Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Siquo]

If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.

Care to explain that?  At first glance it seems to say "I cannot comprehend it, therefore it must be true."

No, it means that if you Know, you don't have to Believe. But since you Cannot Know, you must Believe.

That's an asinine statement that since you cannot know that you MUST believe... if you "Cannot know" all you "Can" is believe.  But in no way do I think you "Must" believe.

Wisdom should be taken in context: He lived in the 19th century in Denmark. Not believing in God was inconceivable for most people. The original term "atheist" meant that you simply believed in a different God than the one calling you atheist. So you could replace "God" in the quote with "Reality", or anything else.



Also: I'm also a unicorn (100 pages back, and I've still not been proven not to be one), and WE TYPE WITH OUR HORNS.
Like, duh.

@Urist: That xkcd strip is somewhere earlier in the topic as well
And you presume the "creator" lives inside a timeline and must have a beginning and an end. If it doesn't, problem solved. What he did, theories vary. In some he ejaculated, in others he sneezed, in others he consciously created, in others he merely shifted himself the tiniest of distance, and isn't even aware that he created us.

[RAM]

And you presume that the big bang, infinite series, turtle upon which the other turtle is standing, or whatever else is the source of existence. If you can break causality then you don't need an explanation for its flaws, if you cannot break causality then any creator is equally subject to it.
 Besides, the answer to 'where does everything come from?' is quite simply, and irritatingly 'it just is!'. There is, by definition, 1, single, all encompassing scenario. It is impossible for there to be anything beyond it, if there was, then it would automatically be a part of it. The simple fact is that there has to be something, even if that something is a complete lack of any existence of any kind, there has to be something. It turns out that what there is, is what we have, there really isn't any alternative...

[Muz]

I like to think that God (if real) is a really bored man, in an infinite desert, stimulating our universe by iterating the code over an infinite string of rocks...

But in all seriousness, a Creator does not solve the problem of primary cause. After all, what came before God? Ands what was God standing on when he pushed the plunger on the ACME Big Bang universal TNT?

If something came before God, we wouldn't know... hell, why have a hard enough time figuring out whether or not God exists. It's like when we control these puny little dwarves in DF; they have no idea what created us. Those dwarves may not even know of our existence, and they'd certainly not know what created us. Just in the same way, we can't truly know how we're created, whether by accident or intelligent design.

It is said that man was created as an image of God. If so, does this explain why we have the urge to create life of our own?

[Vester]

Biological imperative.

[RAM]

P.S.
 Unicorns hang out in woodlands being secretive symbols of nature and freedom, they wouldn't be able to tolerate a computer long enough to learn how to use one, nor would they risk being discovered by establishing a connection to the internet, therefore you cannot possibly be a unicorn.

[Siquo]

How the hell would you know where we like to hang out?

[Ampersand]

Wisdom should be taken in context: He lived in the 19th century in Denmark. Not believing in God was inconceivable for most people. The original term "atheist" meant that you simply believed in a different God than the one calling you atheist.

Everything you say makes me want to beat my head against a wall. You really think the Nineteenth Century, the century which saw the concept of State Atheism born out of the philosophy of Karl Marx and Fredrick Nietzsche claiming that Christianity was Nihilism, was so far in the past the idea of not believing in god was Inconceivable?

This after the French Revolution in 1790, in which the atheistic Cult of Reason was briefly coursing through the streets of Paris ransacking churches. This is after the Publication of The System of Nature in 1770.

[Siquo]

Kierkegaard pre-dates Nietzsche, and died when Nietzsche was 11 yrs old. Of course there are examples of real atheism, even as far back as the ancient Greeks, I'm just saying what the general consensus was of that time (and in a lot of places still is), which is the historical context in which texts from that time need to be placed.

So by all means, beat your head against a wall.

Also, to take an example of yours: "The Cult of Reason centered upon a young woman designated the Goddess of Reason." and "... instead advocated the worship of Reason, personified as a goddess."
Even those atheists found it inconceivable to believe in no God at all.

And even then you're taking just a small part of an explanation of a text and go on a tangent which is totally irrelevant to the original text. Which is the theme of this thread, I know, but still you might want to loosen up a bit. And stop spouting infactual statements (like the stuff about QM before).

[RAM]

How the hell would you know where we like to hang out?

Because you are unicorns, it says so in your description!

[Ampersand]

The invention of the goddess of Reason was literally done at the by committee after the cult was already in existence, but you're missing the point.

The idea that that it was inconceivable for most people to think that there was no God in the 19th century is absurd. While the state institutions might have been extremely unshifting on the matter, the fact that the people were more willing to conceive of the possibility of there not being a god, and indeed accepting it, is a requirement of understanding of the rise of international Communism.

Spouting infactual statements? Don't bring up wave particle duality again. You're still wrong on that.

[silverskull39]

if there is a god, he must enjoy watching us fight very much; he made us do it so often.

[Siquo]

If there is a God, please show Ampersand some wisdom.

[Andir]

Also, to take an example of yours: "The Cult of Reason centered upon a young woman designated the Goddess of Reason." and "... instead advocated the worship of Reason, personified as a goddess."
Even those atheists found it inconceivable to believe in no God at all.

I don't agree... The Goddess of Reason could be the equivalent of the modern day Flying Spaghetti Monster.  I think of it as a mockery rather than an alternative.  I think you give people of the time less credit (in their understanding) than they deserve.  The quote you listed earlier from Kierkegaard just sounds like some of the statements in the last page from people who believe.  They can't think of a universe without a creator, so therefore everyone must (at some point) accept the "illogical" acceptance that one must exist.  Which Is what I said is asinine.  The idea that you MUST accept their answers when your's can't be proven.

[silverskull39]

be fair. I never said you had to accept the illogical answer. I just said you wouldn't have a logical one. Not the same thing.

Edit: also, in that situation (your idea can't be proven, the other side must be right) you're in the same boat most religious people find themselves in; "God can't be proven, so science must be right"

[Siquo]

Which Is what I said is asinine.  The idea that you MUST accept their answers when your's can't be proven.

What nonsense. Nobody here ever said that.


Well, except for some atheists as silverskull pointed out.