it seems to me sometimes that many people use "weak atheism" to mean what agnosticism already means. I'm trying to figure out where the line is drawn.
I mean, I do not believe in god, but I would by no means call myself an atheist, as I do not disbelieve in god either.
Disclaimer: The following are the definitions that I think are most accurate. Feel free to disagree.
Theism is "having a belief in god." Everything else, by definition, is atheism, or "not having a belief in god." Atheism encompasses being indecisive or indeterminate about whether you believe in god (what many people think of as "agnosticism," but I'll come back to that), Weak Atheism ("I don't believe in god") and Strong Atheism ("There is no god").
I don't like using the term "agnostic" for being indecisive about whether or not god exists, because I think agnosticism means something entirely different; it refers to the question of whether or not you can know anything about god, independent of whether or not god exists. An agnostic would be someone who doesn't believe that any knowledge about god is possible, including whether or not god exists. A gnostic (small g) would be someone who, conversely, does believe that knowledge about god is possible.
The two sets (theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism) are separate and can be set on x-y axes, as it were. So, you can have the following:
Agnostic (soft) atheist: "I don't believe in god, and regardless of that, even if I did believe in god, I don't believe I could ever know anything about god."
Agnostic theist: "I believe in god, but I don't believe that I can KNOW anything about god; my belief in his existence is based on faith, not knowledge."
Gnostic (soft) atheist: "I don't believe in god, but I do believe that it would be theoretically possible to know something about god (for example, if a god showed up on my doorstep, I could know what it looked like)."
Gnostic theist: "I believe in god, and I believe it's possible to have knowledge of god."
I've never seen an agnostic construct a hecatomb to Zeus "just in case" or "because I'm not entirely sure he doesn't exist."
This could be perhaps because polytheism is not in accordance with the constitution of western metaphysics, whereas monotheism is.[/QUOTE]
Okay. I've never seen an agnostic pray to Jesus for salvation from Yahweh's judgment "just in case" or "because I'm not entirely sure Yahweh doesn't exist."
I've never seen an agnostic pray towards Mecca because they're not entirely sure Allah doesn't exist.
I have seen agnostics define the word "God" in such a way that, should God exist, God would not affect their behavior in the slightest.
for the record, if you ask google to define atheism, you WILL get both definitions, but the first one (which in definition terms means the most widely accepted one) is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God".
for the record, if you ask google to define atheism, you WILL get both definitions, but the first one (which in definition terms means the most widely accepted one) is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God".
which is why there strong/weak/whatever qualifiers exist?
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
for the record, if you ask google to define atheism, you WILL get both definitions, but the first one (which in definition terms means the most widely accepted one) is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God".
which is why there strong/weak/whatever qualifiers exist?
except that those qualifiers serve to confuse discussion, in my opinion. because they suggest that states 0 and 2 exist on a spectrum together, but that spectrum is seperate from state 1 (theism)
when, in reality, it could be said EITHER that all three states are seperate, or else that all three states exist on the same spectrum.
for the record, if you ask google to define atheism, you WILL get both definitions, but the first one (which in definition terms means the most widely accepted one) is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God".
Is contingent on how the words "belief" and "God" are defined.
Many atheists understand the word belief to imply a lack of absolute 100% certainty or otherwise feel that absolute 100% certainty about anything is logically impossible.
So, yeah. We're back to the place where, if you define atheism in the way you're trying to define it, that means Richard Dawkins isn't actually an atheist and the word loses its practical function of identifying actual people.
for the record, if you ask google to define atheism, you WILL get both definitions, but the first one (which in definition terms means the most widely accepted one) is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God".
Sure, that's a type of atheism. It's not the only type. "There is no god" is distinct from "I don't believe in god." One is a positive claim about reality; the other is a description about one's personal belief or lack thereof in a deity.
Many atheists understand the word belief to imply a lack of absolute 100% certainty or otherwise feel that absolute 100% certainty about anything is logically impossible.
Except when talking to theists about their belief in God, right?
Or can you rationalize that double standard for me any better this time?
