Before attacking me as a deluded theist, let me explain that I am in fact an atheist but have sympathy somewhat for theists.

I wrote the following down very quickly, purposely without thinking, to make it irrational. It was an attempt to show a positive side to faith and that for particular individuals, perhaps it is a requirement. You make call them weak for such a requirement, but everyone has their security blankets.

I would like to hear comments, but not along the lines of "you've read too much Kierkegaard and Nietzsche" because I admit that recently I have been reading a lot about the existentialists and consider myself a 'card-carrying' existentialist.

There is reason in the unreasonable you are about to read.

quote:[1.1] God is freedom. God is possibility. God is life. To praise God is to praise freedom. To praise God is to price life itself.

[1.2] In you God only sees innocence. What is good but arbitrariness? What is evil but arbitrariness?

[1.3] Reason has its use, but it becomes a drawback when it spreads even to God. For to shackle God in reason is to shackle freedom; to shackle the passions.

[1.4] God is hard. To learn to love God is to fight God and finally accept God. To accept God is to accept and love life as it is. To accept God is to accept freedom and therefore total responsibility.

[1.5] To love God is to love your freedom and responsibility. You are born with certain talents. You are free to realize these talents or slip into idleness, therefore you are responsible for these talents.

[1.6] To love God is to love repetition!

[1.7] Let reason be of use and nothing else. To hell with reason for reasons sake! Let faith be of its use, too. Let your acceptance of faith be your first choice, your first act of freedom.

[1.8] You are within God but do not strive to become one with God’s will, for that will strip you of God’s greatest gift to your: your will!

[2.1] To the logician who refutes faith for being irrational, you might as well refute the passions too! For that is what faith is for: to strengthen the passions; to give one willpower to love life; for life is hard and will knock you down. Accept life and it will be heaven and burden, reject life and it will be hell and burden. Life is hard, it is the hardest thing you shall experience, to push through it with your passions makes you good in the eyes of God.

[2.2] The nothingness you shall seep into makes life all the more precious!

[2.3] God is purposefully irrational. To accept the irrational requires a leap, a struggle. To fight for the irrational strengthens the passions. The irrational is the passionate! Who in his right mind has gotten passionate over a matter of ‘fact’? Who in his right mind has become passionate over two plus two equals four?

[2.4] Look not out there, look within yourself.

[2.5] God cares not for the masses. What are the masses but individual collect? He is on a one to one bases with you. He cares only for you. For he cares for the unique.

Reads like something out of 1984.

There is nothing but truth in those statements.

Yes, the Bible has been screwed with to an insane degree, but you can only distort the truth, not destroy it...

That piece you quoted (wherever it is from), is almost Discordian in nature, although apparently sanity through insanity is not merely a 1900's thing.

quote:[2.2] The nothingness you shall seep into makes life all the more precious!



This statement has bolstered my feelings that nihilism is the most absurd, and thusly most spiritual philosophy of them all!

[This message has been edited by Rizzo in a box (edited 02-05-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by bung:

Reads like something out of 1984.

I'm ashamed to say it, but I've never read that book.

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

I'm ashamed to say it, but I've never read that book.

He's just saying that because of the 2 + 2 = 5 bit in 1984. He really is talking out of his ass, this is nothing vaguely like 1984. It even says that it is not fact, but irrationality. In 1984, the government convinces the people that it is fact that 2 + 2 = 5. Rationality through irrationality is what this is, not irrationality through rationality!

truth?

its just demented ramblings.

scary stuff though, to think like that. you aren't even alive.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

He's just saying that because of the 2 + 2 = 5 bit in 1984. He really is talking out of his ass, this is nothing vaguely like 1984. It even says that it is not fact, but irrationality. In 1984, the government convinces the people that it is fact that 2 + 2 = 5. Rationality through irrationality is what this is, not irrationality through rationality!

Haha, umm, no. I was saying it reads like something out of 1984 because it oozes a propagandish stink about it. Obviously 1984 has little to do with religion and is more on the political side of things, but the vein of the the writing is similar to that of the Party's.

