Same time as the chickenOriginally Posted by QuickTwist
But if the egg came after the chicken, when did the cock come?
Yes
No
I'm not sure.
It doesn't matter
Same time as the chickenBut if the egg came after the chicken, when did the cock come?
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I am an atheist and I do not believe in Hell or anything else supernatural, and I will be the same if "god" or "hell" was put in front of me. The definition of "supernatural", a contrast to "natural [phenomena]" is very clear: a manifestation of the supernatural is necessarily an oxymoron.
The idea that I would "choose" not to believe in god, and that I would "choose" to go to hell is total nonsense. I cannot choose to go to a place I do not believe exists, and I would not choose to go there if I knew it existed either. This is a fatal flaw in your ideology but you "choose" to not accept it. Your ideology also makes a virtue out of belief in god. There is virtue in belief. It is also nonsense to suggest that I would worship a god that I not only do not believe in, but which I find deeply immoral. I do not "choose" to find such a god immoral.
I also believe that I am far more pious than you are (in the Stoic sense): you seem more focused on what god wants, about what the Church asks...about what you must do to "choose" not to go to hell, and so on, rather than truly being reverent to what is "good".
The bolded is an important distinction, imo, and has always bothered me about many religious people I have known. It feels like people are missing what imo should be the whole point of religion: to be better people, living better lives, and making the world a better place here and now.
Okay, I will stop before I make myself too at home aboard my soap box, though
EDIT: I don't necessarily agree that @Eliza Thomason cares more about one than the other; my comment is meant as a general observation of people I have known irl.
Last edited by SongOfSapphire; 04-19-2016 at 07:44 PM.
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra
I don't. I see the moral God as basically a Tulpa whose purpose is to guide and support. "Forget all your worries and pass them onto God", good for anxiety.There are an infinite number of Gods for every religion because everyone has their own idea of that God, since God can only be experienced as an idea.
God as a supernatural force, well I might agree with the reasoning that the Elder Scrolls gives, that all beings are fragments of God. But I don't believe this because well it doesn't satisfy me to believe in something that is not 100% certain.
Will it satisfy you to believe in 1% ideal?
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
no
I feel sad because not everything is grounded in REALITY
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Why do you suppose there was a Beginning?
And how can you be certain that Something can never come from Nothing? You are making an assumption that we live in a cause-and-effect universe, which is possibly unprovable (I say "possibly...", although I cannot know this).
If Heaven and Hell exist and people don't like all this God stuff then i'm sure they will be happy in the place where God is supposed to be absent right?
So I like to see a happy ending to everythingyou really think that people such as myself would be happy about "non-existence", or "hell" (depending on how your post may be interpreted: you may have meant both of these ways)?
I would, but I would consider it infinitely more offensive that someone would defend an entity that they believe is going to cause me suffer for eternity, because in my view, I do not deserve it. I would thus consider god to not be in the "not deserving it" category.
It would be hypocritical to say a god that trashes humans cannot be trashed. Of course it isn't relative. God is an absolutely evil deity. If he doesn't like my way of expressing myself, he can go to hell.
It astounds me how confident people are that there is or is not a God......
I don't care.
･ﾟ*✧ 𝓘 𝓌𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒶𝒸𝒸𝑒𝓅𝓉 𝒶 𝓁𝒾𝒻𝑒 𝓘 𝒹𝑜 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓇𝓋𝑒 ✧*:･ﾟ
Most scientists and philosophers I know are agnostic - they admit that they just don't know. And in the end, it all comes down to belief. What do you believe, and how are you rationalizing it. I can say that it's far more rational to believe in a creator God because the probability that life and everything and the world appeared through pure chance is infinitely small, but would I think that if I didn't already believe in God? Probably not.
I don't see any need to argue with anyone or try to convince them of anything, or be upset by anything, and it just doesn't make any sense to be upset by what other people believe in my opinion. For example, I'm keeping Passover/Unleavened Bread because I believe in God, but I know that it is faith, my beliefs, and not something that I can prove to anyone else (nor do I want to.) I believe what I do, and other people what they do, but none of us has solid, unquestionable proof of anything. Perhaps I only have this attitude of not being too much worried about other people's beliefs because I don't think that nonbelievers are going to be suffering eternal torment upon death. Someone who thinks that people are going to be tortured if they don't convert in this lifetime will obviously be more frantic about saving people, yes?
It is simple logic that a thing cannot be greater than something it is a part of. Thus I am absolutely certain that an omnipotent creator cannot not exist.
IMO, and it is not an over elaborate one, if one is to believe in God indefinitely, then the only logical thing to do is to follow the religion/person/group that has the utmost authority on the subject.. Since the opinions on God vary so greatly and there is not necessarily a head authority figure on the subject this essentially makes it a paradox to believe in God, or at least a God that we can Tangibly believe in..
That pov is shortsighted.. how many discoveries do you think there are yet to discover for the human species? 100? 1,000? No one knows, just like no one knows if there is actually a God or not.
It doesn't make it a paradox, it just means knowledge is incomplete and people do the best they can with what they have.
No.