Just wanted to say somethign so you didn't think I was abandonning this discussion. I'm enjoyign this, and I honestly do think we're getting somewhere.
for the record, if you ask google to define atheism, you WILL get both definitions, but the first one (which in definition terms means the most widely accepted one) is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God".
which is why there strong/weak/whatever qualifiers exist?
except that those qualifiers serve to confuse discussion, in my opinion. because they suggest that states 0 and 2 exist on a spectrum together, but that spectrum is seperate from state 1 (theism)
when, in reality, it could be said EITHER that all three states are seperate, or else that all three states exist on the same spectrum.
your problem is that you are trying to place every position along a line between the two extremes, and it doesn't really work
someone else already pointed this out
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Basically, the terms don't actually tell you much about a person, and their varied use makes them nigh-useless.
They're usually just used to create factions.
We should come up with new words.
In fact, let's express them in formula form.
I hearby define my position as follows: LG=F,BG=F,99%. I live my Life under the assumption that God does not exist, my Belief is that God, in all likelihood, does not exist and I'm 99% certain that he does not exist.
My parents, however, would be like this: LG=T,BG=T,100%. They live their Lives under the assumption that God does exist, and their Belief is that God, in all likelihood, does exist and they're 100% certain that he does exist.
However, my buddy Nick would be like this: LG=F,BG=Unk,100%. He lives his Life under the assumption that God does not exist, and his Belief is that God's existance, in all likelihood, is unknowable and he's 100% certain of that fact.
Many atheists understand the word belief to imply a lack of absolute 100% certainty or otherwise feel that absolute 100% certainty about anything is logically impossible.
Except when talking to theists about their belief in God, right?
Or can you rationalize that double standard for me any better this time?
Why don't you go back and read the post where I explicitly addressed this.
The most important part of being a Catholic, I think, is ritual nature of it. For catholicism, praxis is even more important than belief. Someone who had very little faith who nevertheless went to church and confession might in fact be a "better" catholic than someone who believed in those things but never went through with the sacraments.
Wow. Still fascinated. Your belief in the existence of god comes from a rigorous, intellectual study, including reading and digesting literature that takes years of university education to understand, but you are willing to take the power of these rituals on face? (and seemingly on faith?)
While you're in confession, or taking the sacrament, or praying, do you ever wonder whether your belief in the power of these rituals is is misplaced, or put more bluntly, whether you are wasting your time?
And honestly, I'm not trying to ridicule you. When I say I'm curious I mean I'm curious.
Theist: Someone who believes there is a god(s).
Atheists: Someone who believes there is no god.
Gnostic: Someone who is sure in their belief.
Agnostic: Someone who is is not 100% sure in their belief.
It's not a 1D scale, it's a 2D scale.
agnostic has absolutely had some definition creep as well.
the problem, in my mind, is that we have no word for the 0 state I posted above. some one who does not believe or disbelieve.
I'm kinda sorta skimming through some posts, but it seems to me that an agnostic, that lacks belief that there is a god or is not a god, perfectly fits your 0 state definition.
for the record, if you ask google to define atheism, you WILL get both definitions, but the first one (which in definition terms means the most widely accepted one) is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God".
which is why there strong/weak/whatever qualifiers exist?
except that those qualifiers serve to confuse discussion, in my opinion. because they suggest that states 0 and 2 exist on a spectrum together, but that spectrum is seperate from state 1 (theism)
when, in reality, it could be said EITHER that all three states are seperate, or else that all three states exist on the same spectrum.
I disagree. If theism means "I hold a belief in god," and atheism at its most basic means the opposite of that, "I do not hold a belief in god," then your state 0 is, I think, absolutely a type of atheism. If you can't decide whether or not you hold a belief in something, then you don't hold a belief in that something. Maybe you will in the future, but you currently don't.
Imagine theism as a club. The bouncer only admits people who say that they believe in god. You get to the door and he asks you, "Do you believe in god?" If you say "I don't know," you'll be out on the street along with the people who answered "No I don't" and "Of course not, because there is no god." You'll be an atheist, because you're not in the club.