I actually never really even considered the 2 + 2 = 5 bit.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

He's just saying that because of the 2 + 2 = 5 bit in 1984. He really is talking out of his ass, this is nothing vaguely like 1984. It even says that it is not fact, but irrationality. In 1984, the government convinces the people that it is fact that 2 + 2 = 5. Rationality through irrationality is what this is, not irrationality through rationality!

you missed the point of the entire book. it is not about distorting facts and the rational. it is about control. 2+2 equals whatever big brother says it equals.

if it equals 4, then it is easier to force someone to belive.

not your fault though, most americans have some weird idea the book is about communisim, i assume it is very badly taught in schools.

but it does read like propaganda from the book. full of double speak. the entire paragraph means absolutely nothing.

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:



but it does read like propaganda from the book. full of double speak. the entire paragraph means absolutely nothing.

Exactly.

I hope you guys aren't thinking I'm defining the Judaic God with [1.1], because I'm not. I was describing what I considered a God that the belief in which would result in an affirmative, passionate, positive stance on life.

Also, a lot of the paragraphs interconnect and, I hate to sound as if I'm tooting my own horn, need thought about to make sense in that they don't make sense but it makes sense that they don't make sense and need to not make sense as to affirm life. Plus it in no way puts down science.



[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 02-05-2007).]

your not actually saying anything. it's just crap. it's not intelligent or clever, it is just pseudo-religious tripe.

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

your not actually saying anything. it's just crap. it's not intelligent or clever, it is just pseudo-religious tripe.

What I was doing was diagnosing a problem, showing the cause and then giving an example of a cure.

For some people, a purely objective world is unbearable and barren. These people generally do two things: slip into nihilism or religion. You may laugh at them and call them weak, but in my eyes that simply makes you a bastard.

quote:[2.3] God is purposefully irrational. To accept the irrational requires a leap, a struggle. To fight for the irrational strengthens the passions. The irrational is the passionate! Who in his right mind has gotten passionate over a matter of ‘fact’? Who in his right mind has become passionate over two plus two equals four?

Think about it and it makes sense. Because religion is irrational (and it really is) it requires more passion to be believed in. Passion is exactly what makes life enjoyable. And, as the example shows, there's no passion in two plus two equals four. It's useful, yes, and shouldn't be tossed aside because it's brought us many great things. But reason for reason's sake has, for many, thrown them into a state of nihilism.



[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 02-05-2007).]

religion being irrational does not make god irrational. if anything, it lends credibility to the idea that there is no god.

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

religion being irrational does not make god irrational. if anything, it lends credibility to the idea that there is no god.

You're totally missing the point of my argument. It has nothing to do with whether or not there is a god.

What happen to 1.9, and 2.0?

Everyones missing the point of the bible...

I think I'm going to make a thread on it.

i think you guys are missing the point. no one gives a shit about the bible. id imagine most people who replied don't even believe in god. i am judging based on literary merit. and it fails. i don't care about your god.

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

not your fault though, most americans have some weird idea the book is about communisim, i assume it is very badly taught in schools.



Assumed wrong. I've never met a person who thought it wasn't about totalitarianism. Rizzo said nothing about communism, so methinks you're simply a belligerent prick. He's right, too, the power was obtained by distorting the facts through the media.

the book wasn't about the media. it wasn't about propaganda. it wasn't about any political system (even totalitarianism).

it was about power, control and fear.

orwell didn't give a shit about the political themes in the novel. fuck, he was a socialist and eventually died defending it.

to list totalitarianism as a theme of the book is just stupidity. it is actually a pretty meaningless term, and useless when referenced to 1984.

i mentioned that many people think it is about communisim as an example of how so many people miss the fucking point of the book. which is really sad, because it is fucking obvious.

The book revolves around the entire system of corrupted government. The protagonist is Winston, who is being controlled or repressed (whatever) by Big Brother (the antagonist). It's based around a government that has total control and power (totalitarian). How is that not about totalitarianism?

quote:it was about power, control and fear.

