SX and Paradise Lost = Satanic ??
- Thread starter BuNdi
- Start date
That's pretty much the essential definition of an agnostic. Not knowing. You really need to pull your head out of Ayn Rand's bum every now and then for a breath of fresh air. You might as well open up a steel plant and call everyone who disagrees with you a non-absolute.
DoomsdayZach
The Professor was right
Holy shit this thread got long, haha. First of all, Zach, I understand you see my point of view as splitting hairs, but when you wanna talk philosophy sometimes its that hair splitting that is the difference between one philosophy and another. Just because the ends of some Christian morals is shared with my Objectivist/Individualist morals doesn't mean that I embrace the entire morality of Christianity. Proulxski made a blanket statement that some others agreed with, that the morals of Christianity are just guidelines to lead a good life, and since since that does not apply to me, and many others in this world, I'd counter that statement. I could go into detail as to why I think christian morals are wrong, if you'd like me to.
As far as your comment on agnosticism, I'd say you're not agnostic, you're just apathetic.
And I'd say I'm agnostic. Honestly, i could fuckin' care less what you think. I think that you're being retarded for going out of your way to show how non-christian you are. Just like a kvlt black metal kiddie. But i'm sure you don't care
I personally think that Christianity would hold a lot more credibility without the bible.
Another thing I have discovered that I find very interesting
Yngvai does not allow anyone to be more than one thing, or the freedom to agree with some aspects of one ideal and not others, without then being thrown into a complete opposite catagory which will most likely have negitive connotations. At which point I dont know if Im talking to a human or a text book. So Im thinking when you, Yngwie, get done with all your text book studying you may have a future developing new terms to classify people under who do not apply 100% to these text book definitions....... that is if your havent totally sacrificed your ability for independant thought and become totally brainwashed by some professor or text book.
Myself I like to find whats good in some ideals and seek out answers for whats wrong with these same ideals........ without being dehumanized by some nasty tag that paints all the ulgy pictures imbedded in societys minute little brains. Thats the shit the Church, Governments and Officals with alternative motivations (J E Hoover for 1 example) & rednecks in the 50's & 60's did.
Yngvai does not allow anyone to be more than one thing, or the freedom to agree with some aspects of one ideal and not others, without then being thrown into a complete opposite catagory which will most likely have negitive connotations. At which point I dont know if Im talking to a human or a text book. So Im thinking when you, Yngwie, get done with all your text book studying you may have a future developing new terms to classify people under who do not apply 100% to these text book definitions....... that is if your havent totally sacrificed your ability for independant thought and become totally brainwashed by some professor or text book.
Myself I like to find whats good in some ideals and seek out answers for whats wrong with these same ideals........ without being dehumanized by some nasty tag that paints all the ulgy pictures imbedded in societys minute little brains. Thats the shit the Church, Governments and Officals with alternative motivations (J E Hoover for 1 example) & rednecks in the 50's & 60's did.
DoomsdayZach
The Professor was right
The bible and history of the churchs surely does not help the cause in todays world but frankly I think thats a good thing. It makes things easier to see through or see for what they are without currently applicable fear tactics. They were stories with morals written by ancient elders to be used as guidelines for living a humble life.... however still flawed by mankinds natural tendencies to be self serving.... I believe many of these flaws were worked out in the new testiment
I actually I disagree.
It's not just religious people's crackpot theories that I think is illogical and senseless.
But it's the very belief in the existance of a God that I have a problem with. My parents are Christians, I grew up in a Christian household, but as a child, before I even started to study science in any extensive manner I thought "wait, this makes no sense at all".
I just don't see any logical reason to belive in a God in the first place, there's no evidence to suggest he/she/it exists. You can't use "Nature and Creation" as evidence, because they don't, in any way, suggest that a God exists. And not to mention, Nature/Humans ect is no evidence for the existance of a specific God , be it the Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish or Islamic God. So why choose to belive soley in say.. the Christian God for example? You cannot say "because the bible lol". As not only is the Bible simply not evidence, but it's generally one of the most unreliable sources of information ever.
Blind faith is an ironic gift to return to the "Creator of human intelligence." (It's also a pretty decent song, but thats irrelevent
)To be honest, I don't know why I'm posting this. No religious person has ever been able to explain to me why they themselves chose to believe in a God, based on anything that can actually be taken as evidence.
(I say "themselves" because obviously many people are forced into it by their family)
Well that comes with the territory of objectivism. Everything is in black and white, and truths are factual, as opposed to being inferred or formulated based on experience.
Well maybe my interpretation of looking at thing objectively is incorrect. I see here in my small dictionary objective.. 2: existing outside an individuals thoughs or feelings 3: treating facts without distortion
2 I cant even decifer
3 seems to be what Im talking about
2 I cant even decifer
3 seems to be what Im talking about
Yngvai X
Dark Emperor
Thats because I believe in absolutes. Black and whites, no grey areas. When you start allowing yourself to believe that there are grey areas you start contradicting yourself, and out the window goes your integrity. I personally try to live so that my beliefs are not in contradiction. If someone else chooses to think non absolutes are ok, thats fine for them, but in a philosophical/religious debate like the one we're having, I'm gonna argue against that.