I believe that the ontological argument for the existence of god, as essentia deum est existentia, properly argued from an a foundation of the onto-theo-logos, which I argued in a thread a few months ago, is evidence that nobody can doubt the existence of a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and infinite. Most people ended up saying "ok, so Being might be that but I don't have to worship it." So i'm not sure I agree with that.
I don't see a perfect ham sandwich in front of me.
The most important part of being a Catholic, I think, is ritual nature of it. For catholicism, praxis is even more important than belief. Someone who had very little faith who nevertheless went to church and confession might in fact be a "better" catholic than someone who believed in those things but never went through with the sacraments.
Wow. Still fascinated. Your belief in the existence of god comes from a rigorous, intellectual study, including reading and digesting literature that takes years of university education to understand, but you are willing to take the power of these rituals on face? (and seemingly on faith?)
While you're in confession, or taking the sacrament, or praying, do you ever wonder whether your belief in the power of these rituals is is misplaced, or put more bluntly, whether you are wasting your time?
And honestly, I'm not trying to ridicule you. When I say I'm curious I mean I'm curious.
Nope. The easy and susceptible answer is that I feel an incredibly unique feeling during these things, and I do feel spiritually "resolved" and "closer" after confession. Intellectually, I believe that to be authentically existential you must be rigorous in resolutely facing Being. Ritual provides an excellent avenue for this, with the added points of being extremely temporalized -- that the same is repeated over and over again, so that it is both different and the same.
Of course I have doubt. It is impossible not to have doubt. But even in doubt, I try to be steadfast in continuing, and it usually works out.
Also, believing in God has given me hope that we can one day "leap out of metaphysics," into some "supermetaphysics," some metaphysics that operates by a different logic and a different conception of Being, etc.
Basically, the terms don't actually tell you much about a person, and their varied use makes them nigh-useless.
They're usually just used to create factions.
We should come up with new words.
In fact, let's express them in formula form.
It could be like one of those coding systems they use for roleplaying MUDs.
--
Podly: You should try Buddhism. You get all of that but with less guilt and lots of international travel to sweet festivals. Also lots of girls doing yoga.
Also, believing in God has given me hope that we can one day "leap out of metaphysics," into some "supermetaphysics," some metaphysics that operates by a different logic and a different conception of Being, etc.
A different logic?
You mean a logic where tautologies are valid and you can define things into truth?
Also, believing in God has given me hope that we can one day "leap out of metaphysics," into some "supermetaphysics," some metaphysics that operates by a different logic and a different conception of Being, etc.
A different logic?
You mean a logic where tautologies are valid and you can define things into truth?
Ritual provides an excellent avenue for this, with the added points of being extremely temporalized -- that the same is repeated over and over again, so that it is both different and the same.
Of course I have doubt. It is impossible not to have doubt. But even in doubt, I try to be steadfast in continuing, and it usually works out.
Also, believing in God has given me hope that we can one day "leap out of metaphysics," into some "supermetaphysics," some metaphysics that operates by a different logic and a different conception of Being, etc.
Again, if I brush my teeth and eat my broccoli, I'll go to Heaven. Jesus who?
Religion is about standards and I don't think there's a clergyman out there who would agree that imitating a Christian is equal to being a Christian. Armageddon needs to hurry up and get here so we can straighten this all out.
emnmnme on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Correct, which is why early I said that it should be more probably stated "omniscience is Being" and "omnipresence is Being."
...
And? What's the point? I could just as easily say "Unicorn is Being." That doesn't mean that unicorns actually exist.
Well what is your ontology? Because I can say a lot of things about unicorns which are true. It is also hard to talk about something which doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, how else could we talk about it? That would be like talking about something which doesn't exist, like a table which violates the law of the excluded middle.
Wow. I go to lunch, and the thread becomes entirely about semantics, as opposed to just semantic skirmishes in the hills.
My problem with Podly's arguments is that it relies entirely upon a set of arcane semantic definitions that can neither be confirmed nor denied. It's pretty easy to "logically prove" anything you want, when you are free to define every element of the language you're using.
One can not logically arrive at a conclusion that God exists. God cannot be measured, observed, or quantified; thus, there can be no proof. There is no premise you can build a logical argument from that can be stated to be fact.
