Religion Irreligion - the world's fastest growing 'religion'

[benchwarmer5]

Lol
Fencesitter
The weakest of all.
Edit-Jesus believer now.
Is that right?

Being objective is a life sentence
Faith is filth

 

[Total Power]

Being objective is a life sentence
Faith is filth

P35 knows all about being objective, armed with a bible you cant expect any better

 

[Procrastinator35]

P35 knows all about being objective, armed with a bible you cant expect any better

Lol....For the last time, I'm not a Christian you fundy fool.....Lord give me strength.

Just because I defend religion doesn't mean I conform to all those stereotypes you so desperately need to project onto posters who are spiritual.

 

[Total Power]

Lol....For the last time, I'm not a Christian you fundy fool.....Lord give me strength.

Just because I defend religion doesn't mean I conform to all those stereotypes you so desperately need to project onto posters who are spiritual.

Yes you are, you have little knowledge of eastern religions yet you claim you are a philosopher. Dont insult the great philosophers by saying you are one. Your knowledge comes from greek/middle eastern mythologies mostly. Great philosophers like Nietzsche had their say on objective truth, so did Buddha, Chanakya and other eastern philosophers..educate yourself

 

[Bardo State]

In actual fact, being an agnostic is the most sensible position there is. Unless you can show me conclusive proof that a deity absolutely does or absolutely does not exist...

Can't you see how that is a bit of a problem though? Having neutrality as the starting point and asking for evidence of either existence or non-existence? I mean, the greatest evidence for the non-existence of something is... lack of evidence.

Abstract from the question of 'is there a God?' to more specific Gods. Does Zeus exist? If you said no, why did you say no? What evidence could you have of his non-existence? Do unicorns exist? Again, ask the same question as to why you wouldn't need contrary and conclusive evidence to answer that question.

Answering any question as to the existence of anything can't require conclusive evidence of its absence. Usually when this sort of question arrives you start on the default of non-existence. Then evidence is presented and depending on how compelling it is, your answer may range from 'unlikely that it exists' to 'it's highly probably that it exists.' A rock, for example would be an atheist. It doesn't think that there is a divine creator. It doesn't think at all. But that rock isn't claiming to have conclusive evidence of some claim. This is the nature of questions of existence and why a neutral view cannot be a logical starting point. Evidence only goes one way, so you would never be able to claim that something is absent.

In my view, people who say that agnosticism is the only logical choice are doing one of two things:

1 Claiming that there is clearly some, although disputable, evidence for the existence of a creator,

or

2 Using absolute knowledge as the standard to be able to make any sort of positive or negative claim, when this would rarely if ever happen otherwise. I mean what can we really claim to know anyway? We might just be tripping balls in an institution or we might just be some lines of code in some very elaborate game akin to the Sims.

I think most 'agnostics' are in the second camp, although some are genuinely in the first. I know that when I was younger and just starting to realise that I didn't believe in any sort of creator I started there. Agnosticism felt comfortable. It was like I wasn't bound to believing all the silly things but at the same time, saying that the principles that so many people base their lives by are... well horse shit, felt disrespectful. But then I realised that I was already an atheist when it came to the Roman Gods, the Greek Gods, Vishnu, the Jewish and Muslim versions of God. Why was I carving out some arbitrary exemption for a broader idea of any nondescript divine being?

 

[Procrastinator35]

Yes you are, you have little knowledge of eastern religions yet you claim you are a philosopher. Don't insult the great philosophers by saying you are one. Your knowledge comes from Greek/middle eastern mythologies mostly. Great philosophers like Nietzsche had their say on objective truth, so did Buddha, Chanakya and other eastern philosophers..educate yourself

Sweet Jesus....A try-hard science wanna-be, giving me a lecture on philosophy.

And having the temerity to speak on their behalf....Now I've heard it all.

 

[Total Power]

Sweet Jesus....A try-hard science wanna-be, giving me a lecture on philosophy.

And having the temerity to speak on their behalf....Now I've heard it all.

You couldnt be more wrong (as usual). I am not a science wanna-be. I dont follow dawkins or hawkings for that matter as a god.I disagree with them more often than not.

I am not speaking on behalf or Spinoza or Fred, i know what they said (i bet you had to google who Chanakya was ), i dont follow anyone blindly like you (aristotle said it, must be true!!!), but i have read many. You are just confused between your limited understanding of philosophy, thinking abrahamic religions and middle eastern mythologies are examples of moral absolutism. After being proven wrong many times over several threads, here you are, arguing your point again.