Progmetaldan - Thank you for giving a response that says exactly what religion and spiritualism is all about: Faith. Not needing to search for evidence, but just believing it because you want to.
Waldorf - You're still missing the point. Lets throw Darwinism out the window for a moment. You're still using faith based beliefs to "fill in the cracks" of science. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with this if you admitted there is no logic or science behind it, and that creationism is something to be taken solely on faith.
Random point:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6650545.stm
It seems Scientology is becoming a modern day version of Catholicism in the dark ages.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6650545.stm
It seems Scientology is becoming a modern day version of Catholicism in the dark ages.
Allow me to decipher for you:
#2 refers to the way something can be interpreted. Its antonym is subjective. Pretty much anything can be subjective if you argue semantics, but the term objective is used for facts, for example, if someone were to say "MJR is objectively the best guitarist on the planet," they mean it's something that can't be disputed. When someone retorts "that's subjective," they mean that it's really their opinion/how they feel. This ties in to #3, which defines objectivism. As Matt said, everything is either true or not. In this instant, murder is wrong because it is a fact that murder is wrong, regardless of the situation. They sky is blue because that's a known fact, etc. etc.
I would argue its just the opposite. If someone fails to see the grey areas they fail to see the contridictions that are present and are not viewing things objectively... part of my big picture theory. We are also well aware that there are no absolutes. I too have tried to live without contradiction but am aware of its impossibilities. I have seen many contradictions of yours in many posts or by summing many together... I attribute this to believeing in absolutes that are contradictory to each other and becoming trapped in the grey areas that have existed throughout history... and yes all that is contradictory to ones integrity
ah.... but sometimes the sky is.... gray.........
thanks for helping [serious] However it appears to me objective was a word struggled to be defined or perhaps perverted by human interpretation because it is contradictory unto itself and really only applicable to the simplist of things such as trees grow leaves, trees drop leaves. So in the complex world of human dealings there is nothing objective there by rendering the word bogus
CantoX
Member
There is no scientific proof that God exists, and I believe that.
BUT
I still believe in God because it comes down to your faith in your religion or your knowledge of the subject. Science can't prove everything, and still, nothing in science is for certain. What if tomorrow some scientist discovers something brand new and it becomes the standard from that day on and completely dissmisses all of our scientific beliefs that we have held on to for years and years.. well thats how science is actually ( like the planet Pluto.. it's a dwarf planet now suckers ).. but the thing with Religion is that this cannot actually happen. The Bibile has been around for 2008 ( or so ) years and the Quran has been around for 1428 ( or so ) years where it has not changed, it has not been altered ( the Quran ) and at least 1 billion ( muslims ) people follow it. I mean hey.. it's gotta have something going for it if it lasts that long... it's gotta be doing something right yeah?
Einstein said that everything he contributed to the Human Race was for God.. and he was pretty scientific. I find that funny that somone as scientific as him contributed all his work to God.
BUT
I still believe in God because it comes down to your faith in your religion or your knowledge of the subject. Science can't prove everything, and still, nothing in science is for certain. What if tomorrow some scientist discovers something brand new and it becomes the standard from that day on and completely dissmisses all of our scientific beliefs that we have held on to for years and years.. well thats how science is actually ( like the planet Pluto.. it's a dwarf planet now suckers ).. but the thing with Religion is that this cannot actually happen. The Bibile has been around for 2008 ( or so ) years and the Quran has been around for 1428 ( or so ) years where it has not changed, it has not been altered ( the Quran ) and at least 1 billion ( muslims ) people follow it. I mean hey.. it's gotta have something going for it if it lasts that long... it's gotta be doing something right yeah?
Einstein said that everything he contributed to the Human Race was for God.. and he was pretty scientific. I find that funny that somone as scientific as him contributed all his work to God.
Erm... Einstein was a very strongly opinionated Athiest...
Einstein - "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death"
And you're right, nobody can "prove" anything, be they scientists or religious people.
But at least scientists can find evidence to suggest their theories are correct.
Phanto
Alalalalalalalala.
Detective Clarence Beauregard
Dehumanized
Yes! Science vs. Religion, my favorite debate ever! So favorite, in fact, that I have nothing to add to the discussion at this moment! I want to hear everyone else talk!
... ... Science can't prove everything, but it's proved a lot, and working to prove more through observation and unbiased reasoning.
Yeah, they wrote the whole thing on Jesus's birthday.
No, he wasn't. He was a very strongly-opinionated Christian. Because of this, he wasted the second half of his career because he just didn't like what we found out about the universe (partially using his own findings). The guy's still my hero.
