RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster

RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/14/2017 11:55:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Illiterate much Not half as illiterate as somebody who can swallow an argument that a selective reading of Spinoza is a proof of God's existence: he mostly uses God as a synonym for all of existence in Ethics. It's a new age-y "God without God" sort of thing. Of course, you'd have to sit down and read the book to work that out, rather than swallowing the spin somebody's put on a few pre-chewed excerpts for you. Proof? Never made any such claim, more of your strawman shit. now if you had a remote clue you would know ethics is the philosophical study of morals, not morals in and of themselves. On the contrary you'd have to prove your spin.

Real0ne -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/14/2017 11:56:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Illiterate much [8\|] God is now described not so much as the underlying substance of all things, but as the universal, immanent and sustaining cause of all that exists: “From the necessity of the divine nature there must follow infinitely many things in infinitely many modes, (i.e., everything that can fall under an infinite intellect)”. According to the traditional Judeo-Christian conception of divinity, God is a transcendent creator, a being who causes a world distinct from himself to come into being by creating it out of nothing. God produces that world by a spontaneous act of free will, and could just as easily have not created anything outside himself. By contrast, Spinoza’s God is the cause of all things because all things follow causally and necessarily from the divine nature. Or, as he puts it, from God’s infinite power or nature “all things have necessarily flowed, or always followed, by the same necessity and in the same way as from the nature of a triangle it follows, from eternity and to eternity, that its three angles are equal to two right angles” (Ip17s1). The existence of the world is, thus, mathematically necessary. It is impossible that God should exist but not the world. This does not mean that God does not cause the world to come into being freely, since nothing outside of God constrains him to bring it into existence. But Spinoza does deny that God creates the world by some arbitrary and undetermined act of free will. God could not have done otherwise. There are no possible alternatives to the actual world, and absolutely no contingency or spontaneity within that world. Everything is absolutely and necessarily determined. (Ip29): In nature there is nothing contingent, but all things have been determined from the necessity of the divine nature to exist and produce an effect in a certain way. (Ip33): Things could have been produced by God in no other way, and in no other order than they have been produced. If that were true, then God must have a God tough to respond as there are several points being made, which one and how did you come to that conclusion?

WhoreMods -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/14/2017 12:01:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Illiterate much Not half as illiterate as somebody who can swallow an argument that a selective reading of Spinoza is a proof of God's existence: he mostly uses God as a synonym for all of existence in Ethics. It's a new age-y "God without God" sort of thing. Of course, you'd have to sit down and read the book to work that out, rather than swallowing the spin somebody's put on a few pre-chewed excerpts for you. Proof? Never made any such claim, more of your strawman shit. now if you had a remote clue you would know ethics is the philosophical study of morals, not morals in and of themselves. If you had a remote clue yourself, you'd know that "Ethics" is the title of the book of Spinoza's from 1670 that your (as always unattributed) quotations are misprisioning. Go buy a copy, and then read it.

Real0ne -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/14/2017 12:06:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Illiterate much Not half as illiterate as somebody who can swallow an argument that a selective reading of Spinoza is a proof of God's existence: he mostly uses God as a synonym for all of existence in Ethics. It's a new age-y "God without God" sort of thing. Of course, you'd have to sit down and read the book to work that out, rather than swallowing the spin somebody's put on a few pre-chewed excerpts for you. Proof? Never made any such claim, more of your strawman shit. now if you had a remote clue you would know ethics is the philosophical study of morals, not morals in and of themselves. If you had a remote clue yourself, you'd know that "Ethics" is the title of the book of Spinoza's from 1670 that your (as always unattributed) quotations are misprisioning. Go buy a copy, and then read it. It does not change or affect the distinction. You are the one swimming upstream gomer pyle, prove your spin. For centuries, Spinoza has been regarded—by his enemies and his partisans, in the scholarly literature and the popular imagination—as a “pantheist”. It is not clear, however, that this is the proper way to look at his conception of God. Of course, Spinoza is not a traditional theist, for whom God is a transcendent being. But does Spinoza’s identification of God with Nature mean that he is, as so many have insisted for so long, from the early eighteenth century up through the most recent edition of the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, a pantheist? In general, pantheism is the view that rejects the transcendence of God. According to the pantheist, God is, in some way, identical with the world. There may be aspects of God that are ontologically or epistemologically distinct from the world, but for pantheism this must not imply that God is essentially separate from the world. The pantheist is also likely to reject any kind of anthropomorphizing of God, or attributing to the deity psychological and moral characteristics modeled on human nature. The pantheist’s God is (usually) not a personal God.

