the opposite direction, so you can rightfully strongly doubt the existance of a deity (as according to the practice of science - you are never 100% absolutist about anything, cause you have to be open for competing arguments, which is why we have Popper's assertion of a theory only being scientific if it's falsifiable) and treat it as a non-existance (just as I assume you do with Odin, Thor, Ra, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc). This is perfectly rational.
On the issue of there not being direct evidence to prove god's non-existance. Lemme give you an example: "There is a giant invisible behemoth not detectable by humans that floats above your head right now" --- Can you give me empirical evidence to prove this beast's non-existance?
But I know exactly what you mean, and I came from the same position. Now I have my ""Dawkinean" atheistic take on apatheism" where you are apathic to the question "is there a god or not?"; You have never asked the question and you don't understand why it should be asked, hence you ignore the question and won't care about what people say about it, because bottom line is: you live as an atheist because you are strictly guided by scientific discoveries and you're an apatheist because you couldn't care less about what other people say about the supernatural. You lead your life as though there is nothing there, cause that's all we know right now.
baov - Didn't Kant argue for a moral law not backed by divinity, but reason? (by reading you again, I now get the impression you ment in that context that God is just that; the principle of truth, and not a supernatural diety? Hehehe) _________________
Well, isn't the principle of truth, and not just factual truth, supernatural? If something is hypothetically true, then it remains right even without any natural manifestation. It is true whether you are there to acknoledge it or not. Morality isn't empirically verifiable through experience so discoveries and science will never tell me how to live the "right" way. _________________ fut fut fut freestylo!
I guess it's the same as the question on "What is love?" You could always give the scientific explanation of what happens inside your body when you feel the sensation of love, yet it still doesn't explain why. I guess the same is with morality and what is "right". You can explain what happens inside your brain (they have, for instance, through lab testing found that a mouse would starve itself to death rather than seeing his fellow mouse being electrocuted whenever he [first mentioned mouse] took a bite of food. This is just one weird example though), but it fails to explain why in the first place. Hehehe. Perhaps I'm actually missing the point totally here, cause this is honestly something I haven't spent much time diving into --- which is why I'll safely step aside of this specific discussion
But one can use evolutionary theory to argue how and why though, allthough I've only heard people (like Dawkins) coming up with a plausible argument in that way - I could never get it right and try to retell it though, so again; I step aside. Hehehe. _________________
I'm with you on evolution, take it all the way and as far as you can. I like to destroy people's missconceptions of love or sacrifice with evolutive explanations. For example, in evolutive science, there is an equation called Hamilton's Law (or rule, or whatever it was called) that predicts altruistic behaviour at the expense of your own well being by taking into account how much the it will cost to the benefactor compared to what will be gained by his own gene pool represented in others, and altruistic behavior would happen if the balance is positive towards your own genes. For example, and this i quote J.B.S. Haldane, an evolutionary biologist that said "I would lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins".
However, i know i would do things that would not profit myself, my kins, humanity, or life in general, out of moral principles. I think a gain in biodiversity is a gain in something physical that has no absolute value, as the world could have been entirely different. But a gain in Truth, for it i would gladly do at the expense of biodiversity or any such things. And what would you call that? Religious fervor?
So yes, go as far as you can with evolution, or even reductionist determinism to try to explain human motives. I believe we are above it, and that, by the principle of truth... in the name of God. _________________ fut fut fut freestylo!
Добавлено: Чт Окт 30, 2008 12:08 am Заголовок сообщения:
We all have different morals though. Do we all have different Gods then? Through history we've changed morals. Why? Did God give us an update? _________________
Добавлено: Чт Окт 30, 2008 12:18 am Заголовок сообщения:
Morality is not relative, by definition. If we have different morality, it's because we derived it from experience, which is arbitrary. That's why we must discern very clearly between our evolutive drive and morality, and that's why i am all for a better understanding of evolution: it will tell us not what morality is, but what it is not.
Acting on principles derived from experience is acting by a "morality of happiness" as Kant called it, as i losely recall. And on that, i'll let him do the bashing, refer to "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals".
Oh, and before people accuses me of having hidden agendas, in good faith to show i have nothing to hide personaly, and to show my background, see where i'm coming from: others define me as catholic, i define myself as monotheist, and i think Jesus is a nice guy, but that's as much as i'm willing to say about it . _________________ fut fut fut freestylo!
I can´t take this seriously (this topic) - no offense intended
And as i voted the other option but i am not willing to tell what i believe in - i shall post no more in to this topic
But i am interested - if there is people who believes in Jesus does that person believe everything that is written in bible (about Jesus that is) _________________
^ Made by Eariel ^
It's true that Jesus cannot save
I'm rising from the grave
To put my double cross to shame
A poison rush, a heart attack
A white assassin painted black...
^ Some people obviously believe everything that's said about Jesus, both his divinity and existence. Others believe in him as a mere historical figure.
Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell.... Kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change.
Chimerical and empty being, your name alone has caused more blood to flow on the face of the earth than any political war ever will. Return to the nothingness from which the mad hope and ridiculous fright of men dared call you forth to their misfortune. You only appeared as a torment for the human race. What crimes would have been spared the world, if they had choked the first imbecile who thought of speaking of you.
Marquis de Sade _________________
^ Made by Eariel ^
It's true that Jesus cannot save
I'm rising from the grave
To put my double cross to shame
A poison rush, a heart attack
A white assassin painted black...
I always wondered if there was a topic like this. I'm a Christian.
[quote= авторитет] But i am interested - if there is people who believes in Jesus does that person believe everything that is written in bible (about Jesus that is) [/quote]
It's seemingly quite necessary to believe the majority, if not all of the book to believe in Jesus as Christ at least. But of course people choose how literally they want to take it. I'm not gonna lie, there's a few things I'm pretty Iffy about...but in general believe in it. I also went to an extremely relgious school growing up that I truly hated.
[/list][/quote] _________________ He was Off the wall, A thriller, freaking bada$$, Dangerous, Historical, and supposed to be invincible. He was Michael Jackson the Legend. And he still is. Forever.
I do find that interesting _________________
^ Made by Eariel ^
It's true that Jesus cannot save
I'm rising from the grave
To put my double cross to shame
A poison rush, a heart attack
A white assassin painted black...
You're very welcome If you have any further questions on this topic I could most likely give the "what most christians believe" answers. If you or anyone else is curious. I've been surounded by this stuff my whole life . _________________ He was Off the wall, A thriller, freaking bada$$, Dangerous, Historical, and supposed to be invincible. He was Michael Jackson the Legend. And he still is. Forever.
Вы не можете начинать темы Вы не можете отвечать на сообщения Вы не можете редактировать свои сообщения Вы не можете удалять свои сообщения Вы не можете голосовать в опросах
FAQ
Поиск
Пользователи
Группы
Регистрация
Профиль
Войти и проверить личные сообщения
Вход
If you have any further questions on this topic I could most likely give the "what most christians believe" answers. If you or anyone else is curious. I've been surounded by this stuff my whole life 