This is why it's called "Faith".
Houn on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Wow. I go to lunch, and the thread becomes entirely about semantics, as opposed to just semantic skirmishes in the hills.
My problem with Podly's arguments is that it relies entirely upon a set of arcane semantic definitions that can neither be confirmed nor denied. It's pretty easy to "logically prove" anything you want, when you are free to define every element of the language you're using.
One can not logically arrive at a conclusion that God exists. God cannot be measured, observed, or quantified; thus, there can be no proof. There is no premise you can build a logical argument from that can be stated to be fact.
This is why it's called "Faith".
Of course he cannot be. God is not a being, nor is he an ontical thing. He could thus never be measure, observed, or quantified. However, he can be "logically" "faced", so long as the human existential framework is analyzed.
It's more or less the Young Earth Creationist tactic of trying to build confidence in themselves and others of something they wish to be true by applying terminology and ideas from authoritative sources without actually getting anywhere meaningful using the methods.
People get dead set that their way is right because if it isn't they will feel just awful and try to prove that reality conformed to their desires all along contrary to thousands of years of evidence to the contrary.
Your philosophising is hurting my brain! ...and giving me flashbacks to that first year university paper I did "out of interest". It turns out, I didnt find philosophy particularly engaging.
For those who are "of faith". Do you have any issue including it in your politics?
So, for example - voting on issues surrounding abortion, or gay marriage etc.
How comfortable are you working towards a rule of law that will force people that don't share your personal beliefs into abiding by them?
Wow. I go to lunch, and the thread becomes entirely about semantics, as opposed to just semantic skirmishes in the hills.
My problem with Podly's arguments is that it relies entirely upon a set of arcane semantic definitions that can neither be confirmed nor denied. It's pretty easy to "logically prove" anything you want, when you are free to define every element of the language you're using.
One can not logically arrive at a conclusion that God exists. God cannot be measured, observed, or quantified; thus, there can be no proof. There is no premise you can build a logical argument from that can be stated to be fact.
This is why it's called "Faith".
Of course he cannot be. God is not a being, nor is he an ontical thing. He could thus never be measure, observed, or quantified. However, he can be "logically" "faced", so long as the human existential framework is analyzed.
I'm pretty sure every major religion that is currently practiced, and most of those that are no longer practiced, disagree on this point.
I don't even want to know your definition for the word "be", since my definition is pretty locked into the concept of "exist". And I'm sure most dictionaries will agree with me on this one.
Thus, you just stated God does not exist. What exactly are you arguing?
Houn on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
How comfortable are you working towards a rule of law that will force people that don't share your personal beliefs into abiding by them?
If it's based on religious belief alone, I would feel entirely against it. My belief on abortion is based on philosophy, however -- that it is impossible to define person, even for someone outside the womb, so it is best to restrict abortions to as little as possible, e.g., an ectopic pregnancy for instance. I believe that the death penalty is wrong, and I am personally fine with forcing that into law, but again I think that it is best for society moreso than it is immoral.
Wow. I go to lunch, and the thread becomes entirely about semantics, as opposed to just semantic skirmishes in the hills.
My problem with Podly's arguments is that it relies entirely upon a set of arcane semantic definitions that can neither be confirmed nor denied. It's pretty easy to "logically prove" anything you want, when you are free to define every element of the language you're using.
One can not logically arrive at a conclusion that God exists. God cannot be measured, observed, or quantified; thus, there can be no proof. There is no premise you can build a logical argument from that can be stated to be fact.
This is why it's called "Faith".
Of course he cannot be. God is not a being, nor is he an ontical thing. He could thus never be measure, observed, or quantified. However, he can be "logically" "faced", so long as the human existential framework is analyzed.
I'm pretty sure every major religion that is currently practiced, and most of those that are no longer practiced, disagree on this point.
I don't even want to know your definition for the word "be", since my definition is pretty locked into the concept of "exist". And I'm sure most dictionaries will agree with me on this one.
Thus, you just stated God does not exist. What exactly are you arguing?