Exactly, but only when it applies to the government.

Not about propaganda and media? What about the daily two minutes hate? How it was portrayed as good that the others where being slaughtered? That Emmanuel Goldstein was a fucker?

Orwell was a socialist. He wrote his books to debunk communism and totalitarianism.

quote:In 1945 Orwell reviewed the anti-Utopian novel We by Yevgeni Zamyatin for Tribune. The book inspired his novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four. Published in 1949, the book was a pessimistic satire about the threat of political tyranny in the future.

http://tinyurl.com/dubh



You'll notice the source is from the UK. Not only Americans think this book is political.

Communism, facism, republic, democracies, what the fuck ever, doesn't matter, same authoritative BS that means nothing and does less.

quote:i think you guys are missing the point. no one gives a shit about the bible. id imagine most people who replied don't even believe in god. i am judging based on literary merit. and it fails. i don't care about your god.

No, you're the one missing the point. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with the Judaic religions. What I wrote was intentionally badly written and made irrational.

I'm beginning to think you have no idea what this thread is about at all and are stuck in the "must refute God" mode (by the way, in this thread nothing like God is tried to even be proved).

So if you don't get what the thread is saying GTFO.

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

No, you're the one missing the point. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with the Judaic religions. What I wrote was intentionally badly written and made irrational.

I'm beginning to think you have no idea what this thread is about at all and are stuck in the "must refute God" mode (by the way, in this thread nothing like God is tried to even be proved).

So if you don't get what the thread is saying GTFO.

I don't understand why no one can understand this thread except for a few people. Is everyone on &t so close minded and square? Fuck me. http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

It was an attempt to show a positive side to faith

I guess I just don't think any of those points convince me that faith is a positive aspect of the individual.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

I don't understand why no one can understand this thread except for a few people. Is everyone on &t so close minded and square? Fuck me. http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

It's fun, ain;t it http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Anyway, I think that both religion and reason have the ability to cloud someone's views. We can see this in the way that some religious people will comepletely disregard science and reason. However, the same can be said, and is often demonstrated on this board, that reason clouds people's views.

For example the amount of people stuck in the "Must Refute God" mode seem to comepletely dismiss anything that they haven't been told is a true by some website. I think that taking Reason or Religion too far can lead to stagnation. I think you shouldn't be so quick to state somethng is or is not. I feel that you should be willing to make a leap of faith , but not only in a religious sense, but in a sense that you are willing to accept an idea without having your prior judgement affect it's merit.

So I feel that negative aspects of Reason are the stagnation of ideas, the lack of willingness to explore any ideas that seem too distant from our previous views. However, on it's positive side is the way reason seeks to ...well... reason things. Experiment with them. The search for knowledge.

And in the same way the negative aspect of Religion is the refusal to accpet ideas other than the previously accepted ones. On the other hand is the positive that religions neccesitates the individual to stretch out there views, to hold judgement of reserve.

So.... I'm done.

quote:Originally posted by JesuitArtiste:



For example the amount of people stuck in the "Must Refute God" mode seem to comepletely dismiss anything that they haven't been told is a true by some website. I think that taking Reason or Religion too far can lead to stagnation. I think you shouldn't be so quick to state somethng is or is not. I feel that you should be willing to make a leap of faith , but not only in a religious sense, but in a sense that you are willing to accept an idea without having your prior judgement affect it's merit.

So I feel that negative aspects of Reason are the stagnation of ideas, the lack of willingness to explore any ideas that seem too distant from our previous views. However, on it's positive side is the way reason seeks to ...well... reason things. Experiment with them. The search for knowledge.

And in the same way the negative aspect of Religion is the refusal to accpet ideas other than the previously accepted ones. On the other hand is the positive that religions neccesitates the individual to stretch out there views, to hold judgement of reserve.



Nicely said.

quote:Originally posted by JesuitArtiste:



So I feel that negative aspects of Reason are the stagnation of ideas



I'd just like to hear your reasoning behind how exactly reason leads to the stagnation of ideas, as I don't necessarily agree with that.

