CuriousLord
Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
|
Ack. Looks like I missed this thread on checking for updates.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aswad
quote:
ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
According to the religions I'm referring to? Yeah, they'd say that they know of his desires are- for purposes of their considerations, at any rate.
Sure. But you said "If someone actually believes in G*d". Nowhere did you mention organized religions.
In this case, it was part of the definition via context. (This is a thread about the God of Christianity and Islam, not about any "God" that might be claimed by one.)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aswad
I consider myself to "actually believe in G*d", but that leaves as many questions as anyone else has, if not more.
How so? If one leaves the question open, then one must consider all possiblities. If you chose to confine yourself to a certain belief, then does this only limit the possiblities to those remaining? Granted, one is liable to consider such remaining possiblities in more detail, as there are fewer remaining to consider.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aswad
That is the only rational conclusion when one chooses to believe in something, I think. Baring a burning bush in the middle of the highway that other people spot and the road crews can't manage to pull away, of course. 
If one chooses to believe in something, at the expense of alternate possiblities (such as, in this case, that recommended by Vulcan's), is this not a contradiction of reason? After chosing an answer, assuming it's not true, though still leaving variables open, is this not comparable to defining a coorelating function in the vulgar form of a linear function? Or, rather, might such a function evolve to defy the definition of classical definition of a function, gaining multiple consquences for the same input, thusly accurately describing the truth in the model, though now in a contrieved manner, breaking from the orginial convention an array of revisions to the base definitions? Such an array of revisions would constitute concession of the orginial point, though, perhaps for the sake of the romantic notion, in such a round-about manner as to be deniable in the immediate sense before reason is presented.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aswadquote:
Of course, this God junk is just superstition, so they don't actually know what a nonexistent entity desires, but they believe they do, and I'm talking about from their point of view.
Considering the possibility that we may be nothing more than a science project in Simulated Universes 101, and that such a model accurately predicts the entirety of known science while positing the unfalsifiable hypothesis that there is something outside our known reality, I think it is rather irrational / superstitious to assert that G*d does not exist. Personally, I prefer a rational / scientific approach, sorting things into "has been shown false by testing", "has not been shown false by testing" and "unkown at this time".
I'm fine with people not believing. Hell, it'd make life so much simpler if I didn't consider the possibility.
If one should adopt the scientific method, then why would this one believe in something not shown to by such a method? Such strikes me as a contradiction.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aswad
But it seems hypocritical to believe in the invalidity of belief.
Would it not be reasonable to disagree with the basis of thought for a belief while not necessarily contradicting the conclusion? Such as, should one say that a marble is certainly under the first of three cups in a game, for the reason that the first cup is slightly larger than the others, would it not be reasonable to disagree with the belief while recognizing that the conclusion may have still been accurate?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aswadquote:
Another thousand, after that.
And so on, not just ad infinitum, but ad nauseam. You would either find yourself in a state of bliss- which is just incomprehensible to me, something I would never want for an extended period of time, as it would put a decided end to the journey, in many ways as bad as the atheist notion of death- or you would find yourself terminally bored to the point of begging for death.
Would bliss leave anyone begging for death? Such strikes me as a contradiction to the notion of bliss! Wouldn't a hardcore masochist's heaven be a rather painful one? Would one who craves excitement not find it in bliss? Is boredom not a contradiction to bliss? While one may readily question the viablity of eternal bliss provided by any environment, assuming such to be available, it would be nothing to suffer.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aswadquote:
Super glue. (I actually said "as possible". If you can't do it any better, than better simply isn't possible.)
Point being, there's very little solid ground for anything past speculation, and it would seem odd for me to enforce my speculations on others, wouldn't it? I mean, I accept the notion that I may be wrong in my beliefs, and I wouldn't want to be responsible for fucking things up for someone else by pushing my potentially erroneous beliefs on them. However, I'm happy to share them if people ask.
This may be one of the points in which I would recommend considering context. A true believer- as in, one who is certain of the truth in his beliefs- should follow the tenants of his religion. In the context of Christianity, this means saving souls- or converting others. Is this true in Islam? I'm afraid I'm not overly studied in the religion, though I suppose converting non-believers is likely a common element.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aswadquote:
My post was talking about the mainstream religions of Christanity and Islam and such.
Many organizations are harmful.
Organized religion is no different, except it exploits a weakness in zealots.
Do not confuse the organizations with the faiths.
The organization, particularly in the Roman Catholic faith, are part of the faith. They are not independent of one another.
Organizations, individuals, what's the difference outside of strength of influence? They can all be just as corrupt. Organizations are likely to seek the median of the bell curve moreso than the individuals, which would be more prone to greater deviations from the median.
In any case, objections to the organizations aside, the religion that they promote- that they form- was the context of these posts.
|
RE: Bishop: "call God 'Allah" to ease tensions - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread