 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)belb ...and 258 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613461 Today 4 Topics 127500 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
have you seen the light? or do you tumble in the darkness of disbelief? "the hell of atheism" as dostoevsky might put it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Science and religion are not compatible. Google Ontological naturalism. Ach du bist Deutscher dann 'Bunge/Mahner - Über die Natur der Dinge' Pflichtlektüre! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the lord my arse |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If god exist he doesn't want that I believed him, maybe it is my path. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i praise a number of analords, especially "where is your girlfriend" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
as far as i can judge from reading amazon reviews about 'über die natur der dinge' the authors don't convince me. they argue, for instance, that "the mind" is just an effect of the brain. but this is problematic. the claim that the brain is the ultimate basis of our consciousness is so hugely problematic, because the brain appears in our lives as an object we discover in the external material world. the brain is one object among other objects we discover, when consciously investigating the world. bunge/mahner's worldview is based on a problematic equation: "the brain as one object among many objects in the material world" = "the very basis which makes the appearance of the material world possible for us". but this is paradoxical. and if there are paradoxes in a world-view, there's probably something wrong with that world-view. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Even if God existed, none of the religions would have it right and you'd be condemned to hell regardless. So fuck it, lets wreck the gaf. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
eveything in the universe is paradoxical |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sure |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what is the paradox about "4+4=8" then? there seems to be none. thus we can conclude that more or less paradoxical thought is possible and that the proposition "everything in the universe is paradoxical" is false. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hell of atheism? not quite. paradise of atheism more like. well, not really. certainly not hell though. maybe more like purgatory. slightly better than purgatory. actually fuck it, it is what you make it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You need to read the whole book, not just a few reviews. And Christianity or other religions have even more paradoxes in store for you than B. and M. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think a stripped down version of christianity gives a quite coherent account of the world. the new testament gospels suggest the reduction of christianity to the ideas that (1) the purpose of individuals is to direct their free will towards loving their neighbor and that (2) the world depends for its existence and meaning on a divine Urgrund. with these ideas in place one can give a coherent account of for instance (A) the phenomenon of morality (B) the suffering on earth; if humans wouldn't have the ability to cause harm and feel hatred the concept of love would be empty; acting morally would be no active achievement; christianity can thus make sense of the miserable state the world is in (C) the mind-body-problem can be overcome .. since the material world ultimately depends on god's mind it can be construed as ultimately mental in nature; thus there's no gap between the physical and the mental that needs to be bridged; the physical is a form of the mental (D) free will doesn't need to discarded with as an illusion .. if our minds are effects of the chemical processes in our brains (which follow the strict laws of physics) our minds must follow these strict laws, too and thus free will disappears. if as in C however, you turn the relationship between the physical and the mental the other way round the problem dissolves. i'm kidding, of course, to some extent. 'über die natur der dinge' seems like a good read, though. i guess it won't convince me, but clarify why i'm not too impressed by materialism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What are you talking about? Read this: http://www.gkpn.de/theodizee.html |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what i referred to is what the guy calls "Freiheitskonzeption II". according to this conception it is not a necessary fact about the world, that it is in a miserable state. what is necessary, however, is that human beings are free to perform evil (so that human life makes sense from a moral point of view). it has happened that humans chose to do evil and this is now a contingent truth about the world. in the paragraphs starting with "1. Wenn es logisch möglich ist, daß" the author argues wihy this conception doesn't work. he claims, that a benevolent god should have made a world in which (A) human beings are free to choose evil and (B) the conditions in the world - die Rahmenbedinungen - are such, that no human being would practically choose to do evil. but, i'm afraid, this doesn't make sense. you can't coherently hold the view that (A) human beings could possibly choose evil, but that (B) the world is such that no human beings WOULD EVER do that. that he's talking nonsense shows clearly when he writes. " Es gibt eine ganze Reihe von Tätigkeiten, die Menschen zu keinem früheren Zeitpunkt gemacht haben und von denen man doch annehmen kann, daß Menschen die ganze Zeit über frei waren, diese Tätigkeiten auszuführen, sie aber aus Gründen des Takts oder aus einem Mangel an Phantasie unterlassen haben. Das Guiness-Buch der Rekorde ist voll von solch neu erdachten, nicht immer edlen Handlumgen. " the point of Freiheitskonzeption II is not that human beings are magically forced to do evil, but that they must be able to choose it in order to lead a meaningful life. the examples he uses actually undermine his case. he wants a world in which nobody would ever do evil, just like nobody ever attempts to get some stupid guinness-book record. but what is at issue when it comes to FKII is only the potential to do evil. what FKII establishes is that The Possibilty Of Evil is a necessary condition for a meaningful life. the author of the article incoherently claims that you could at the same ti |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what FKII establishes is that The Possibilty Of Evil is a necessary condition for a meaningful life. the author of the article incoherently claims that you could at the same time have (a) free human beings, which are (b) due to the rahmenbedinungen never in a position in which they could choose evil (and are thus unfree to choose evil). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
claiming that there could be a moral agent who is (in some imprecise sense) free to choose evil, but who's never in a position, in which he would choose evil is like claiming a person plays a video-game and (in some unspecified sense) free to use the controls, but practically never in the position to use the controls. the gamer could never win the game, because he was never in a position to lose in the first place. and the notion of "winning a game" makes no sense if you can't lose. what the author of that article presupposed in his argument was exactly such a view of the human being. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