Secondly spare me from your ad homs, you are no philosopher.I am not giving you any lecture at all, i am telling you truth. If you actually knew what you are talking about you would actually answer the questions i posed here instead of coming back with your usual rant. Nietzshe said

Morality is neither rational nor absolute nor natural. World has known many moral systems, each of which advances claims universality; all moral systems are therefore particular, serving a specific purpose for their propagators or creators, and enforcing a certain regime that disciplines human beings for social life by narrowing our perspectives and limiting our horizons.

You have little or no understanding of science, various people throughout many threads many posters have proven this. You have a very limited understanding of philosophy as well. If i make a statement i should able to back it up, the joy of philosophy is they remain divided in their opinion of god/morality/reality. So for you to claim something as objective reality based on what Aristotle said, i would like to call that "fanboi-ism"

Many philsophers throughout history had the position of moral relativism. Spinoza for example believed nothing in the world is good or evil without a context (situation) in place.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/mar/21/spinoza-ethics-of-the-self

This is Spinozas' ethics, which i agree with, which is what i stated before.

Spinoza argues here that "one and the same thing can, at the same time, be good, and bad, and also indifferent". He illustrates this point by suggesting that music is good for someone who is depressed, bad for someone who is in mourning, and indifferent for someone who is deaf. In denying absolute moral values, Spinoza looks very much like a precursor of Nietzsche, who is well known for his criticism of morality – and, indeed, Nietzsche's view that we need to move "beyond good and evil" to a less moralistic understanding of value is clearly influenced by his reading of the Ethics.

However, we shouldn't conclude that Spinoza thinks values are merely subjective, in the sense of being relative to the desires, opinions and prejudices of each individual. In fact, he would emphatically reject such a view. Whether or not something is good for an individual – that is to say, whether or not it increases her power, enhances her life – is not a matter of opinion. Indeed, we may well be mistaken about what is good for us, and so our believing something to be valuable does not make it so. This means we come back to a notion of objective value: even if this varies from person to person and from context to context, it is nevertheless objectively true that, in each particular situation, something will be beneficial or harmful.

The last sentence is extremely important.
This is exactly what i tried to tell you but you wont listen. Your knowledge is extremism limited, eastern religions dont have commandments for a reason. The 4 noble truths as stated by buddha are not even moral absolutes, buddha categorically stated not to follow these as a "religion" but to weigh up them against your judgement and context. I dare you to prove me wrong without ad homs

 

[Total Power]

Sweet Jesus....A try-hard science wanna-be, giving me a lecture on philosophy.

And having the temerity to speak on their behalf....Now I've heard it all.

Heres a great piece of Dalai Lama's view on killing/murder.

However, for the Dalai Lama precepts are not absolute or exceptionless, not even the precept against killing. Nevertheless, the Dalai Lama’s standing commitment to compassion and the principle of non harming is beyond question. For instance, regarding the famous case of killing a criminal out of compassion in order to prevent him from killing many innocent people, the Dalai Lama seems to follow Tsongkhapa, the founder of the Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism to which he belongs.

Tsongkhapa did not list compassionate killing for overall good consequences as an obligation, but he nevertheless allowed such action despite it generating negative karma for the agent. However, Tsongkhapa, in contrast to Śāntideva, holds that a monk may kill on compassionate grounds without losing his status as a monk, only if he is a bodhisattva who has reached the Noble stages (Harvey 140). The same applies to compassionate stealing and lying, though interestingly not to sexual intercourse. As a response to a question about the possibility of compassionate killing when overall good consequences follow, the Dalai Lama explicitly states that he has not reached the level of spiritual development necessary to break the principle of non-harming (Ingram 24-25).

Given that the Dalai Lama, following Tsongkhapa, does not view compassionate killing for overall good consequences as obligatory for all agents, and given that such a hypothetical act is constrained by virtue ethical considerations (being at a particular level of spiritual development), it seems that also in this regard the Dalai Lama’s ethics is closer to virtue ethics than to universalist perfectionist consequentialism. However, in this case the similarity with Aristotelian virtue ethics is limited because unlike the Dalai Lama, Aristotle views certain actions including 517 Journal of Buddhist Ethics theft and murder as not admitting of a mean and as always incorrect: “it is true without qualifications that to do any of them is to be in error” (1107a18-9). Nevertheless, the Dalai Lama and Buddhist ethics in general would agree with Aristotle’s view of certain feelings such as spite, shamelessness, and envy as never correct(1107a11-2).

http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/files/2013/09/Velez-Dalai-final.pdf


You were wrong you have always been wrong and you will continue to bite back knowing you are wrong.

