| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your comment was intended to deride, had you said "I am a devout Buddhist" or "I am a devout Wiccan." Then my answer would have been yes, I would show your beliefs the respect that they deserve as they are very meaningful to you. But instead you chose to deride something that is meaningful to a great number of folks with the whole spaghetti monster b@$+!#$*.
No, it was intended to illustrate something -- something that you missed. But don't let that stop you...blind rage always makes everything better, and logic is hard.
Oh, and this.
What the hell happened in here??An internet Atheist Martin Luther nailed a post to somebody's head.
Maybe now we'll get an online Renaissance.
Dare to dream.
Also, you anti-faith guys. According to revelations, at some point being Christian will be against the law, and those of us that are will recant or die. So, have a little faith ;)
According to Superman #1 he's faster than a speeding bullet. So, have a little faith. ;-)
Your comment was intended to deride, had you said "I am a devout Buddhist" or "I am a devout Wiccan." Then my answer would have been yes, I would show your beliefs the respect that they deserve as they are very meaningful to you. But instead you chose to deride something that is meaningful to a great number of folks with the whole spaghetti monster b@$+!#$*.No, it was intended to illustrate something -- something that you missed. But don't let that stop you...blind rage always makes everything better, and logic is hard.
Oh, and this.
You're right on all points except one. As the poster of the "offending" material I can assure you it was derisive. ;-)
Good luck with that. As I stated in my reply to Samnell, there have been plenty of people smarter and more informed than yourself who have attempted to do this for years (centuries?) to no avail.
If it has no effect I do find it enjoyable, like playing chess with the language.
I think it can affect individuals, not to get them to change sides completely but to show them that the arguments they think are convincing for their point of view aren't.
Interesting, a devout Buddhist (let's say Mahayana) would be unlikely to take umbrage at the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Interesting, a devout Buddhist (let's say Mahayana) would be unlikely to take umbrage at the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The ancient greeks would also likely find be willing to find a corner to put up a shrine.
Carving all those swirly details in marble sounds like a pain though
The romans kept an empty altar in their temples for the worshippers of any god they might not venerate. Surprisingly tolerant for the people who invented fascism.
Theological Musical Interlude, Part Two
I don't much care for Christianity, but this song usually moves me to tears.
Theological Musical Interlude, Part Two
I don't much care for Christianity, but this song usually moves me to tears.
As atheist as I am (clearly) I like gossipil(unsure of spelling) music. I love a profound powerful voice. I could do without all the god stuff, but it's still good.
In fairness, I doubt these are the "main" ones. Because they're terrible.
They ARE terrible. There are much better arguments for the existence of God. If these five were all that were available, I'd be an atheist.
But, I also think the question of whether God exists is a separate question from whether it is beneficial to believe that God exists.
Its like believing in the basic goodness of man. Whether man is basically good or basically evil, the -choice- to believe one or the other way is a separate question.
They are terrible.
I haven't seen much better though. And I've spent about 20 years of my life looking.
They ARE terrible. There are much better arguments for the existence of God.
Care to share with the rest of the class?
Spinoza's got four. Which one do you like?
Spinoza's Ethics has one.They ARE terrible. There are much better arguments for the existence of God.Care to share with the rest of the class?
The entire book itself or is it in a particular chapter?
The entire book itself or is it in a particular chapter?Spinoza's Ethics has one.They ARE terrible. There are much better arguments for the existence of God.Care to share with the rest of the class?
Don't bother.
From what I gather it's basically ontological argumentation for god.God exists because we can imagine what god is, that sort of rubbish.
He also posits basically an impersonal and universal "god" which is the universe or nature itself, and not necessarily conscious or sentient or willful or good.
His answer for the wrongness of the world is that our understanding is imperfect. I'll try to remain open when I read it, but that claim already has me skeptical.
Which is obviously just my imperfect perception. :)
I'm not a big fan of self-reinforcing delu...I mean arguments.
He also posits basically an impersonal and universal "god" which is the universe or nature itself, and not necessarily conscious or sentient or willful or good.
I'd always been led to believe that this is what set Spinoza apart from everybody else trying to prove there was a God.
