Death Note is an OK anime. If I feel like paying for Netflix I might finish it since it looked short last time I checked.
Would all the text in this thread fit into an Emerson essay on Unitarianism and his idea of Jesus's enlightenment, which would get Catholic shorts in a knot to even read and disagree with? It'd probably be less than a couple of pages of a real book like that and people are still spending so much time here.
I'm here to shove real philosophy and religion books down everyone's thoreauts.
I truly do understand your thoughts and feeling. God didn't expect people to love him just because he created them. He truly does have good intentions for us. If he didn't, he would not grant us free will and make us in his own image. He wouldn't send Jesus Christ in the flesh just to die by his own creations. There was absolutely no reason to do that other than to show that he knows life is hard (He is omniscient), but he has given you a role model that went through harsh tribulations and exposed to the same temptations we all go through even though he didn't have to. "We love him because he first loved us"-1 John 4:19. A lot of people talk about the "harshness" of God's punishments in the Old Testaments without understanding the reasons or the context for the punishments. Without realizing we are human beings meaning we are not omniscient, so there may be good deeds in which we don't realize that they are good. I understand how you feel about being mistrustful of other people's preachings. Even though I am Christian myself, I find myself arguing with people who claim to be my spiritual authority. However, you must realize your most important spiritual authority is God and you have to know him for yourself.
Being a Christian doesn't mean being a slave to religion and its institutions. It means being in a personal relation with God, who loves you unconditional whether you are Christian or not. If I have a child, and he announced himself as an atheist, I would still love him. Sure I would be sad, but I wouldn't want to make him sad. Instead I would shower him with love and preach to him, but not to the point of shoving done Christianity down his throat. The bible tells us precisely not to do this.
Like I said, I'm way beyond whatever religion preaches. I don't believe in having a moral authority that guides me. It's insulting to me to think of myself that way. I'm way more prideful for that. So yeah.
Thanks for your sharing your thoughts though.
I preach no religion. The robotic practices of being in religion get in the way of having authentic relationship with God.
We all have pride to some degree, but don’t let it be the deciding factor in your life. That goes for Christians and non Christians alike.
How to have an authentic relationship with God: dwell in the basement with an unwashed anime T-shirt, armpits full of crumbs, and sticky hands so no one will come near your relationship with God.
The leg work was worth it because you are a fool masked as a pragmatist.
I also love how you are still trying to preach/debate when I said I don't care about god. It makes your words look empty. I'm already feeling sorry for your kid. Haha. I'm hoping you are still young though and you will get over yourself eventually.
@Investigator, rationalism isn't philosophical skepticism and as Subteigh hasn't once endorsed or even mentioned Descartes I don't think he's a philosophical rationalist either. When I say skeptic I mean scientific skepticism, not epistemological skepticism.
I agree that the "principle of sufficient reason" exists within Nature, but that is a redundant and convoluted notion that only allows itself to be used by those who wish to "prove" that Nature has a cause. If you have an isolated system such as the Universe/Nature, you have something that be could be described absolutely by an observer (i.e. determining the laws of nature), and thus every cause and effect within it. But such an observer could not then say that Nature also has a cause, given that they could not make such an observation.
I would say an axiom of science is that it must be based on observation, not supposition. You may disagree with that axiom, but it should be self-evident that if there is such a thing as knowledge about the phenomenal world, it must come from observation and not supposition.
Despite my view that causality exists in Nature, I am aware of the theory that the universe is holographic and that time is merely an illusion. Thus it may be better to say I find the idea of causality useful for describing Nature, even if it may not be correct (it may not be falsifiable either).
I think 1. time exists 2. some things have causes and some things don't. 3. while we're on it, event-causal libertarian free will is a dumb idea, and libertarianism in general is dumb since there are at least occasionally optimistic deterministic cases where you have to do what you want to do.
I have good reason to believe non-deterministic free will, deterministic free will, and determinism overriding will, and the not-often-discussed non-determinism overriding free will all occur, but no one here seems able to discuss that except maybe Subteigh, Grendel, and sbbds so that would be pointless.
For one, if I can't choose whether I want my personal will to be aligned with determinism or not, can it be free?
Wilhelm Meister's Post-Punk Years
This whole argument revolves around so many issues defining causality and determinism. Aristotle for example considered teleology a cause but most of this argument has revolved around efficient causes being the definition of causes. Arguing God is the primary cause in an Aristotelian sense is very different metaphysically than arguing God is playing invisible billiards with the Universe. Einstein said God doesn't play dice with the Universe, and I'm going to argue God doesn't play billiards with the Universe either.