 

[HARKER]

"Religion is always in the control business"
That should be somewhat obvious but it's just a little more unusual coming from a priest.

Procrastinator35 seems to be peddling spirituality which is fine.....just not sure why he chooses to do it under the guise of religion.
There's probably a reason for that and it may be very personal but I just don't see the connect.

One is based on lies and the other in things we just don't know yet and makes for an interesting discussion.

 

[Bennett.]

You couldnt be more wrong (as usual). I am not a science wanna-be. I dont follow dawkins or hawkings for that matter as a god.I disagree with them more often than not.

I am not speaking on behalf or Spinoza or Fred, i know what they said (i bet you had to google who Chanakya was ), i dont follow anyone blindly like you (aristotle said it, must be true!!!), but i have read many. You are just confused between your limited understanding of philosophy, thinking abrahamic religions and middle eastern mythologies are examples of moral absolutism. After being proven wrong many times over several threads, here you are, arguing your point again.

Secondly spare me from your ad homs, you are no philosopher.I am not giving you any lecture at all, i am telling you truth. If you actually knew what you are talking about you would actually answer the questions i posed here instead of coming back with your usual rant. Nietzshe said


You have little or no understanding of science, various people throughout many threads many posters have proven this. You have a very limited understanding of philosophy as well. If i make a statement i should able to back it up, the joy of philosophy is they remain divided in their opinion of god/morality/reality. So for you to claim something as objective reality based on what Aristotle said, i would like to call that "fanboi-ism"

Many philsophers throughout history had the position of moral relativism. Spinoza for example believed nothing in the world is good or evil without a context (situation) in place.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/mar/21/spinoza-ethics-of-the-self

This is Spinozas' ethics, which i agree with, which is what i stated before.


The last sentence is extremely important.
This is exactly what i tried to tell you but you wont listen. Your knowledge is extremism limited, eastern religions dont have commandments for a reason. The 4 noble truths as stated by buddha are not even moral absolutes, buddha categorically stated not to follow these as a "religion" but to weigh up them against your judgement and context. I dare you to prove me wrong without ad homs

 

[Procrastinator35]

Heres a great piece of Dalai Lama's view on killing/murder.

http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/files/2013/09/Velez-Dalai-final.pdf

You were wrong you have always been wrong and you will continue to bite back knowing you are wrong.

Far from disproving the notion that murder is wrong, this example merely reinforces it.

The state is merely committing an act of self-defense here, on behalf of it's citizenry; against a proven mass-murderer.

LOL....Once again young TP proving what an utter novice at moral philosophy & jurisprudence he really is.

Keep trying-hard young padawan.

 

[Procrastinator35]

You couldnt be more wrong (as usual). I am not a science wanna-be. I dont follow dawkins or hawkings for that matter as a god.I disagree with them more often than not.

I am not speaking on behalf or Spinoza or Fred, i know what they said (i bet you had to google who Chanakya was ), i dont follow anyone blindly like you (aristotle said it, must be true!!!), but i have read many. You are just confused between your limited understanding of philosophy, thinking abrahamic religions and middle eastern mythologies are examples of moral absolutism. After being proven wrong many times over several threads, here you are, arguing your point again.

Secondly spare me from your ad homs, you are no philosopher.I am not giving you any lecture at all, i am telling you truth. If you actually knew what you are talking about you would actually answer the questions i posed here instead of coming back with your usual rant. Nietzshe said


You have little or no understanding of science, various people throughout many threads many posters have proven this. You have a very limited understanding of philosophy as well. If i make a statement i should able to back it up, the joy of philosophy is they remain divided in their opinion of god/morality/reality. So for you to claim something as objective reality based on what Aristotle said, i would like to call that "fanboi-ism"

Many philsophers throughout history had the position of moral relativism. Spinoza for example believed nothing in the world is good or evil without a context (situation) in place.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/mar/21/spinoza-ethics-of-the-self

This is Spinozas' ethics, which i agree with, which is what i stated before.


The last sentence is extremely important.
This is exactly what i tried to tell you but you wont listen. Your knowledge is extremism limited, eastern religions dont have commandments for a reason. The 4 noble truths as stated by buddha are not even moral absolutes, buddha categorically stated not to follow these as a "religion" but to weigh up them against your judgement and context. I dare you to prove me wrong without ad homs

Plot well & truly lost.

Once you've mastered the fundamentals of epistemology & metaphysics (including time), then come back to me; & i'll discuss ethics with you, novice.

You really are embarrassing yourself here.