Correct. God does not exist, nor is he a being. God IS Being. This is, again, the traditional christian scholastic definition of God (essentia deum est existenia). God does not exist, for God IS existence.
What do you call a person who hates Yahweh but loves Jesus?
Illiterate.
Uh....
Gnostic?
That's sorta Gnosticism's deal.
Gnostics praise Jesus as a bringer of truth and knowledge, and consider Yahweh a horrible creature they call the "Demiurge" who keeps humanity from truth.
Wow. I go to lunch, and the thread becomes entirely about semantics, as opposed to just semantic skirmishes in the hills.
My problem with Podly's arguments is that it relies entirely upon a set of arcane semantic definitions that can neither be confirmed nor denied. It's pretty easy to "logically prove" anything you want, when you are free to define every element of the language you're using.
One can not logically arrive at a conclusion that God exists. God cannot be measured, observed, or quantified; thus, there can be no proof. There is no premise you can build a logical argument from that can be stated to be fact.
This is why it's called "Faith".
Of course he cannot be. God is not a being, nor is he an ontical thing. He could thus never be measure, observed, or quantified. However, he can be "logically" "faced", so long as the human existential framework is analyzed.
I'm pretty sure every major religion that is currently practiced, and most of those that are no longer practiced, disagree on this point.
I don't even want to know your definition for the word "be", since my definition is pretty locked into the concept of "exist". And I'm sure most dictionaries will agree with me on this one.
Thus, you just stated God does not exist. What exactly are you arguing?
Correct. God does not exist, nor is he a being. God IS Being. This is, again, the traditional christian scholastic definition of God (essentia deum est existenia). God does not exist, for God IS existence.
This sounds like pantheism.
Melkster on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Wow. I go to lunch, and the thread becomes entirely about semantics, as opposed to just semantic skirmishes in the hills.
My problem with Podly's arguments is that it relies entirely upon a set of arcane semantic definitions that can neither be confirmed nor denied. It's pretty easy to "logically prove" anything you want, when you are free to define every element of the language you're using.
One can not logically arrive at a conclusion that God exists. God cannot be measured, observed, or quantified; thus, there can be no proof. There is no premise you can build a logical argument from that can be stated to be fact.
This is why it's called "Faith".
Of course he cannot be. God is not a being, nor is he an ontical thing. He could thus never be measure, observed, or quantified. However, he can be "logically" "faced", so long as the human existential framework is analyzed.
I'm pretty sure every major religion that is currently practiced, and most of those that are no longer practiced, disagree on this point.
I don't even want to know your definition for the word "be", since my definition is pretty locked into the concept of "exist". And I'm sure most dictionaries will agree with me on this one.
Thus, you just stated God does not exist. What exactly are you arguing?
Correct. God does not exist, nor is he a being. God IS Being. This is, again, the traditional christian scholastic definition of God (essentia deum est existenia). God does not exist, for God IS existence.
This sounds like pantheism.
No, because pantheism is that everything is god, in the Spinozian sense it can be stated that every being is God under an essential knowable attribute. God is not any being. He is Being.
Posts
they do not hold a belief in a lack of god
so they are not atheists.
(we can go back and forth)
Disclaimer: The following are the definitions that I think are most accurate. Feel free to disagree.
Theism is "having a belief in god." Everything else, by definition, is atheism, or "not having a belief in god." Atheism encompasses being indecisive or indeterminate about whether you believe in god (what many people think of as "agnosticism," but I'll come back to that), Weak Atheism ("I don't believe in god") and Strong Atheism ("There is no god").
I don't like using the term "agnostic" for being indecisive about whether or not god exists, because I think agnosticism means something entirely different; it refers to the question of whether or not you can know anything about god, independent of whether or not god exists. An agnostic would be someone who doesn't believe that any knowledge about god is possible, including whether or not god exists. A gnostic (small g) would be someone who, conversely, does believe that knowledge about god is possible.
The two sets (theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism) are separate and can be set on x-y axes, as it were. So, you can have the following:
Agnostic (soft) atheist: "I don't believe in god, and regardless of that, even if I did believe in god, I don't believe I could ever know anything about god."