(In fact, you go on to say that a positive aspect of reason is "the search for knowledge," yet previously criticize it for leading to a stagnation of ideas, when it is knowledge that ideas bloom from!)

quote:



the lack of willingness to explore any ideas that seem too distant from our previous views.



One concept: M-theory. I think that astoundingly refutes this point.

quote:



On the other hand is the positive that religions neccesitates the individual to stretch out there views



I see the exact opposite. I see religion as a means to contract the views of the individual to pertain to the current knowledge available to those who composed whatever religious text the person happens to choose to follow.



[This message has been edited by bung (edited 02-07-2007).]

I'd just like to hear your reasoning behind how exactly reason leads to the stagnation of ideas, as I don't necessarily agree with that.

By this I mean how we can see throughout history how various people have laughed and scorned new ideas. And I don't mean in all circumstances that reason leads to stagnation, but that Dogmatic-Reason leads to stagnation. The lack of desire to challenge any previous ideas, the fear of going against common sense for the sake of discovery. It is these things that lead to stagnation.

(In fact, you go on to say that a positive aspect of reason is "the search for knowledge," yet previously criticize it for leading to a stagnation of ideas, when it is knowledge that ideas bloom from!)

Yes, but you are not distinguishing what I am saying (which was, perhaps, a little unclear.). I am not saying that in all circumstances that anyone applying reason, will, without fail, refuse to prgress with ideas. What I am saying is that Reason can be bogged down in dogma, with the "authorities" saying that such and such is good , and that even considering such and such would be foolish and worthy of scorn.

Reason in itself, in it's true form, when it is free of any outside influences, seeks only to expand it's own knowledge. And it does not say to itself that such and such is impossible, it accpets every idea as valid, no matter how far-fetched, because anyone using Reason has to realise that making a simple statement that "A is impossible" means nothing. That they do not have the authority to make a staement like that.

What I am aiming at is that there are two types of Reason. Reason that is mired in Dogma, and Reason that pursues it's goals freely, that recognises it's own limits and seeks to push them. And never, ever will discount an idea just because they don;t like the sound of it, or no-one else likes the sound of it.

I mean Reason not only in a scientific sense, but also in a philosophical sense.



One concept: M-theory. I think that astoundingly refutes this point.

Not only did that astoundingly refute nothing, but also showed a lack of understanding (or clarity on my part) of what I have wrote.

I was pointing out the extreme of Reason, in my opinion, in that case. Perhaps I should have defined it better, perhaps I should have explained it better, perhaps you should have done some thinking asked your own questions to see what I meant rather than what you assumed.



I see the exact opposite. I see religion as a means to contract the views of the individual to pertain to the current knowledge available to those who composed whatever religious text the person happens to choose to follow.

Maybe. But, how easy is it to make a leap of faith, To really, not with lip-service, but truly believe in something, and truly have that faith? Could you make that leap? I know I can't. You are thinking religion here in the sense of Jews, Christians and Muslims, I'm thinking of religion as a concept, not in the belief of a specific deity, but in the belief, the faith to accpet something that you can't say is true right away.

I'm sure you're familiar with the idea that you have to become like a child to look at things properly. Well, you have to do these things for both Reason and Religion. You have to be willing to learn something reather than just judge something.

That said. I write like a coked up monkey. So it may be the shit I write.

quote:Originally posted by JesuitArtiste:

the faith to accpet something that you can't say is true right away.



But why should I accept something that I can't say is true right away? What purpose would that serve? Wouldn't it be more logical to simply say, "You know what, we just don't know the answer yet," and confess ignorance?

quote:Originally posted by JesuitArtiste:



the lack of willingness to explore any ideas that seem too distant from our previous views.