I purposely take the irrational view of atheism (I have more of a problem with theism than with the idea of God, see link below). I don't particularly care if an all powerful being exists and if one did exist I wouldn't worship him. In fact my response to God showing up at my doorstep would be "fuck off".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_God_theology
ἀταραξία
Its a paradox in the way that there is no ideal, nay, not even an acceptable option that we are left with. Religion is based on culture, just like atheism is based on culture. It is a belief either way and that is where we agree. I prefer not to make a judgement call on it because there is not enough adequate info to make a decision.
You don't know the sensory experience would be if you were to meat God face to face. Are you that confident that you have free will that you know emphatically that you would reject God if they were to appear before you?
It is not shortsighted. It can never be the case that a thing can be greater than something it is a part of...because it would be oxymoronic. Any entity that has any measurable effect on existence must necessarily be lesser than the whole, it cannot be greater.
It isn't shortsighted to say that we should "only" believe in observable phenomena and identify possible explanations for events. I think many unnecessarily limit the Power of Nature.
Atheism need not be based on culture. Everybody is born an atheist.
OK, really now. In bold: this does not make any sense to me at all. Walk me through this one, cuz I can definitely have an effect on my child if I have one.
If it was possible to experience god face to face, god would be an observable phenomenon, and thus not a god, as gods are supernatural. So I can say confidently, even if an alleged "god" was before me, I would still not believe in the supernatural.
Yes, it is based on culture. I agree. And people derive what they can from their cultures and history and personal experiences.
We are also born not knowing how to survive. You sure that's a good example?
I'm not arguing against the supernatural, or how we would perceive that. The universe is huge, there's likely to be some shit that we just will never be able to explain.
The point being that if God where to appear to me in an obvious way I would reject him.
Yes. God is spiritually dead to me...meaningless, antiquated and completely irrelevant to my being.Are you that confident that you have free will that you know emphatically that you would reject God if they were to appear before you?
But that's in his theistic form.
ἀταραξία
Anything that has a measurable effect on existence must be a "natural phenomenon", as that it was those words describe. In addition, "Infinity + 1" cannot be less than "Infinity". So how can it be possible for an omnipotent entity to have a measurable effect on existence while also being a creator of existence?
OK, here's one I know you have heard and I just want to know how you respond: you can't put God in a box ie. he is not logical as we would know it.
I wasn't making a point about the correctness of atheism in that particular post, merely that atheism need not based on culture. However, it is true that without human imaginations, "god" would not exist.
You are assuming a few things in your conclusion. I'll give 2.
1.) Who says God has to play by what you define as logical?
2.) You are saying that in the case that God created the laws of physics that he cannot manipulate them. Who says he has to? What if there are beings not fathomable to us who are playing marbles with different universes? Maybe those entities have the power to create but not manipulate their creation? Your scope of what God is is largely dependent on monotheism..
If you choose to express yourself as an agnostic, you are making a judgment call. By contrast, it is perfectly possible to say you lack a belief in god without it being a judgement call, which would strictly be a definition of an atheist.
How do you know life wasn't planted on earth by aliens or simply an entity that temporarily came into our dimension?
1) The very definitions of the words "god" and "supernatural" means that if we are having a meaningful discussion about whether these forces exist in reality, they must match the definition. You cannot say that "god" and the "supernatural" *might* still exist because we haven't defined them properly...that is a claim with no substance.
2) I used "existence" rather "universe" in my posts concerning god as a creator for a reason. Regardless of whether existence is composed of a single universe, or is a multiverse, if it had a creator, it is not logical for it to be both inside and outside existence, because a thing cannot be greater than something it is a part of. If "god" created existence...(that is a non-sequitur...because how can a non-existant being create existence? but if he did...) and/or if he has a measurable effect on the universe, he must be subject to laws of greater universality.
The ineffability of God is just an allegory for mystery.
ἀταραξία
We can do what we like. He cannot.
I don't, but these are theoretically possible explanations.
I've noticed you do this before. You get caught up on dichotomies. I didn't "claim" anything. I proposed a hypothetical that you choose not to answer. You are aware that the laws of physics are subject to change correct? So then if something as stable as a law is up for scrutiny that means that your lesser logic (than those laws) are also under scrutiny. And I don't think I need to tell you that there is no law that disproves the existence of God. The laws of physics are constructs that are man made and are not at all the be all end all. And you can't make up your own dichotomies for these kinds of things, that's not how it works. I had a math professor once tell me "when you make up your own mathematical rules math becomes infinitely easier, but it doesn't mean you are right."
Your argument that something cannot be both inside and outside its existence is again the same problem we have talked about previously and the answer is, this time, there is no law that states that, it is only you saying that. So while it may be a reasonable argument, you cannot say that emphatically because there are things that likely transense a simple binary of one or another. You are not addressing that God in this case could very well be bigger than the creation and as such could do anything he wants with it. Think about it like this: a potter makes a pot on the wheel. he cuts his finger open and inserts some of his blood into the clay. He is now both apart of his creation and bigger than it. Same principle.
I happen to agree that the inception of God as an idea had to do with mystifying certain things... a manipulation of phenomena. Where I disagree is that mysticism is not necessarily means to reject an idea, as Jung's theory suggests.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote