28 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Wibble WobbleWho the heck cares anyway if there is a god.
Who the heck cares anyway if there is a god. Its not like he is gona do anything so why everyone in this forum care? God sakes.
I agree with the implied content, but not the spirit, of your post. My thinking has become quite existential/absurdist in nature, and I am currently working on an Argument from Apathy, which I think is quite powerful.
But an honest approach to reaching such profoundly simple truths should be hard work; and it can be a very rewarding, if long and tiresome, journey. I really don't know, but I reckon many have reached this right conclusion for all the wrong reasons.
_________________________________________________________________________
"Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing that God doesn't exist. Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing...we think that the problem of His existence is not the issue."
-- Jean-Paul Sartre, from Existentialism is a Humanism
28 Jan 06
Originally posted by Wibble WobbleI speak so that people might care.
Who the heck cares anyway if there is a god. Its not like he is gona do anything so why everyone in this forum care? God sakes.
This life is only temporary. Our spiritual life is eternal. Where we spend eternity is up to us. But we can't make an intelligent choice unless we know what the choices are.
I speak so that people might know that they have the power to choose an eternity in heaven or an eternity in hell.
If nobody speaks about it, how will people know?
DF
28 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloAtheism is not a defining feature of existentialism—as Sartre notes, even while he represents the atheist wing of existentialism. Theistic existentialists include Dostoyevsky (Russian Orthodox), Miguel de Unamuno (Roman Catholic), protestant theologian Paul Tillich, and Jewish philosopher Martin Buber.
[b]Who the heck cares anyway if there is a god.
I agree with the implied content, but not the spirit, of your post. My thinking has become quite existential/absurdist in nature, and I am currently working on an Argument from Apathy, which I think is quite powerful.
But an honest approach to reaching such profoundly simple truths should be har istence is not the issue."
-- Jean-Paul Sartre, from Existentialism is a Humanism[/b]
EDIT: I very much look forward to seeing your "argument from apathy."
28 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Wibble WobbleLOL! Boy, you are so very stupid! God's prophecies are being fulfilled right before your eyes. Russia and her Muslim allies are nearing attack of Israel. Iran has threatened to destroy Israel. The attack on Israel is imminent. It is God's Word! And, no one will come to Israel's defense. Only then will God intervene and show the children of Israel that God is with them, and He keeps His promises! Holy and Mighty is Jehovah!
Who the heck cares anyway if there is a god. Its not like he is gona do anything so why everyone in this forum care? God sakes.
29 Jan 06
Originally posted by vistesdAtheism is not a defining feature of existentialism...
Atheism is not a defining feature of existentialism—as Sartre notes, even while he represents the atheist wing of existentialism. Theistic existentialists include Dostoyevsky (Russian Orthodox), Miguel de Unamuno (Roman Catholic), protestant theologian Paul Tillich, and Jewish philosopher Martin Buber.
EDIT: I very much look forward to seeing your "argument from apathy."
That is exactly right. It is neither defining nor essential, nor here, nor there -- which I view as a consequence of what we already know, namely that the labels 'a/theist' convey extremely little information (and virtually no information of importance, I think now). The petty connotations that have been attached and perpetuated on both sides are what hinder the mind. I have been as guilty of falling into that trap as anyone (just read some of my former posts), but I am trying to change.
The Argument FOR Apathy (I misspoke earlier) is really just a celebration of how refreshingly insignificant the implications of the supernatural are (a celebration of "neither here nor there" that acts as a handy BS filter). It is something of a pragmatic approach and still leaves plenty of room for doting on the profoundly useless philosophical aspects, ie., "moon gazing".
29 Jan 06
2 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerYeah, but then how did froggy's post come into existence? Are you honestly suggesting that froggy's body just somehow happened to incidentally activate the "post" button as he slumped lifelessly to his desk after consuming the poison? He would have to land squarely on the mouse button and the mouse arrow would have to be perfectly placed on the screen. Do you know how incredibly small the chances are of his post coming to existence through such accidental occurrences? I think we can safely say that the existence of froggy's post is proof positive that the God of the Bible exists.
It's a good idea not to drink poison just after you start a sentence. 😞
29 Jan 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloDamn! Throwing "moon gazing" back at me! 😉 Well, I do too much worrying at that moon, I know. So, "Thanks, I needed that." (Seriously.)
[b]Atheism is not a defining feature of existentialism...
That is exactly right. It is neither defining nor essential, nor here, nor there -- which I view as a consequence of what we already know, namely that the labels 'a/theist' convey extremely little information (and virtually no information of importance, I think now). The petty connotations ...[text shortened]... ty of room for doting on the profoundly useless philosophical aspects, ie., "moon gazing".[/b]
My particular approach to spirituality is "non-supernatural" and monistic--and existential. I find that stream in all the major religions.
Funny thing, I was just reading Sarte's "Existentialism as a Humanism" myself a couple nights ago. We seem to be travelling parallel paths.