Agnostic theist: "I believe in god, but I don't believe that I can KNOW anything about god; my belief in his existence is based on faith, not knowledge."
Gnostic (soft) atheist: "I don't believe in god, but I do believe that it would be theoretically possible to know something about god (for example, if a god showed up on my doorstep, I could know what it looked like)."
Gnostic theist: "I believe in god, and I believe it's possible to have knowledge of god."
edit: at least, not in a way that is seperate from agnosticism.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
This could be perhaps because polytheism is not in accordance with the constitution of western metaphysics, whereas monotheism is.[/QUOTE]
Okay. I've never seen an agnostic pray to Jesus for salvation from Yahweh's judgment "just in case" or "because I'm not entirely sure Yahweh doesn't exist."
I've never seen an agnostic pray towards Mecca because they're not entirely sure Allah doesn't exist.
I have seen agnostics define the word "God" in such a way that, should God exist, God would not affect their behavior in the slightest.
it is absolutely NOT seperate from agnosticism.
I would argue, however, that it is seperate from both theism and atheism.
which is why there strong/weak/whatever qualifiers exist?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
except that those qualifiers serve to confuse discussion, in my opinion. because they suggest that states 0 and 2 exist on a spectrum together, but that spectrum is seperate from state 1 (theism)
when, in reality, it could be said EITHER that all three states are seperate, or else that all three states exist on the same spectrum.
Many atheists understand the word belief to imply a lack of absolute 100% certainty or otherwise feel that absolute 100% certainty about anything is logically impossible.
So, yeah. We're back to the place where, if you define atheism in the way you're trying to define it, that means Richard Dawkins isn't actually an atheist and the word loses its practical function of identifying actual people.
Sure, that's a type of atheism. It's not the only type. "There is no god" is distinct from "I don't believe in god." One is a positive claim about reality; the other is a description about one's personal belief or lack thereof in a deity.
Except when talking to theists about their belief in God, right?
Or can you rationalize that double standard for me any better this time?
Just wanted to say somethign so you didn't think I was abandonning this discussion. I'm enjoyign this, and I honestly do think we're getting somewhere.
your problem is that you are trying to place every position along a line between the two extremes, and it doesn't really work
someone else already pointed this out
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
We should come up with new words.
In fact, let's express them in formula form.
I hearby define my position as follows: LG=F,BG=F,99%. I live my Life under the assumption that God does not exist, my Belief is that God, in all likelihood, does not exist and I'm 99% certain that he does not exist.
My parents, however, would be like this: LG=T,BG=T,100%. They live their Lives under the assumption that God does exist, and their Belief is that God, in all likelihood, does exist and they're 100% certain that he does exist.
However, my buddy Nick would be like this: LG=F,BG=Unk,100%. He lives his Life under the assumption that God does not exist, and his Belief is that God's existance, in all likelihood, is unknowable and he's 100% certain of that fact.
Etc.
That would be so much clearer.
Wow. Still fascinated. Your belief in the existence of god comes from a rigorous, intellectual study, including reading and digesting literature that takes years of university education to understand, but you are willing to take the power of these rituals on face? (and seemingly on faith?)
While you're in confession, or taking the sacrament, or praying, do you ever wonder whether your belief in the power of these rituals is is misplaced, or put more bluntly, whether you are wasting your time?
And honestly, I'm not trying to ridicule you. When I say I'm curious I mean I'm curious.
I'm kinda sorta skimming through some posts, but it seems to me that an agnostic, that lacks belief that there is a god or is not a god, perfectly fits your 0 state definition.
I disagree. If theism means "I hold a belief in god," and atheism at its most basic means the opposite of that, "I do not hold a belief in god," then your state 0 is, I think, absolutely a type of atheism. If you can't decide whether or not you hold a belief in something, then you don't hold a belief in that something. Maybe you will in the future, but you currently don't.
Imagine theism as a club. The bouncer only admits people who say that they believe in god. You get to the door and he asks you, "Do you believe in god?" If you say "I don't know," you'll be out on the street along with the people who answered "No I don't" and "Of course not, because there is no god." You'll be an atheist, because you're not in the club.
