Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Where is your evidence or are you, as usual, using your arse to speak?

Its obvious, as i already stated.
To consider oneself a lover of wisdom and yet disregard investigation of an entire philosophical POV as to what could actually constitute the true makeup of reality is unintelligent.
If there is a God (there is), then to seek to know its existence is immensely wiser than to shun any consideration of its possible existence.
Two options:- 1. 'seek and ye shall find' 2. Don't seek, find nothing.
Which option is the more intelligent philosopher going to take?

attofishpi wrote: Atheists as philosophers are less intelligent...

Ignoring an entire philosophical point of view as to the big question, what is the true nature of reality? ...is not love of wisdom, its constrained placing oneself at the mercy of the masses. Only appreciating what can be scientifically accepted by peers is not being true to oneself as a philosopher, where 'seek and ye shall find' was at least one message to behold as an individual.

Are you suggesting that theists are open to other philosophical points of view? Do they not ignore and dismiss entire philosophical realms that don't match their belief systems? So when you say that atheists as philosophers are less intelligent, who are you comparing them to?

I think it's also useful to remember that many atheists have previously been theists, so they have considered that point of view... and chosen what feels right to them. Just as there are theists who have previously been atheists, and they have chosen what feels right to them.

Ultimately, I'm guessing, it doesn't matter what we choose, as it's probably way different and more vast than any human concept can define or contain.

attofishpi wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Where is your evidence or are you, as usual, using your arse to speak?

Its obvious, as i already stated.?

Delusions seem that way - its why they call them delusions.

Lacewing wrote:Ultimately, I'm guessing, it doesn't matter what we choose, as it's probably way different and more vast than any human concept can define or contain.

On the other hand it might just be what it appears to be.

attofishpi wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Where is your evidence or are you, as usual, using your arse to speak?

Its obvious, as i already stated.
To consider oneself a lover of wisdom and yet disregard investigation of an entire philosophical POV as to what could actually constitute the true makeup of reality is unintelligent.
If there is a God (there is), then to seek to know its existence is immensely wiser than to shun any consideration of its possible existence.
Two options:- 1. 'seek and ye shall find' 2. Don't seek, find nothing.
Which option is the more intelligent philosopher going to take?

No, you'd have options: 1.'seek and you find', 2. 'seek and you do not find', 3. 'do not seek and yet you (may) find', 4. 'do not seek and do not find.' [or 4. = 'do not find because you do not, nor can or can not, even seek'] So you only have a one in four chance of being correct! An Atheist believes in 2, 3, and 4. That's 3/4 better gamble to take!!

1. 'seek and ye shall find'

Should suggest the pro-active mind that in turn suggests considerable intelligence. What?

Obvious Leo wrote:

Lacewing wrote:Ultimately, I'm guessing, it doesn't matter what we choose, as it's probably way different and more vast than any human concept can define or contain.

On the other hand it might just be what it appears to be.

Could be!

I've wondered many times if there's a group of higher intelligence beings just waiting for me to wake up from this dream, or come out of this coma. They might be gently patting my face to awaken me... and when I open my eyes, they might be smiling and say: "How was it?"

However, if the Christian stories of an angry and vengeful god are true (invalidating all other spiritual traditions/stories), and if there's a specific Jesus character who returns and is pissed too, then I might be in trouble for questioning all of it and not bowing down. But I think any god truly worth devotion would know my heart, and appreciate/understand all of it... and I wouldn't be in trouble for anything! And I wouldn't be excluded from anything. There would just be all-encompassing and unconditional LOVE!!! If that's not what it's about, I find it impossible to believe in.

Many Christians believe that all that's required for being saved is to simply gamble he exists and then ask for it before you die. This allows anyone of them to sin constantly as long as they remember to ask for forgiveness just before they die.

So if I met God just after I die, can I not then ask? Why would one be penalized worse for a mere matter of the time you could have asked before you die and the moment after?

Lacewing wrote:However, if the Christian stories of an angry and vengeful god are true

Put your mind at ease, Lacewing, the stories are a crock of shit. My late mother was a devout Christian and she knew more about god than any pulpit preacher who ever lived. It didn't bother her in the slightest that I was a non-believer because she never doubted for an instant that I would be "saved". This is what she said to me not long before she died.

"God couldn't care less what you believe, Leo, he only cares about how you live your life".

attofishpi wrote: 'seek and ye shall find'

...and you always will. It all depends on whether you're willing to accept gold or fools gold. There is much more of the latter to give you the false belief that you actually found something.

Scott Mayers wrote:Many Christians believe ...?

This is the heart of the problem. Belief is about choice. Any fool can chose. It takes more effort to discriminate on the grounds of knowledge and evidence. And it can take imagination to be able to free oneself of the endemic assumptions of your community, and its tacit ideology.

Obvious Leo wrote: "God couldn't care less what you believe, Leo, he only cares about how you live your life".

Beautiful. Makes perfect sense!

My devout Christian mom had a lot of trouble with anger throughout her life. I used to try to calm her down and help her see the other person's perspective... which she hadn't considered for even an instant. She once told me (a non-theist) that I was more spiritual in my behavior and thoughts than she was! This was a phenomenal thing to hear from her, as she had accused me of having Satan in me in the past. She is in her final days now... and she recently told me that if she were to come back in another life, she wanted to have more fun and not take things so seriously.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:Many Christians believe ...?

This is the heart of the problem. Belief is about choice. Any fool can chose. It takes more effort to discriminate on the grounds of knowledge and evidence. And it can take imagination to be able to free oneself of the endemic assumptions of your community, and its tacit ideology.

Fundamentalists in particular believe this. It's the reinterpretation necessary to allow Capitalism to be justified, for human law to be allowed to be as strict as necessary to preserve it too. It is a Right-wing political justification for why their Christian flocks should be allowed to a liberalized economic view that appears to contrast against traditional Catholic beliefs. The Catholics (Anglican or Roman) believe that the humans representing Church authority acts as management (government) who believe in moderating economic laws through the power of equal force on Earth to what God would expect. Thus Catholics believe in a requirement to earn one's way into heaven through one's actions in life. The Protestant movement outside of the partial Anglican divide, protested against any human to have the power to govern by God's proxies (regular humans NOR Church Authorities.) So they opt for the total opposite where it approaches Anarchy (no or limited government) except for the forces that could be enabled by those naturally advantaged to conserve their Earthly powers to capitalize without limits.

(You didn't think I was a Christian did you?)

Scott Mayers wrote:Many Christians believe that all that's required for being saved is to simply gamble he exists and then ask for it before you die. This allows anyone of them to sin constantly as long as they remember to ask for forgiveness just before they die.

So if I met God just after I die, can I not then ask? Why would one be penalized worse for a mere matter of the time you could have asked before you die and the moment after?

Lots of Atheists have these funny (untrue, veneral) thoughts of Christians only for themselves to sin the whole time and it never means anything to them, regardless, because they are only their own bodies still. "Nooooo!"

Necromancer wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:Many Christians believe that all that's required for being saved is to simply gamble he exists and then ask for it before you die. This allows anyone of them to sin constantly as long as they remember to ask for forgiveness just before they die.

So if I met God just after I die, can I not then ask? Why would one be penalized worse for a mere matter of the time you could have asked before you die and the moment after?

Lots of Atheists have these funny (untrue, veneral) thoughts of Christians only for themselves to sin the whole time and it never means anything to them, regardless, because they are only their own bodies still. "Nooooo!"

But to an Atheist, many of us also believe that we are our own "God". So some will think this implies we have to behave well if only to act as a good example of our superiority for others to follow!!