WhoreMods -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/14/2017 12:21:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne It does not change or affect the distinction. It does when I'm talking about a book called Ethics rather than ethics as a field or branch of philosophy.

tamaka -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/14/2017 12:23:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Illiterate much [8\|] God is now described not so much as the underlying substance of all things, but as the universal, immanent and sustaining cause of all that exists: “From the necessity of the divine nature there must follow infinitely many things in infinitely many modes, (i.e., everything that can fall under an infinite intellect)”. According to the traditional Judeo-Christian conception of divinity, God is a transcendent creator, a being who causes a world distinct from himself to come into being by creating it out of nothing. God produces that world by a spontaneous act of free will, and could just as easily have not created anything outside himself. By contrast, Spinoza’s God is the cause of all things because all things follow causally and necessarily from the divine nature. Or, as he puts it, from God’s infinite power or nature “all things have necessarily flowed, or always followed, by the same necessity and in the same way as from the nature of a triangle it follows, from eternity and to eternity, that its three angles are equal to two right angles” (Ip17s1). The existence of the world is, thus, mathematically necessary. It is impossible that God should exist but not the world. This does not mean that God does not cause the world to come into being freely, since nothing outside of God constrains him to bring it into existence. But Spinoza does deny that God creates the world by some arbitrary and undetermined act of free will. God could not have done otherwise. There are no possible alternatives to the actual world, and absolutely no contingency or spontaneity within that world. Everything is absolutely and necessarily determined. (Ip29): In nature there is nothing contingent, but all things have been determined from the necessity of the divine nature to exist and produce an effect in a certain way. (Ip33): Things could have been produced by God in no other way, and in no other order than they have been produced. If that were true, then God must have a God tough to respond as there are several points being made, which one and how did you come to that conclusion? The whole thing. If anything, the idea that God must have created everything exactly as it is (and not some freely chosen way) creates the need for 'God' itself to have been programmed.

Real0ne -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/14/2017 12:28:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne It does not change or affect the distinction. It does when I'm talking about a book called Ethics rather than ethics as a field or branch of philosophy. The Theological-Political Treatise (1670) of Spinoza is not a work of philosophy in the usual sense of the term. BENEDICT DE SPINOZA: Theological-Political Treatise Yeh gomer illiterate bone head, go buy a copy.

Real0ne -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/14/2017 12:31:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Illiterate much [8\|] God is now described not so much as the underlying substance of all things, but as the universal, immanent and sustaining cause of all that exists: “From the necessity of the divine nature there must follow infinitely many things in infinitely many modes, (i.e., everything that can fall under an infinite intellect)”. According to the traditional Judeo-Christian conception of divinity, God is a transcendent creator, a being who causes a world distinct from himself to come into being by creating it out of nothing. God produces that world by a spontaneous act of free will, and could just as easily have not created anything outside himself. By contrast, Spinoza’s God is the cause of all things because all things follow causally and necessarily from the divine nature. Or, as he puts it, from God’s infinite power or nature “all things have necessarily flowed, or always followed, by the same necessity and in the same way as from the nature of a triangle it follows, from eternity and to eternity, that its three angles are equal to two right angles” (Ip17s1). The existence of the world is, thus, mathematically necessary. It is impossible that God should exist but not the world. This does not mean that God does not cause the world to come into being freely, since nothing outside of God constrains him to bring it into existence. But Spinoza does deny that God creates the world by some arbitrary and undetermined act of free will. God could not have done otherwise. There are no possible alternatives to the actual world, and absolutely no contingency or spontaneity within that world. Everything is absolutely and necessarily determined. (Ip29): In nature there is nothing contingent, but all things have been determined from the necessity of the divine nature to exist and produce an effect in a certain way. (Ip33): Things could have been produced by God in no other way, and in no other order than they have been produced. If that were true, then God must have a God tough to respond as there are several points being made, which one and how did you come to that conclusion? The whole thing. If anything, the idea that God must have created everything exactly as it is (and not some freely chosen way) creates the need for 'God' itself to have been programmed. on the other hand for God itself to be the programmer.....[:D]