god, hahaha, life, hahahahaha, lessons, hahahaha |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the thing is you say 4+4=8 is not a paradox, yet within mathematics it's self there are lots of paradoxes. take this one for example: Welts Hotel is a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and infinite number of guests. Every room is occupied. A new visitor arrives. Can he be accommodated? Yes, arithmetic with infinite quantities allows to do it. At first it seems that he cannot, but then the hotel clerk mr Welt moves the guest in Room 1 to Room 2, and the guest in Room 2 to Room 3, and so on. Every guest is moved to the next room along. This leaves Room 1 vacant for the new visitor. Although the hotel is full, the new guest can always be accommodated in Room 1. If another visitor arrives, the Mr Welt moves the guests again, and the new guest can be accommodated in Room 1. Hotel is full, infinite number of guests arrive What will be if hotel is full and infinite number of guests arrive? Can they be accommodated? Yes, they will be accommodated thanks to : infinity+infinity=infinity For example, mr Welt asks each guest to take note of their current room number and move to the room whose number is twice that of his own. After everyone has done this, only the even-numbered rooms will be occupied and the odd-numbered rooms will be empty. So Hilbert’s Hotel is full, and yet it has an infinite number of vacancies |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
actually it's Hilbert's hotel paradox not welts as you can see i forgot to change the name at the end heh |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I praise my lord. I respect people's religious beliefs, It makes a hopeful world. Happy stuff. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
# Death Metal CD's CHEAP 1000's of extreme metal cd's Christmas Special 50% OFF www.cdnrecords.com |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
God as an omnipotent being should be able to do it, cuz he is not bound to the laws of logic. God should also be able to create a world where 5+5=11 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
jesus fucking christ |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Of course I praise the lord. by "the lord" you mean w M w's snuggly gay penis, right? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if god really is all powerful and all knowing then he must have a severe inferiority complex to desperately covet my approval and belief in him. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no i dont, he never called back !! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
science and religion are both the same: they both want to find the truth. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hmm...do you really believe that, or just want to troll? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I believe that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Why? Can you be a bit more precise? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
religion wants to find the truth ? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
actually religion is science,both are on hands of liars on the media. but underground that they both looks for truth,so im with crazone ;) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i thought religion was based on the truth that god exists, god is truth, commandments are truth, all is set, all is fine - nothing to be looked for :> while science is indeed looking for the truth: trying to find origins of life, origins of the universe, the truth about how the universe was created - ? religion has all the truth written in holy books, so there's no need to search/explore anymore, just wait for e.g. judgement day. ? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah, religion wants to find the truth, which is why Galileo was made a saint shortly after he died, for the huge help he provided. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think maybe we are God as a collective, broken up into fragments and we have lost all of our powers, a sacrafice we needed to do to achieve perception of our own work and perhaps we eventually regain our powers |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There's only one truth right? I want to know that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That was not the question. I want to know what similiars you see between science and religion in finding the truth. I ask this because i am going to destroy your argument. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ah, who gives a shit. Believe whatever you want. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i believe in you monoid. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that is a naive view of omnipotence (and was not part of the sparse definition of christianity i claimed the new testament suggests.) if you give up logic, you give up all thought and thus everything and all discussion must cease. if you claim there's a world in which logic (as we understand it, which is the only way we can have any understanding of it) is fundamentally dispensed with, there's not anything you can say. even pointing out that god is beyond the laws of logic wouldn't be an understadable utterance (because in a world that dispenses with logic a god that would be above logic could at the same time be a god that is not above logic [law of noncontradiction]. blah blah blah. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but that paradox seems to have an easy solution: don't treat the physical world as having the same qualities as abstract mathematics. it can be thus easily overcome and indeed points out that there was something wrong with the worldview that produced this paradox. namely the idea that mathematics and the material world have fundamentally the same structure. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Who says the material world and the ideal world in the head of a mathematician have the same structure? Not me. And also read this: |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If you give up logic you believe Jesus was God and Human at the same time. You also believe that God is three persons at the same time The father, the son and the holy ghost. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You guys don't even know the basic fundamentals of the theology you're trying to dismantle. First, read the Scriptures starting from Genesis (or Bereshiyt) all the way through to the Good News of the Brit Chadasha (New or Renewed Covenant) with the determintion you apply to your "logic" and "science". Try to realize what Maimonides attempted to teach to his students, "Teach thy tongue to say 'I do not know,' and thou shalt progress." Stop throwing away the baby with the bathwater, and research the Scriptures, here's a good link to reinvigorate your search, Don't be put off and subjugated by the arrogance of the new Pop-Atheism movement. Stuff that's been refuted 2 centuries ago. For instance read, Alleged Discrepancies of The Bible, by John W. Haley, or read, When Critics Ask, by Norman L. Geisler. And most importantly read The Scriptures with the mindset that you're in the modern world with a vastly different worldview, and you don't know everything. A lot of great youtube channels on properly understanding the theology of the Scriptures are: davidpwithun ancienthebreworg bzel333 Shalom (peace/completeness) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's about right. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The basics are all bullshit. I believe in ontological naturalism |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, use your ontological naturalism in regards to the ancient texts. Apply your skepticism in a positive criteria. If all you hear is one side of the story, of course you're going to not find any truth in the other side of the argument. Take your time though. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Do you know what i am talking about? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