Wow, it's almost like people who sit around pressing buttons on a computer keyboard or video game controller and arguing with people all day imagine some guy called God is off doing the same thing.
You might be able to make a "leap of faith" and it may well work out well for you, but it was just that, a leap of faith. By the way, I read a fictional story recently that basically has this very question as its plot. Guess the author and story and I'll be quite surprised .
A humble request from me: Read the Book of Job beginning to end, then come back to me with your thoughts. I am most curious.
coeruleum. I mean, I'm already living rent-free in your head with minimal effort. Surely ye can do better than this, at least measure up to being a tenth of an Arian or Cathar .
I read a different version of this story ages ago. Google is stalking me making it a Catholic newspaper's version. Many years ago I low-key admired Catholics for being seemingly rational between this and all the philosophy articles on First Things, which changed when I met actual Catholics. I'm guessing it's an America problem based on what I've heard about Catholics elsewhere.
Meet the atheist scientist who believes in miracles
This is not the one I read, since it didn't have any pictures and described the interesting process of verifying miracles by a jury of experts more.
New York Times opinion piece, for subscribers
This one cardiologist seems to have written a book on this. I'm curious and I'll have to read it.
Investigator, the only poster who used the phrase "The robotic practices of being in religion get in the way of having authentic relationship with God," but whatever floats your Kierkegaardian boat which probably doesn't float because you have to use your faith and leap.
I am not sure if I should keep posting, because with each passing post that you two make, I wonder if you understand the conclusions of your own reason. The reason I wonder this is because you always come after the most airtight points in my rational when I wait to rebut the less airtight points. I sit back and ask myself "what are you doing?"
I'm using a technical term with more precision than you. Scientific skepticism means not believing in testable empirical claims that haven't been tested using the scientific method. A god running around fighting chariots and parting the Red Sea is an empirical claim. A deist god or a god that's synonymous with everything, nothing, love, wisdom, or some kind of abstraction or even a concrete object or person is an ontological claim and can be argued for or against rationally. Scientific skepticism is not radical skepticism by definition since the scientific method is a form of knowledge. Ironically the only person I've met who denied the possibility of knowledge was a Christian who said I would have to be omniscient to know anything with certainty, so I can't know anything at all, only God can, which itself still isn't quite complete skepticism since they know only God can know things and God is omniscient, just not empirical facts or other logical facts. Then they went on to conflate deconstruction with postmodernism and Sartrean bad faith with bad forms of Kierkegaardian faith.Originally Posted by Skepticism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And complaining about my purported lack of precision in use of terms while begging to misquote Subteigh is having your sloppy irrational cake and eating it too.
If you're the person in this video: come back once you actually read a book. The Internet, as a textual medium, happens to be full of people who have, so you can't get away with "My level 4 Kierkegaardian cleric smites your level 3 troll warlock!" just because 16t doesn't feel real to you and you know no philosophers, especially when we're not troll warlocks and D&D spells don't work in forms of real life such as real debates.
Also, I wouldn't ever go quoting "Wikipedia" as a definitive source given how it can both literally be edited by anyone and the real shot callers over there have a... "bias" shall we say. It's in you and your kind's favor yeah, but still, don't expect anyone with a truly critical mindset to take it all that seriously. It can point you in a good direction perhaps, but in and of itself it's shit as any form of appeal to authority. I know you can do better than that, prove me right!
Finally, a question I just thought to ask. How old are you? This may be quite relevant. You know me, always working on several theories and datasets at a time. Your datapoint now interests me greatly, I have a hunch, wondering if you'll prove it correct .
Last edited by End; 11-05-2019 at 07:17 AM.
2. Your whole argument has been one appeal to authority after another. Would you like me to extensively define the different forms of skepticism for you since you can't click Wikipedia footnotes and read the original sources? And seriously, I don't agree with their obnoxious Richard Dawkins bias on these kinds of articles that's literally created by an organized group of losers with no concern for truth either, but would would you doubt anything written on Wikipedia just because it's on Wikipedia? One might call you... skeptical of Wikipedia.
Those who know, do. Those who can't, teach.
A leap of faith has absolutely nothing to do with it. I cannot act better than my own inclination except by accident, and I cannot force myself to believe something contrary to my inclination. Doing things contrary to what I believe to be true would rather be a leap of faith. If I don't follow my own conscience and senses, I certainly cannot trust myself to do the right thing.
What can I say? Knowing you can prevent evil but then choosing not to do so is the definition of "evil" for me - but only an omnipotent being could truly "Know".
Those who know, do. Those who can't, teach.