tamaka -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/14/2017 12:40:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Illiterate much [8\|] God is now described not so much as the underlying substance of all things, but as the universal, immanent and sustaining cause of all that exists: “From the necessity of the divine nature there must follow infinitely many things in infinitely many modes, (i.e., everything that can fall under an infinite intellect)”. According to the traditional Judeo-Christian conception of divinity, God is a transcendent creator, a being who causes a world distinct from himself to come into being by creating it out of nothing. God produces that world by a spontaneous act of free will, and could just as easily have not created anything outside himself. By contrast, Spinoza’s God is the cause of all things because all things follow causally and necessarily from the divine nature. Or, as he puts it, from God’s infinite power or nature “all things have necessarily flowed, or always followed, by the same necessity and in the same way as from the nature of a triangle it follows, from eternity and to eternity, that its three angles are equal to two right angles” (Ip17s1). The existence of the world is, thus, mathematically necessary. It is impossible that God should exist but not the world. This does not mean that God does not cause the world to come into being freely, since nothing outside of God constrains him to bring it into existence. But Spinoza does deny that God creates the world by some arbitrary and undetermined act of free will. God could not have done otherwise. There are no possible alternatives to the actual world, and absolutely no contingency or spontaneity within that world. Everything is absolutely and necessarily determined. (Ip29): In nature there is nothing contingent, but all things have been determined from the necessity of the divine nature to exist and produce an effect in a certain way. (Ip33): Things could have been produced by God in no other way, and in no other order than they have been produced. If that were true, then God must have a God tough to respond as there are several points being made, which one and how did you come to that conclusion? The whole thing. If anything, the idea that God must have created everything exactly as it is (and not some freely chosen way) creates the need for 'God' itself to have been programmed. on the other hand for God itself to be the programmer.....[:D] The programmer who purposely limited itself? Why would a limitless God purposely determine to make itself limited/finite?

Real0ne -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/14/2017 1:11:34 PM)
sure whats so strange about that? We as people self limit. Self limitation does not mean the capacity to be limitless has diminished in any way. Why would it

tamaka -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/14/2017 1:17:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne sure whats so strange about that? We as people self limit. Self limitation does not mean the capacity to be limitless has diminished in any way. Why would it Over the course of humanity, we have not sought to limit ourselves. We have sought to expand and become increasingly limitless.

WhoreMods -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/14/2017 2:51:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne The Theological-Political Treatise (1670) of Spinoza is not a work of philosophy in the usual sense of the term. BENEDICT DE SPINOZA: Theological-Political Treatise Yeh gomer illiterate bone head, go buy a copy. I've already read it. You clearly haven't, or you'd recognise that Spinoza wrote more than one book over the course of his life.

Real0ne -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/14/2017 3:43:00 PM)
look 51 cards short of a full deck illiterate, the spinoza reader is a little pocket book reader, so stop pretending... According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spinoza's God is an “infinite intellect” (Ethics 2p11c) — all knowing (2p3), and capable of loving both himself—and us, insofar as we are part of his perfection (5p35c). And if the mark of a personal being is that it is one towards which we can entertain personal attitudes, then we should note too that Spinoza recommends amor intellectualis dei (the intellectual love of God) as the supreme good for man (5p33). However, the matter is complex. Spinoza's God does not have free will (1p32c1), he does not have purposes or intentions (1 appendix), and Spinoza insists that “neither intellect nor will pertain to the nature of God” (1p17s1). Moreover, while we may love God, we need to remember that God is really not the kind of being who could ever love us back. “He who loves God cannot strive that God should love him in return,” says Spinoza (5p19).[105] tough shit, spinoza is not an atheist by any stretch of a sane imagination. asshelmet tard. I'd tell you to read the fucking book but its too complicated for you to comprehend.

WhoreMods -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/14/2017 4:00:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne look 51 cards short of a full deck illiterate, the spinoza reader is a little pocket book reader, so stop pretending... According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spinoza's God is an “infinite intellect” (Ethics 2p11c) — all knowing (2p3), and capable of loving both himself—and us, insofar as we are part of his perfection (5p35c). And if the mark of a personal being is that it is one towards which we can entertain personal attitudes, then we should note too that Spinoza recommends amor intellectualis dei (the intellectual love of God) as the supreme good for man (5p33). However, the matter is complex. Spinoza's God does not have free will (1p32c1), he does not have purposes or intentions (1 appendix), and Spinoza insists that “neither intellect nor will pertain to the nature of God” (1p17s1). Moreover, while we may love God, we need to remember that God is really not the kind of being who could ever love us back. “He who loves God cannot strive that God should love him in return,” says Spinoza (5p19).[105] tough shit, spinoza is not an atheist by any stretch of a sane imagination. asshelmet tard. I'd tell you to read the fucking book but its too complicated for you to comprehend. He's a man who refused to worship an anthropomorphic God, and argued that all creation is divine so our only approach to God involves treating this world and its contents with respect. He ceased to be recognised as terribly jewish when he started coming out with that, for some reason. The Spinoza reader, btw, is the full text of Ethics padded out with relevant excerpts from his other work: note the full title below, and the page count on the Amazon page I directed you to. [img]https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41wG2ONQneL._SX327_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg[/img] Nul points.