I'm still a little unclear on this statement. Are you again saying that it is dogmatic reason which leads to a lack of willingness to explore new ideas too distant from our previous views? Because I'll agree with that, but if you're referring to 'free' reason (I think that's the term you used) then I must disagree.

quote:But why should I accept something that I can't say is true right away? What purpose would that serve? Wouldn't it be more logical to simply say, "You know what, we just don't know the answer yet," and confess ignorance?

quote:Because religion is irrational (and it really is) it requires more passion to be believed in. Passion is exactly what makes life enjoyable. And, as the example shows, there's no passion in two plus two equals four. It's useful, yes, and shouldn't be tossed aside because it's brought us many great things. But reason for reason's sake has, for many, thrown them into a state of nihilism.

I'm not saying faith is right for everyone in this quote, but that it is of use for some.

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

I'm not saying faith is right for everyone in this quote, but that it is of use for some.

I see where you're coming from, but what it boils down to is merely one man's opinion in a billion.

You say it takes more passion, I say it takes more ignorance. Of course the same applies to me as well--it's just my opinion. I guess, maybe, if I were passionate enough, if I could just muster up a little more passion, maybe I could convince myself that there really are leprechauns, that our world is at the center of the universe, that unproven medical remedies will cure my flu, and that the world is 6,000 years old. By your definition of passion, logically, the more absurd something is, the more passion it would require to believe in it. Now you may call this human trait passion, but I call it ignorance.

The quote also assumes, at least from my perspective, that faith is a prerequisite to experience the greatest and fullest of passions that life has to offer, and I disagree with that.

quote:Now you may call this human trait passion, but I call it ignorance.

How is it ignorance when you're admitting that it does not make sense, but believe in it with all your doubt-ridden heart? It is exactly this, believing in it with all your doubt-ridden heart, that causes the passion.

Of course, there's a difference between the description I've given above and those who believe in a religion due to ignorance - i.e. lack of knowledge.

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

it does not make sense, but believe in it

That quote alone should really make you think.

Example:

1)A or B

2)Not A,

3)therefore B

Any logical, intelligent person could (and should) come to that conclusion.

For someone to believe:

1)A or B

2)Not A,

3)therefore A

(a completely illogical and absurd statement!)

does not take passion, it takes ignorance! A passionate ignorance, maybe, if that's how you so choose to perceive it, but ignorance nonetheless.

But then, anyway, you come to the line of: At what point does passion become dangerous? I consider myself passionate about what I believe, but am I passionate enough to want to kill someone over these beliefs? No (and I would assume most atheists would feel the same). Would a (for the sake of argument) person of religious faith have enough passion in their beliefs to want to kill someone over them? Maybe. Point being: the passion that comes from religious faith may not exactly be the greatest thing, anyway.

Hare points out, however... that ignorance is not a crime here.

It's willed ignorance that needs to be worried about... and the two are very very different.

quote:Originally posted by Kazz:

Hare points out, however... that ignorance is not a crime here.

It is a crime, though. The ignorant accept the irrational. They also happen to be very passionate about this acceptance.

I guess, in a sense then, I now agree that it is passion that this acceptance takes, but like I said, it is an ignorant passion with ignorance being the 'root' of this emotion.

I guess passionate just wouldn't be my first choice of wording for accepting the irrational.

Bung, you made the mistake of bringing logic into this and not actually reading my original post.

Actually, bung is a perfect example of the problem. This whole thread isn’t about truth, it’s also not about putting down reason, it’s about putting down reason for reason's sake and showing that it misses a very important part of the picture: that men generally aren’t rational, that to live life isn’t rational and that to live in an objective world is to live in a cold, dispassionate world.

Life requires passion. Some can do with just inventing their own meaning and values or accepting the common values, others, on the other hand, need something like God. It’s not the belief in God itself that is dangerous, it’s the Judaic God. And bung seems to be making the mistaking of lumping all religious beliefs into the Judaic category and thinking of things objectively, instead of how they make life more passionate and willing to be lived even in the face of suffering.



[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 02-08-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

Bung, you made the mistake of bringing logic into this and not actually reading my original post.

That's because it needed to be addressed to prove my point.

