Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wouldn't it be nice if Victoria Punk could make a rational argument to convince people to believe in God instead of making childish emotional arguments by posting photos? Perhaps he can prove the existence of a God and explain how it can possibly exist? Perhaps Victoria Punk can tell us who created God and who created the creator that created God and so on?
I have answered this one before, and I will do it again: I am not sure if GOD exist, and it does not matter because GOD is a feeling, an emotion, not a literal Big-bearded-white-guy-in-the-sky.
Who created GOD? Man created GOD. GOD is just a way of explaining that which transcends the material word and reaches the deepest inner depths of human consciousness.
It is ridiculous how you yammer on and on about achieving balance, yet all you have offered up is extremist interpretations of tyrannical endpoints for all positions other than your own. That is not balance nor is it logical.
My position is that human beings need something higher than themselves...HUMAN BEINGS, AS IN ALL HUMANS, DO NOT NEED MY RELIGION! Religion is a personal choice, but humanity needs something higher than it's self, each and every one of us, be it a deity, an idea, or a principal.
Quote:
You like to quote Joseph Campbell. I suggest you read and study some of his books because he did not promote what you are promoting nor did he interpret opposing philosophies like you do. You obviously have missed what he discussed in great depth.
I have read the Hero with a Thousand Faces, the Masks of God, Thou art That and seen most of his interviews. His whole belief was that religions, all of them, were a means unto and end: of understanding ourselves, our society, and the world we live in and the relationships between all of them: Hence, religion is a valid thing.
Quote:
We ignore your "arguments" because they are just as absurd and illogical as any fundamentalist preacher's exhortations that we're all going to burn in h*ll.
So, my argument that religion is not necessary but most people (but not all) need some kind of spiritual something in their lives sounds like Jerry Falwell...yahh, you got me there
Quote:
It sounds very much like the same thing. Your arguments are apocalyptic threats without basis and without supporting evidence.
When faced with opposing argument, you resort to claiming words are meaningless. They are only meaningless when distorted out of common understanding in your attempts to browbeat.
No, I did not say "words were meaningless" but I said that the words "rational" and "irrational" were meaningless when talking about divinity and it's general nature. If someone said that a fear of Salmonella was rational, I would concur, and if someone said that the a fear of salmonella to the point that someone did not want to eat any meat product at all was irrational, I would also concur.
When talking about something material and eminent, the words "rational" and "irrational" make sense..when talking abot divinity which cannot be quantified or observed, they are not.
Quote:
By the way, love is not a crutch. Dependency is a crutch and dependency is not love.
Love ultimately leads to dependency, be it for material or emotional support. If someone saw everyone they "loved" abandon them then they would either A: Be crushed because they lost that which they depended on or B: Be indifferent, and the indifference means that they never loved in the first place.
Quote:
It is yet another human emotion that you say you don't know, yet define it as something entirely different than it really is.
Just as the GOD emotion is something some people here claim they don't know, yet define as something entirely different than it really is (i.e., a literal big-bearded-white-guy-in-the-sky)
Quote:
You might also take and understand a 10th grade geometry and logic class. You have demonstrated false premises all over your posts which automatically invalidate any associations you have made and render the conclusions absurd.
TRANSLATION: My posts are over your head.
You might want to take a 6th grade class in reading comprehension, then come back and read my posts again.
Quote:
Oh, and you still haven't addressed the topic of the thread. Your bolded statement is only yet another attempt at saying religion should not be replaced. That is an easy to understand answer to the question posed in the thread.
Again, I will address the topic of the thread...RELIGION SHOULD NOT BE REPLACED EN MASSE AS MOST PEOPLE NEED "RELIGION", i.e., SOME KIND OF A SPIRITUAL PATH THAT INVOLVES MYTHOLOGY SOMEHOW AND THE SAID MYTHS TEACH VIRTUES AND/OR PRACTICES WHICH CAN BE APPLIED TO EVERYDAY LIVE AND TEACH A CONNECTION BETWEEN MAN AND SOME HIGHER-POWER.
Now, the question "what should religion be replaced with on the PERSONAL LEVEL" I would be fine with, as there are people who do not "need" religion and for a newly converted (or should I say "disconverted"?) atheist, that is an important question . But, to enforce some "rationalist" word view on the populace is something that has been tried (the Soviets, North Korea, Mao Taodang) and the end result was not good.
I agree. It would be nice if they would at least attempt to rationally prove that their god(or any god for that matter) exists, except he just keeps rehearsing the same irrational emotive arguments.
My argument is that GOD probably does not exist but is simply an emotional concept and a higher-inner self which should not be ignored. Please state how that definition of GOD is "irrational" (although, again, when speaking about divinity that word has little meaning) or admit defeat.
What about individualist borg? Collectivist Borg was the only option you offered for rational atheists.
First of all, allow me to make myself clear...ATHEISM IS NOT NECESSARILY ANTI-THEISM! I have nothing against people who simply do not have a belief in any kind of god, as that is a perfectly logical choice. However, the crusading anti-theists, i.e., people who are not happy enough being atheist themselves and seek fulfillment in a desire to destroy religion for a "greater good" are much like the Borg.
The kind of anti-theists notion that religion, on a societal level, should be replaced is collectivist thought if there ever was such a thing and hence, as a tongue-and-cheek but still relevant gesture, I bring up the ultimate rational-collectivst, the Borg.