From what I could gather in my short and shallow delves into philosophy, his train of thought led a lot closer to the deism of the Enlightenment (and beyond) than proper theology.
Yeah. I mean I believe in impersonal forces n' junk. Natural selection, economic supply and demand, etc. The argument becomes so much semantics if you just want to define god as being "whatever makes the universe go" even if it's an abstract concept. That's the god of Einstein as well. I'm cool with that.
But, at best, that's A god. You can't apply that definition of god to religions or belief structures that define their god differently.
I believe Einstein claimed his god was Spinoza's.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He also posits basically an impersonal and universal "god" which is the universe or nature itself, and not necessarily conscious or sentient or willful or good.I'd always been led to believe that this is what set Spinoza apart from everybody else trying to prove there was a God.
From what I could gather in my short and shallow delves into philosophy, his train of thought led a lot closer to the deism of the Enlightenment (and beyond) than proper theology.
The thing is, once you pare it down to "the mysterious cause" and not an anthropomorphized intellect, then why "God"? Why not one of the myriad other valid guesses? Heck, even solipsism has more of a basis in proven experience than an invisible, external persona. Why does it have to be a sentient thing? Can't it just be a process?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. I mean I believe in impersonal forces n' junk. Natural selection, economic supply and demand, etc. The argument becomes so much semantics if you just want to define god as being "whatever makes the universe go" even if it's an abstract concept. That's the god of Einstein as well. I'm cool with that.
But, at best, that's A god. You can't apply that definition of god to religions or belief structures that define their god differently.
It doesn't actually contribute anything, though. If a deity is just Mount Fuji, my penis, or a can of Coke and nothing else, there's no reason to call it a deity as there is no additional information to communicate about it. Obviously a person doing so is trying to smuggle in something else and is hoping an unwary person will miss it.
Trickery like this is a great piece of evidence for the falsehood of a claim, though.
^^^
Agreed
Oooh, not that I know what any of this means.
Also, you anti-faith guys. According to revelations, at some point being Christian will be against the law, and those of us that are will recant or die. So, have a little faith ;)According to Superman #1 he's faster than a speeding bullet. So, have a little faith. ;-)
I wasn't making an argument for anything, I was making a joke. Brevity being the soul of wit...but then again I guess you'd need to believe in souls to get that...
Again, another joke.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This section has been declared a No Fun Zone. Please cease and desist all humor, citizen.
Don't bother.
From what I gather it's basically ontological argumentation for god.
God exists because we can imagine what god is, that sort of rubbish.
.Or you could read what he actually wrote instead of making wild guesses about it.
Is that allowed? ..for an atheist to read what a person -actually- says in their argument in support of God?
Could you in any way differentiate spinozas argument from other ontological arguments, or explain how it moves to something anyone would call God? (god at least requires sentience)
Oooh, not that I know what any of this means.Except for the third which is extremely weird, the others three seems ontological to me, like almost everithyng in philosophy.
Yeah, well, I can't even spell "oncology."
I can't explain how Spinoza's argument leads to something you would call "God" unless you first tell me what you call "God".
God: A sentient omnipotent being.
Sentient= self aware
Omnipotent= being able to do any logically consistent thing.
[blushes]
I can't explain how Spinoza's argument leads to something you would call "God" unless you first tell me what you call "God".
God: A sentient omnipotent being.
Sentient= self aware
Omnipotent= being able to do any logically consistent thing.
But can He create a rock He cannot lift?
But can He create a rock He cannot lift?
I can't explain how Spinoza's argument leads to something you would call "God" unless you first tell me what you call "God".God: A sentient omnipotent being.
Sentient= self aware
Omnipotent= being able to do any logically consistent thing.
That would be the logically consistent part: a rock an omnipotent being can't lift would be a logical inconsistency , so being able to create such a rock is not required for omnipotence.
Even the Christian God isn't omnipotent (Titus 1:2). So, you wish to judge a whole range of belief systems by a belief that none of them actually has?
I can't explain how Spinoza's argument leads to something you would call "God" unless you first tell me what you call "God".God: A sentient omnipotent being.
Sentient= self aware
Omnipotent= being able to do any logically consistent thing.
Can not is not does not.
It really is the most open definition of god you're going to get.