You made (and continue in making) the mistake of not addressing any of my points.

quote:Originally posted by bung:

That's because it needed to be addressed to prove my point.

Your first point is that it is illogical. This shows that you have no clue what I am talking about when I myself am showing that it is illogical, but that it's OK that it is illogical.

Your second point is that belief in God is dangerous. You're evidently close minded to all Gods except the Judaic-Christian God. I recommend reading up on Gods such as Brahman. Brahman is nothing but knowledge itself and existence itself, to love Brahman is to love life. My god, that sounds so fucking dangerous!

Your third point is that you wouldn't want the kind of passion that requires believing in ignorance. Well no one is forcing your to believe in God, and I've even said that faith is not for everyone.

The point is that you're entirely missing the point.

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

Actually, bung is a perfect example of the problem. This whole thread isn’t about truth, it’s also not about putting down reason, it’s about putting down reason for reason's sake and showing that it misses a very important part of the picture: that men generally aren’t rational, that to live life isn’t rational and that to live in an objective world is to live in a cold, dispassionate world.

Life requires passion. Some can do with just inventing their own meaning and values or accepting the common values, others, on the other hand, need something like God. It’s not the belief in God itself that is dangerous, it’s the Judaic God. And bung seems to be making the mistaking of lumping all religious beliefs into the Judaic category and thinking of things objectively, instead of how they make life more passionate and willing to be lived even in the face of suffering.





You know what? I am addressing the Judaic God a lot (though a lot of what I've said does apply to god in general as well) because some absurd number of like %80 of the world believes in him in some form, so I feel that it is relevant to the argument.

I'm well aware life requires passion, that is not an argument, but you also seem to think that passion stems from some type of religious faith, that religious faith is a requirement to experience passion to the fullest, and that with no faith in higher powers will turn our world into some dispassionate, cold, unlivable world. I feel the same passions of love, hate, courage, fear, sadness, etc., as everyone else. I do not see religious faith as a means to increase the amount of 'passion' contained in an individual. I live life in the face of suffering just as every religious person does as well.

Moreover, you make the tremendous assumption that religious faith increases the amount of passion in life, assuming that 'passion' is somehow measurable or observable.

Some people do happen to "need" god/religion to find their purpose, meaning, happiness, whatever the hell you want to call it, and whether this belief is detrimental or beneficial to the individual as well as society turns into an entirely different argument, so there's no point in addressing it any further.

And to say that "[people] generally aren't rational," is an enormous statement and assumption to make. In fact, I'm willing to bet that most people act on actions that they perceive to be as quite rational indeed.

quote:Originally posted by bung:

You know what? I am addressing the Judaic God a lot (though a lot of what I've said does apply to god in general as well) because some absurd number of like %80 of the world believes in him in some form, so I feel that it is relevant to the argument.

The idea of God in general? The only basic idea is that he is creator of the world, beyond that it varies incredibly. And I dislike the Judaic God as much as you and if you had read my initial post, you would realize that I had renounced that God as not affirming life.

quote:I'm well aware life requires passion, that is not an argument, but you also seem to think that passion stems from some type of religious faith, that religious faith is a requirement to experience passion to the fullest, and that with no faith in higher powers will turn our world into some dispassionate, cold, unlivable world. I feel the same passions of love, hate, courage, fear, sadness, etc., as everyone else. I do not see religious faith as a means to increase the amount of 'passion' contained in an individual. I live life in the face of suffering just as every religious person does as well.

I do not think passion stems from religion. This is a misreading of my argument. What I think is that for some people, living in the objective scientific world causes a type of nihilism and that they need a belief in a God to bring passion into their life.

quote:Moreover, you make the tremendous assumption that religious faith increases the amount of passion in life, assuming that 'passion' is somehow measurable or observable.

There are people I have met who have found life far more enjoyable when religious than when an atheist. I made no assumption about it being measurable whatsoever, I was just going via the observation of people who do find life more enjoyable with a religion and those who do slip into a form of nihilism due to reason for reason's sake.

quote:And to say that "[people] generally aren't rational," is an enormous statement and assumption to make. In fact, I'm willing to bet that most people act on actions that they perceive to be as quite rational indeed.