The anti-theists are every bit as collectivist and dangerous as the theistic collectivst, like Jerry Falwell, Osama Bin Ladin and Pat Robertson. Anytime someone talks about how great it would be if their view on divinity was impossed on the populace, be they theist or not, I feel a need to speak up.
Quote:
How about an artist's depiction of John Galt or Howard Roark or perhaps even a still of Gary Cooper playing Howard Roark in the movie version of The Fountainhead?
How many people did John Galt send to a Gulag camp for believing in a deity? Replacing religion with a non-theistic philosophy like Objectivism or something is fine, as long as it is an individual choice. It's when people imply that the choice should be made FOR PEOPLE to replace mysticism with something else that I must remind people of what happens when we go down that slope.
Quote:
Agnostic Soldier--loved your choice of photos. Thank you for offering us the possibility of rationality and science as one of the three choices.
I have answered this one before, and I will do it again: I am not sure if GOD exist, and it does not matter because GOD is a feeling, an emotion, not a literal Big-bearded-white-guy-in-the-sky.
Who created GOD? Man created GOD. GOD is just a way of explaining that which transcends the material word and reaches the deepest inner depths of human consciousness.
What exactly are you saying? That you don't believe in the existence of a deity and that you are, thus, an atheist? (Edit--after reading another one of your posts in this thread it sounds like you're an agnostic.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
How many people did John Galt send to a Gulag camp for believing in a deity? Replacing religion with a non-theistic philosophy like Objectivism or something is fine, as long as it is an individual choice. It's when people imply that the choice should be made FOR PEOPLE to replace mysticism with something else that I must remind people of what happens when we go down that slope.
How many people did John Galt send to a Gulag camp? Zero of course! Did you read the book and if so, did you understand any of it? Rand was a passionate and consistent advocate of the concept of individual rights and would never "make a choice" for other people (other than the "choice" that those other people cannot legally initiate physical force against others.)
My argument is that GOD probably does not exist but is simply an emotional concept and a higher-inner self which should not be ignored. Please state how that definition of GOD is "irrational" (although, again, when speaking about divinity that word has little meaning) or admit defeat.
Victorianpunk, you've rarely discussed what you conceive to be a higher power. I don't care if you believe in the existence of a higher power, although you keep trying to convince people that anti theists and rationalists(which is diiferent than an anti theist) are incapable of living lives with love and fulfillment and are only capable to live lives of despair(which is a value judgement rather than an objective truth). It's a value judgement because it's unverifiable and there's no evidence to support it and the pictures that you gave in many of your posts didn't reinforce the 'truth' of your argument, they just discredited it. The reason why your belief in a higher power(or anyone's belief in a higher power) is irrational is because there's no empirical evidence that proves that there is a higher power. Your belief in a higher power may personally give you comfort and add something to your life although the belief in and of itself is more of an opinion rather than something that holds objective truth value. Also, mysticism aren't the only ways to admire beuty, love, art, music etc. While mysticism may be the way that helps you to admire and believe in the goodness of those things, atheists/rationalists/anti theists don't need mysticism or religion to value things like love, beauty etc. They don't need the added belief of mysticism/religion to value those things.
Victorianpunk, you've rarely discussed what you conceive to be a higher power. I don't care if you believe in the existence of a higher power, although you keep trying to convince people that anti theists and rationalists(which is diiferent than an anti theist) are incapable of living lives with love and fulfillment and are only capable to live lives of despair(which is a value judgement rather than an objective truth). It's a value judgement because it's unverifiable and there's no evidence to support it and the pictures that you gave in many of your posts didn't reinforce the 'truth' of your argument, they just discredited it. The reason why your belief in a higher power(or anyone's belief in a higher power) is irrational is because there's no empirical evidence that proves that there is a higher power. Your belief in a higher power may personally give you comfort and add something to your life although the belief in and of itself is more of an opinion rather than something that holds objective truth value. Also, mysticism aren't the only ways to admire beuty, love, art, music etc. While mysticism may be the way that helps you to admire and believe in the goodness of those things, atheists/rationalists/anti theists don't need mysticism or religion to value things like love, beauty etc. They don't need the added belief of mysticism/religion to value those things.
First of all, allow me to make myself clear...ATHEISM IS NOT NECESSARILY ANTI-THEISM! I have nothing against people who simply do not have a belief in any kind of god, as that is a perfectly logical choice. However, the crusading anti-theists, i.e., people who are not happy enough being atheist themselves and seek fulfillment in a desire to destroy religion for a "greater good" are much like the Borg.
The kind of anti-theists notion that religion, on a societal level, should be replaced is collectivist thought if there ever was such a thing and hence, as a tongue-and-cheek but still relevant gesture, I bring up the ultimate rational-collectivst, the Borg.
I oppose religion because I believe that it is a destructive force that hurts other people, including myself in various ways. If that is the case, when why shouldn't we try to change that?
Quote:
How many people did John Galt send to a Gulag camp for believing in a deity?
Zero. He would leave believers completely alone. What passages in Atlas Shrugged led you to believe otherwise?
Quote:
Replacing religion with a non-theistic philosophy like Objectivism or something is fine, as long as it is an individual choice. It's when people imply that the choice should be made FOR PEOPLE to replace mysticism with something else that I must remind people of what happens when we go down that slope.
I agree; you can't coerce someone to believe in a given philosophy or religion.
(Edit--looks like I've responded to the same post twice on different days. Whattya know.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