I don't see a perfect ham sandwich in front of me.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Nope. The easy and susceptible answer is that I feel an incredibly unique feeling during these things, and I do feel spiritually "resolved" and "closer" after confession. Intellectually, I believe that to be authentically existential you must be rigorous in resolutely facing Being. Ritual provides an excellent avenue for this, with the added points of being extremely temporalized -- that the same is repeated over and over again, so that it is both different and the same.
Of course I have doubt. It is impossible not to have doubt. But even in doubt, I try to be steadfast in continuing, and it usually works out.
Also, believing in God has given me hope that we can one day "leap out of metaphysics," into some "supermetaphysics," some metaphysics that operates by a different logic and a different conception of Being, etc.
It could be like one of those coding systems they use for roleplaying MUDs.
--
Podly: You should try Buddhism. You get all of that but with less guilt and lots of international travel to sweet festivals. Also lots of girls doing yoga.
Handmade Jewelry by me on EtsyGames for sale
Me on Twitch!
You mean a logic where tautologies are valid and you can define things into truth?
Podly is a 10-foot tall elephant. This is true!
...
And? What's the point? I could just as easily say "Unicorn is Being." That doesn't mean that unicorns actually exist.
Super Logic.
The kind found in Super Jail.
Again, if I brush my teeth and eat my broccoli, I'll go to Heaven. Jesus who?
Religion is about standards and I don't think there's a clergyman out there who would agree that imitating a Christian is equal to being a Christian. Armageddon needs to hurry up and get here so we can straighten this all out.
Well what is your ontology? Because I can say a lot of things about unicorns which are true. It is also hard to talk about something which doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, how else could we talk about it? That would be like talking about something which doesn't exist, like a table which violates the law of the excluded middle.
Illiterate.
My problem with Podly's arguments is that it relies entirely upon a set of arcane semantic definitions that can neither be confirmed nor denied. It's pretty easy to "logically prove" anything you want, when you are free to define every element of the language you're using.
One can not logically arrive at a conclusion that God exists. God cannot be measured, observed, or quantified; thus, there can be no proof. There is no premise you can build a logical argument from that can be stated to be fact.
This is why it's called "Faith".
Of course he cannot be. God is not a being, nor is he an ontical thing. He could thus never be measure, observed, or quantified. However, he can be "logically" "faced", so long as the human existential framework is analyzed.
People get dead set that their way is right because if it isn't they will feel just awful and try to prove that reality conformed to their desires all along contrary to thousands of years of evidence to the contrary.
For those who are "of faith". Do you have any issue including it in your politics?
So, for example - voting on issues surrounding abortion, or gay marriage etc.
How comfortable are you working towards a rule of law that will force people that don't share your personal beliefs into abiding by them?
I'm pretty sure every major religion that is currently practiced, and most of those that are no longer practiced, disagree on this point.
I don't even want to know your definition for the word "be", since my definition is pretty locked into the concept of "exist". And I'm sure most dictionaries will agree with me on this one.
Thus, you just stated God does not exist. What exactly are you arguing?
If it's based on religious belief alone, I would feel entirely against it. My belief on abortion is based on philosophy, however -- that it is impossible to define person, even for someone outside the womb, so it is best to restrict abortions to as little as possible, e.g., an ectopic pregnancy for instance. I believe that the death penalty is wrong, and I am personally fine with forcing that into law, but again I think that it is best for society moreso than it is immoral.
Correct. God does not exist, nor is he a being. God IS Being. This is, again, the traditional christian scholastic definition of God (essentia deum est existenia). God does not exist, for God IS existence.
Uh....
Gnostic?
That's sorta Gnosticism's deal.
Gnostics praise Jesus as a bringer of truth and knowledge, and consider Yahweh a horrible creature they call the "Demiurge" who keeps humanity from truth.
Seriously.
Look it up!
This sounds like pantheism.
No, because pantheism is that everything is god, in the Spinozian sense it can be stated that every being is God under an essential knowable attribute. God is not any being. He is Being.