Tell me, how much do you do in your day to day life without thinking about it, without contemplating it as you do it?

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

Your first point is that it is illogical. This shows that you have no clue what I am talking about when I myself am showing that it is illogical, but that it's OK that it is illogical.



No, that is not my first point. We agree religion is illogical (you said it). That was your point. My point was that passionate is not the right way to describe believing in something irrational, or at least not entirely so, as other words come to mind first. I'm saying it's not okay that it's illogical.

quote:

Your second point is that belief in God is dangerous. You're evidently close minded to all Gods except the Judaic-Christian God. I recommend reading up on Gods such as Brahman. Brahman is nothing but knowledge itself and existence itself, to love Brahman is to love life. My god, that sounds so fucking dangerous!



Yeah, that was pretty much attributed to the God that dominates most of the world's worshiping. I wasn't simply saying that "belief in god is dangerous," I was saying that it can be dangerous.

quote:

Your third point is that you wouldn't want the kind of passion that requires believing in ignorance. Well no one is forcing your to believe in God, and I've even said that faith is not for everyone.

The point is that you're entirely missing the point.



You're right. I don't want the kind of passion that involves believing in ignorance. I also don't want other people believing in ignorance because, and the origin of this quote escapes me, "people that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

I see your points. I really do. But I just don't agree with them.

I agree life without god can turn to nihilism. However, I think this nihilism needs to be taught to be overcome by other means than turning to god.

edit: I also don't see how not thinking about an action justifies it as irrational.

[This message has been edited by bung (edited 02-08-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by bung:

I agree life without god can turn to nihilism. However, I think this nihilism needs to be taught to be overcome by other means than turning to god.

I agree with you here, but sadly this is not how it works for most people I have talked to online and offline. They can't get their head around the idea of meaning and values without God.

edit - still yet, I myself do not think that meaning can be found in the scientific world. I believe that you have to create it yourself, and that itself, that the world has meaning, is an irrational view but nonetheless people need to project meaning onto the world to make it livable.

quote:No, that is not my first point. We agree religion is illogical (you said it). That was your point. My point was that passionate is not the right way to describe believing in something irrational, or at least not entirely so, as other words come to mind first. I'm saying it's not okay that it's illogical.

I never said passion is the description of believing in something irrational, I said it arises from believing in something irrational.

[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 02-08-2007).]

I'm out for the night, though.. we'll have to continue this tomorrow. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



[This message has been edited by bung (edited 02-08-2007).]

But why should I accept something that I can't say is true right away? What purpose would that serve? Wouldn't it be more logical to simply say, "You know what, we just don't know the answer yet," and confess ignorance?

That's more or less what I'm aiming at. When I said accept I didn't mean accept it as fact, but to reserve judgement until we are in a better position to give judgement.

The statement, "You know what, we just don't know the answer yet." sums it up nicely.



I'm still a little unclear on this statement. Are you again saying that it is dogmatic reason which leads to a lack of willingness to explore new ideas too distant from our previous views? Because I'll agree with that, but if you're referring to 'free' reason (I think that's the term you used) then I must disagree.

Pretty much, yeah. "Free" Reason is more than accpetable, it seems to be the only choice. "Dogmatic" Reason is obviously wrong. In the same way that fanaticism in almost any circumstance is wrong.

It's not Reason that I have a problem with, it's inflexible Reason. And in the same way it's not Religion I disagree with, it's inflexible dogmatic Religion.

quote:Originally posted by bung:

I agree life without god can turn to nihilism. However, I think this nihilism needs to be taught to be overcome by other means than turning to god.

and whats wrong with nihilism?

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

and whats wrong with nihilism?

By nihilism I mean a belief in nothing, not even life itself. A total rejection of all values, and therefore a devaluing of life. A slippage into an abyss.

no it's not. it's just a rejection of anything above the immediately observable.

human life is still valuable, we don't eat babies and i still value life. i would say more so than any religious person, i don't count on some random afterlife to save me. this is all i have, im going to make the best of it. how many religious folks live for an afterlife, and discount this life?

can you hear me from deep in this abyss??????