 

[Procrastinator35]

"Religion is always in the control business"
That should be somewhat obvious but it's just a little more unusual coming from a priest.

Procrastinator35 seems to be peddling spirituality which is fine.....just not sure why he chooses to do it under the guise of religion.
There's probably a reason for that and it may be very personal but I just don't see the connect.

One is based on lies and the other in things we just don't know yet and makes for an interesting discussion.

All ideologies seek power & control....Why the need to single out religion?....The past 2,000 years is ample enough evidence.

 

[HARKER]

All ideologies seek power & control....Why the need to single out religion?....The past 2,000 years is ample enough evidence.

Some start off with hand on heart but then seem to develop to.....hand in pocket.....will over will.

Why single out religion.........let me see........Oh, this is a thread on religion.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Some start off with hand on heart but then seem to develop to.....hand in pocket.....will over will.

Why single out religion.........let me see........Oh, this is a thread on religion.

Oh, Really?....

 

[Total Power]

Far from disproving the notion that murder is wrong, this example merely reinforces it.

The state is merely committing an act of self-defense here, on behalf of it's citizenry; against a proven mass-murderer.

LOL....Once again young TP proving what an utter novice at moral philosophy & jurisprudence he really is.

Keep trying-hard young padawan.

So murdering hitler, baghdadi, kim jung un etc is right? this is what i asked you 10 pages ago and you refused to answer... game over

This is not self-defense, what self defense? many people view baghdadi as their god, kim jung un as their supreme leader, many people viewed hitler as a supreme being. Again, perspective! you are really struggling here. So if i kill Baghdadi right now it wont be wrong as i would be commiting murder on "compassionate grounds" although i got nothing to do with him and my life is not under risk.So murder is wrong except....when you think its not. If you woulld have said the murder or these people are not wrong, we wouldnt be having this argument now, at the end of the day, you know you are wrong

 

[Total Power]

Plot well & truly lost.

Once you've mastered the fundamentals of epistemology & metaphysics (including time), then come back to me; & i'll discuss ethics with you, novice.

You really are embarrassing yourself here.

More ad homs, arent you embarrassed already? philosophers dont agree with your notion i have quoted them and analysed those quotes in details. You can hide under fancy terms and play verbal gymnastics, you are wrong...good and evil are relative depending of the context of the situation. Some philosophers do agree with you i admit but they are pretty much divided. The fact that you present what you BELIEVE to a law, that is pure and utter ******. This is why you are clueless and you will always be clueless.

 

[Total Power]

 

[Total Power]

 

[fleabitten]

Exactly...
But according to the atheist playbook: scripture 1. chapter 1, we are fence sitting cowards.
I don't want to be those things so I must join them

Oh cool, I got quoted in the atheist playbook. Right at the start, too!

 

[benchwarmer5]

Oh cool, I got quoted in the atheist playbook. Right at the start, too!

Winner

 

[Lester Burnham]

More ad homs, arent you embarrassed already? philosophers dont agree with your notion i have quoted them and analysed those quotes in details. You can hide under fancy terms and play verbal gymnastics, you are wrong...good and evil are relative depending of the context of the situation. Some philosophers do agree with you i admit but they are pretty much divided. The fact that you present what you BELIEVE to a law, that is pure and utter ******. This is why you are clueless and you will always be clueless.

Is this a definition of the terms, an assertion that could be supported or disproven, or a conclusion based on other other information?

 

[bad setanta]

Is this a definition of the terms, an assertion that could be supported or disproven, or a conclusion based on other other information?

Sure, look at the ancient Greeks before the Plato and Socrates school of thinking came about and took over, they had very different morals and concepts of good and evil, much more practical too some believe.

 

[Total Power]

Is this a definition of the terms, an assertion that could be supported or disproven, or a conclusion based on other other information?

No not definition but subjective truth.If something is subjective you cannot define it. Morality is subjective, whats right to me might be wrong to you, whats right today might be wrong 200 years from now. Morality is ever evolving. There before there is no right answer or wrong answer. To claim something is a "law" based on your moral standard is just wrong. Therefore you cannot define it

 

[Procrastinator35]

No not definition but subjective truth.If something is subjective you cannot define it. Morality is subjective, whats right to me might be wrong to you, whats right today might be wrong 200 years from now. Morality is ever evolving. There before there is no right answer or wrong answer. To claim something is a "law" based on your moral standard is just wrong. Therefore you cannot define it

Morality is founded upon man's existential nature, which doesn't change you nuffie....

Please cease from speaking on a subject you know SFA about..