Real0ne -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/14/2017 4:06:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne look 51 cards short of a full deck illiterate, the spinoza reader is a little pocket book reader, so stop pretending... tough shit, spinoza is not an atheist by any stretch of a sane imagination. asshelmet tard. I'd tell you to read the fucking book but its too complicated for you to comprehend. He's a man who refused to worship an anthropomorphic God, and argued that all creation is divine so our only approach to God involves treating this world and its contents with respect. He ceased to be recognised as terribly jewish when he started coming out with that, for some reason. The Spinoza reader, btw, is the full text of Ethics padded out with relevant excerpts from his other work: note the full title below, and the page count on the Amazon page I directed you to. Nul points. Yes I am sure its in there if stanford is quoting it ziojiz asshelmet. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Spinoza's God is an “infinite intellect” (Ethics 2p11c) quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Look them up for yourself, a Bible shouldn't be too hard for you to find. In other words, you know damn well you were full of shit God-Botherer. atheists, the ones who have thrown everything religion in the dumpster despite the nose on their face simply pound square pegs in round holes and demand that their methods are the only 'correct' methods. What, like the jew-turned-atheist Spinoza? If spinoza has a God of any kind what so ever he is NOT an atheist capice asshelmet?

WhoreMods -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/14/2017 4:15:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne look 51 cards short of a full deck illiterate, the spinoza reader is a little pocket book reader, so stop pretending... tough shit, spinoza is not an atheist by any stretch of a sane imagination. asshelmet tard. I'd tell you to read the fucking book but its too complicated for you to comprehend. He's a man who refused to worship an anthropomorphic God, and argued that all creation is divine so our only approach to God involves treating this world and its contents with respect. He ceased to be recognised as terribly jewish when he started coming out with that, for some reason. The Spinoza reader, btw, is the full text of Ethics padded out with relevant excerpts from his other work: note the full title below, and the page count on the Amazon page I directed you to. Nul points. Yes I am sure its in there if stanford is quoting it ziojiz asshelmet. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Spinoza's God is an “infinite intellect” (Ethics 2p11c) If spinoza has a God of any kind what so ever he is NOT an atheist capice asshelmet? Infinite intellect is everything that exists, which was Spinoza's definition of God, and one that led to him being excommunicated from the Jewish faith for refusing to worship a traditional human shaped God.

Real0ne -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/14/2017 4:19:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne look 51 cards short of a full deck illiterate, the spinoza reader is a little pocket book reader, so stop pretending... tough shit, spinoza is not an atheist by any stretch of a sane imagination. asshelmet tard. I'd tell you to read the fucking book but its too complicated for you to comprehend. He's a man who refused to worship an anthropomorphic God, and argued that all creation is divine so our only approach to God involves treating this world and its contents with respect. He ceased to be recognised as terribly jewish when he started coming out with that, for some reason. The Spinoza reader, btw, is the full text of Ethics padded out with relevant excerpts from his other work: note the full title below, and the page count on the Amazon page I directed you to. Nul points. Yes I am sure its in there if stanford is quoting it ziojiz asshelmet. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Spinoza's God is an “infinite intellect” (Ethics 2p11c) If spinoza has a God of any kind what so ever he is NOT an atheist capice asshelmet? Infinite intellect is everything that exists, which was Spinoza's definition of God, and one that led to him being excommunicated from the Jewish faith for refusing to worship a traditional human shaped God. Doesnt make him an atheist ziojiz tard troll boy. quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods What, like the jew-turned-atheist Spinoza? He was scorned because in his theology he seen God through pantheists colored glasses.

WhoreMods -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/14/2017 4:26:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne look 51 cards short of a full deck illiterate, the spinoza reader is a little pocket book reader, so stop pretending... tough shit, spinoza is not an atheist by any stretch of a sane imagination. asshelmet tard. I'd tell you to read the fucking book but its too complicated for you to comprehend. He's a man who refused to worship an anthropomorphic God, and argued that all creation is divine so our only approach to God involves treating this world and its contents with respect. He ceased to be recognised as terribly jewish when he started coming out with that, for some reason. The Spinoza reader, btw, is the full text of Ethics padded out with relevant excerpts from his other work: note the full title below, and the page count on the Amazon page I directed you to. Nul points. Yes I am sure its in there if stanford is quoting it ziojiz asshelmet. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Spinoza's God is an “infinite intellect” (Ethics 2p11c) If spinoza has a God of any kind what so ever he is NOT an atheist capice asshelmet? Infinite intellect is everything that exists, which was Spinoza's definition of God, and one that led to him being excommunicated from the Jewish faith for refusing to worship a traditional human shaped God. Doesnt make him an atheist ziojiz tard troll boy. quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods What, like the jew-turned-atheist Spinoza? He was scorned because in his theology he seen God through pantheists colored glasses. He was excommunicated (not scorned) by his religion because he refused to differentiate between God and the rest of existence.

Real0ne -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/14/2017 4:31:32 PM)
He is not an atheist as you lied to us about.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster (8/14/2017 4:54:38 PM)
Oh dear, this has gotten so stupid it is getting surreal. Thank you guys, you are great!

Page: << < prev 36 37 [38] 39 40 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375