To deny is to accept as a basis for denial. To be an athiest is to say that there is something to be denied. Just as the slave only knows that he is a slave in the presence of the master. I see the word dogma put out here.
Printable View
To deny is to accept as a basis for denial. To be an athiest is to say that there is something to be denied. Just as the slave only knows that he is a slave in the presence of the master. I see the word dogma put out here.
I'm just curious, how come someone who does not believe in the existance of something have a personal definition of that thing??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Just because someone does not believe in a God or higher being does not necessarily mean that they do not believe in a after life. I am a person of faith but I do not believe in heaven or hell. For me most religions dwell way too much upon the negative aspects of life and that for me is a poisonous to my body. Through my faith (spiritualism) I dwell on the positive flow of life and I send out positive healing to those whom need it. Not all spiritualist believe the same as I do and some believe in the Bible as strong as you seem to do. For me I do not fully believe in the Bible only small parts of it. But that is my choice and that is has is should be. When I cross over and find my beliefs were then so be it. But I cannot see how they can be wrong for me because they fill my heart with joy. We were not all created to be exactly the same as everyone else and I am grateful for that. If a person can truly be happy living with or without faith what is wrong with that. Perhaps a atheist is correct and I am wrong either way I am not grateful for my life when there was a time I was not. My faith helped me but in the end I did the work to become a happier person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adelheid
If you don't believe there is such a thing as witches, does that necessarilly mean that you can't have your own personal idea of what witches could be like? (Think Harry Potter :D)Quote:
I'm just curious, how come someone who does not believe in the existance of something have a personal definition of that thing??
If I don't believe in witches or dark power or black magic, I wouldn't have my own personal definitions. The definitions I have would probably only the general ones, as (i.e.) stated in dictionary.
But would there be any limit on using your own imagination creatively in such cases? As much as I respect the dictionary, definitions can be very drab sometimes. For example:
What sort of sorcery? What kind of magical powers? This is where imagination comes in. You can improvise even within a definition.Quote:
A woman claiming or popularly believed to possess magical powers and practice sorcery.
God, on the other hand:
Doesn't my definition fit beneath that? Sure, my god doesn't really do much ruling (sometimes he grants a prayer though), he usually just stares down at the world from his divine couch of clouds...Quote:
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
This is the atheist thread, right? We can be atheists here, I gather. ;)
Yep...be as atheistic as much as you ever wanted to be in your life! :D
Thank you!!! :D That's the nicest...thing...a Christian has every said to me as regards atheism. :) :nod:Quote:
Yep...be as atheistic as much as you ever wanted to be in your life!
As we see in Kantian metaphysics, a coherent theory of transcendent objects is just impossible.
Believing in God is a sweet surrender to the "mysteries" of some invisible world we wish there was , therefore an abandon of the reason. Some of us just can’t afford it, to walk on the very quick sands the mysterious invisible world has prepared for us, especially when we refuse to completely abandon the reason and the common sense. As far as I’m concerned I am quite overwhelmed by the mysteries I find in the visible world.
Thing is,if one believes in god this is one's own problem,ilusion,weltanschauung...but by trying to prove his existence,one steps into the realm of sophisms which is quite unhealthy for a reasonable person.
Kantian metaphysics huh, impossible huh, read some Sartre, or Hegel even.
a famous american president (big fan of crackers) was once about to die because he never listened to his mother's advice:"first chew,then swallow" ... whether he got it other way round or he took it way too metaphorical...dunno...Quote:
Originally Posted by Satirical
i once dated a girl who told me that Sartre was not good for the skin...i dumped her...never trust women who speak their mind at the first date!
now,actually,i never "read some Sartre,or Hegel even"...but i have a friend who has a friend who once asked:
who on earth would put together a) Hegel with his organic and teleological view of human society ,in direct opposition to the conceptions of individual rights and existentialism , with b) the atheist existentialist Sartre who stated (the opposit of any theological and teleological dialecticism) that we are here willy-nilly and must manage to do the best we can with endemic nothingness installed upon eternal floorlessness?
(this friend of my friend also said that sartre's ideas could be quite readable if disregarded his marxist,comunist,totally leftish political views...brrrrrr!)
---------------------------------
ps: Schopenhauer about Hegel :"The height of audacity in serving up pure nonsense, in stringing together senseless and extravagant mazes of words, such as had been only previously known in madhouses, was finally reached in Hegel, and became the instrument of the most barefaced, general mystification that has ever taken place, with a result which will appear fabulous to posterity, as a monument to German stupidity."
...first chewing...mi raccomando!!!! :wave:
Wow, a bit sensitive aren't we? I did not intend to pair them myself, only in light of your bases of "Kantian metaphysics" would I even bring them up. So I restate...impossible huh, read some Berkeley, or Borges even lol.
P.S. I love Schopenhauer, but his enviroment had something to do with that anger(I say this instead of argument because this was not one) he held, Things like that sort of taint the conviction wouldn't you say?
This, of course, is for your friend of a friend.
Sorry to say, I don't really see a consistency ..
Like I said, I was just curios..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Quote:
i once dated a girl who told me that Sartre was not good for the skin...i dumped her...never trust women who speak their mind at the first date!
Ah I see . . . interesting. I seem have no problem with that :)
I happen to be a reasonable person who was much unhealthier without my faith then I am today. I totally disagree with you sir and no offense but some people need to find faith to in order to be a healthier person and some do not. That is what makes us all very unique as you know and thank goodness we are all unique.Quote:
Originally Posted by sir
Well, I guess we are all unique, but it doesn't necessarily take people of different faith to make us unique. Each of us were made different in characteristics, look, etc. None of us are alike.Quote:
I totally disagree with you sir and no offense but some people need to find faith to in order to be a healthier person and some do not. That is what makes us all very unique as you know and thank goodness we are all unique.
We may be happy here. But the amount of time on earth compared to eternity is the tiniest fraction one can imagine. Would you rather be happy for this tinest fraction of time than for eternity? Eternity never ends, while life on earth does. :nod:Quote:
If a person can truly be happy living with or without faith what is wrong with that.