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

no it's not. it's just a rejection of anything above the immediately observable.

Oh, you're one of those "nihilists". http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

This is all a matter of semantics then, and you should keep in mind what I mean by "nihilist" is different to what you mean by "nihilist" whenever you see me use the term.



[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 02-08-2007).]

yes, your right, the christian definition of nihilist is completely correct....

i'm just sitting here, alone and wrong....

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

yes, your right, the christian definition of nihilist is completely correct....

Christian definition? I'm not a Christian. Has anyone here read my original post? If so, they would have seen that I am an atheist.

Also, my definition of nihilism comes from Nietzsche and Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi as opposed to the pop culture definition,

actually, ill take you seriously;

the immediately observable is there. it cannot be denied.

the term comes from the word nothing. it is stupid to think that it includes everything.

one cannot deny life, existence or emotion. those are all completely obserable and reproducable. show me someone who denies thier own existence and i will show you someone who is wrong.

i belive in nothing i cannot detect with my five senses. the supernatural, gods and demons are meare abstract concepts (prove me wrong?).

the word nothing is not meant to be taken literally. to belive in nothing is to advocate the absence of life. since there can be no-one who belives that (since they would be dead), im going for the nearest equivilent.

you are quoting two different people with two different ideas of the same term.

but i take nietzsche's meaning. he just had the wrong end of the stick. he said it was a negative.

i obviously belive the opposite (and yes, *gasp*, you can disagree with Nietzsche).

heres a nice quote i like, not by your hero though;

"Nihilism literally has only one truth to declare, namely, that ultimately Nothingness prevails and the world is meaningless"

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to argue. We have completely different definitions of what nihilism is. I stated mine, you stated yours. Now we're aware of what each other mean by the term 'nihilism' and know not to get our wires crossed.

I was merely pissed because it appeared as if you assumed I was a Christian, which indicates you did not read my first post. And no, Nietzsche is not a hero of mine and I do disagree with him on points. I have never seen him as a hero, only as a fellow philosopher whom I respect.

edit - also, by nothing I meant two things: either a demented form of solipsism or no values whatsoever, therefore devaluing life. Of course, that's pure nihilism. There are also "nihilistic" tendencies.

edit2 - I do not think Nietzsche got the term wrong either, he merely had a different definition to yours.



[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 02-08-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

and whats wrong with nihilism?

Well, I consider myself 'part' nihilist, so there's nothing inherently 'wrong' with it per se, but I feel it can lead to unwanted things such as the de-advancement of society, among others, if 'true' and 'absolute' nihilism are in place.

I'm going to use this definition from wikipedia because it seems to sum up nihilism, at least as pretty good as can be done, in one sentence.

"Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following: there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a "true morality" is unknown, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action is known to be preferable to any other"

I think to assume that secular ethics are impossible is foolish. I think humans have, and will continue to refine, a certain set of acceptable ethics/morals throughout society, even if they are not 'absolute' morals. Impossible seems to me as an unnecessarily strong word.. difficult sounds more appropriate to me.

I also think that the idea that "no action is known to be preferable to any other," can be misinterpreted (and this is merely speculation on my part) by a lot of people claiming to be nihilists. The key word here is known. Of course we don't know what is preferred, but we can come to general conclusions based upon human philosophy, and I feel that a lot of nihilists will take this as a free pass to do terrible and detrimental things in the face of society because "nothing really matters, anyway".

I believe, as the current state of the universe exists, that truth is impossible to find and life is ultimately void of meaning. However, I feel that nihilists tend to take this too far, and thus, become a burden to society by contributing nothing, and not caring about anything at all. I think that nihilism is a fine line that needs to be walked, and some just take it too far, but like I said, I see a lot of truths in nihilism, it just should not be 'exploited'.

[This message has been edited by bung (edited 02-08-2007).]