Can we all agree to agree?

Originally posted by whodey
I think the crux of the problem in terms of people getting angry about talk of the existence of God is that they are angry at heart. We live in a world of pain and suffering, thus the thought of an all powerful God at the helm of creation leads them to believe that God wants them to suffer or is responsible for their suffering.

Putting aside the problem o ...[text shortened]... when these limitations in our reasoning are present and abandon relying on it when applicable.

But that's just it, we'r enot angry at god for the state of the world, he doesn't exist. If we're talking about contradictions I think the one of the biggest ones is that of when theists try to understand the atheist position. Be it a reasonable or angered one, they try and do so from the point of view that god exists and we're either annoyed at him, or that he exists and we're apalled at his inconsistencies or logical contradictions. When what we're really annoyed or appalled at is the nature of the theist mind, the inconsistencies or logical contradictions there. We're not annoyed at god, he doesn't exist. We're annoyed at theists for what we see as the abandonment of reason and the actions their illogical beliefs cause, for the invalidity of arguments and sometimes the sheer stupidity of those making them. God doesn't feature in it at all.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't really see how one can love an image of God. I guess it would be like loving your favorite painting? I would say I like some of the images but then some of the images of the devil are rather pleasing too (happy guy with forked tail and horns).

A very significant proportion of theists do not serve God because they love him (or his image). In fac ...[text shortened]... and offered to let someone else into heaven in your place, would you be loving enough to agree.

I serve God because i believe in him...i dont do it to get "Brownie points"...

To answer your question... if God wanted me to step aside to let another into heaven then i would with no hesitation...if that is what the Lord wants then i obey him!!!

Originally posted by Starrman
But that's just it, we'r enot angry at god for the state of the world, he doesn't exist. If we're talking about contradictions I think the one of the biggest ones is that of when theists try to understand the atheist position. Be it a reasonable or angered one, they try and do so from the point of view that god exists and we're either annoyed at him, or t ...[text shortened]... ometimes the sheer stupidity of those making them. God doesn't feature in it at all.

The greatest trick the devil played on man was to make us believe he doesn't exsist!!!

Originally posted by Jay Joos
The greatest trick the devil played on man was to make us believe he doesn't exsist!!!

Blah, blah, blah.

God be you... and all around you

Originally posted by Starrman
Blah, blah, blah.

Instead of dismissing it...think about it....but maybe you just cant think....🙂

Originally posted by lesmoc
God be you... and all around you

God be with you too...

Originally posted by Starrman
I was under the impression you meant living philosophers. Obviously if we're talking about all philosophers collectively then sure, but that's the weight of history. I'm under the impression that current philosophy (i.e. last 30 years or so) tends towards atheism, or at least skeptical agnosticism.

Nice backpedaling ;-)
Even if we were to examine living philosophers, you would quickly see that theists out number atheists.

However; there needs to be a distinction.
Philosophy can only take us as far as showing the logical probability of their having been a central creator that started this universe (Prime Mover of First Cause).
There's not a lot of rational discourse past that without delving into theology.

Believing in the probable existence of something is quite different from what most people on this board are doing.

If you think about it rationally it really doesn't make much sense that any god would be involving themselves in the day to day lives of creatures in the universe. It really doesn't make sense that any creator would be judging anything. And it makes even less sense that any god would be in human form or a gender.
That's all logical rubbish.

Furthermore, all the emotional outbursts only disable us from having a good discourse. Whether it be our incredulity at the sheepish dupes that seem to dominate the posts here or their pathetically-arrogant mock-sympathy for people that they honestly are stupid enough to think are going to some kind of hell without their help... the emotions that come along with it are most probably vestiges of each of our childhoods.

No one grows up without any scars. Difference is the ones on the outside are easy to see and fix.

Originally posted by mdhall
Nice backpedaling ;-)
Even if we were to examine living philosophers, you would quickly see that theists out number atheists.

However; there needs to be a distinction.
Philosophy can only take us as far as showing the logical probability of their having been a central creator that started this universe (Prime Mover of First Cause).
There's not a lot of grows up without any scars. Difference is the ones on the outside are easy to see and fix.

There was no backpedalling and I still don't agree with you, but short of a head count I can't see any way of deciding, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

I do however think that there is no need for theology as some sort of seperate discipline, as you seem to be suggesting. Philosophy would be an incredibly stunted subject if it did not include aspects of all sorts of things; theology, science, maths, aesthetics, language etc. Why do you think phlosophy is independant of these things and needs to appeal to theologists to answer its questions?

Originally posted by Jay Joos
Instead of dismissing it...think about it....but maybe you just cant think....🙂

I'm dismissing it because it's a piece of trivial nonsense.

Originally posted by Starrman
There was no backpedalling and I still don't agree with you, but short of a head count I can't see any way of deciding, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

I do however think that there is no need for theology as some sort of seperate discipline, as you seem to be suggesting. Philosophy would be an incredibly stunted subject if it did not include aspect ...[text shortened]... hy is independant of these things and needs to appeal to theologists to answer its questions?

It was a polite way of saying that Theology is fundamentally irrational and thus you cannot really have a good philosophical conversation with people who's reality begins with "I believe..."

Using the "believe" word is always a dead giveaway that the conversation is moving away from knowns and unknowns into a debate of subjective opinions.

Metaphysics is one of my favorite subjects in philosophy, but even there, you won't find any respectable philosophers starting any sentences with I believe. therefore etc...

Originally posted by mdhall
It was a polite way of saying that Theology is fundamentally irrational and thus you cannot really have a good philosophical conversation with people who's reality begins with "I believe..."

Using the "believe" word is always a dead giveaway that the conversation is moving away from knowns and unknowns into a debate of subjective opinions.

Metaphysics i ...[text shortened]... find any respectable philosophers starting any sentences with I believe. therefore etc...

That's just not true. Epistemology is thick with concern for the nature of beliefs and how we come to knowledge, language is heavily dependent on and reflective of beliefs, the issues of induction, identity, morality etc. all centre on belief structures. Some of the most interesting parts of philosophy examine how beliefs shape perceptions, hell the philosophy of mind, something that's main topics concern belief states, is utterly founded on the unproven belief that minds actually exist at all.

Originally posted by Starrman
That's just not true. Epistemology is thick with concern for the nature of beliefs and how we come to knowledge, language is heavily dependent on and reflective of beliefs, the issues of induction, identity, morality etc. all centre on belief structures. Some of the most interesting parts of philosophy examine how beliefs shape perceptions, hell the philo ern belief states, is utterly founded on the unproven belief that minds actually exist at all.

"The Theory of Knowledge" or Epistemology certainly does take a step back to question just what is this *knowledge* stuff we're going on about.

But I'm not sure what you're calling "not true" in my previous post.

Epistemology does not equal Theology if that is what you're getting at.
Me dubbing theological discussions founded on personal beliefs as irrational doesn't have anything to do with epistemology.

Originally posted by Starrman
I'm dismissing it because it's a piece of trivial nonsense.

Then... Blah,blah,blah right back at you!!!