|
My current position on god is currently "I could not give less of a poo poo about thinking whether or not he exists and also about religion in general," is this also considered agnostic or are agnostics just the people who go "Well whoooo knooows? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
That's probably strong agnosticism, that the question doesn't make sense or is irrelevant, rather than you just don't have the answer to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:
Wait, you claim that the ancient Greeks literally thought that Zeus had a dick and walked around raping People? That is quite the bold claim. Care to elaborate? I went with moses since the later interpretations of God differ quite strongly from the earlier ones.with moses god goes from the only God (among others) that the Jews should worship to the only living God. Meaning that the other Gods are no longer gods at all. This is a huge difference. And the scene where moses meets this God is also from where you get the name of God. I am. Which incidentally loops back to Descartes. And regarding my mental health I'm doing quite fine. But thanks for your concern. Unless of course it was just an insult which might be an indication of immaturity on your part. In that case I would recommend that you grow up instead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Eris exists, because what else could explain the exquisite chaos of the universe, and in particular the comedy of errors that is human existence. Each of us, in our own way, is a worshipper of Eris. When we leave a sharp object on the floor and someone else steps on it, when we cut someone else off in traffic, causing them to brake abruptly and create a 20-car pileup, when we get the wrong baggage and end up with a suitcase full of spiders; at these moments we are expressing our devotion to Our Lady of Chaos.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Quift posted:I went with moses since the later interpretations of God differ quite strongly from the earlier ones.with moses god goes from the only God (among others) that the Jews should worship to the only living God. Meaning that the other Gods are no longer gods at all. This is a huge difference. And the scene where moses meets this God is also from where you get the name of God. I am. First, He did not give him His name in that passage. Second, the quote isn't "I am", it's "I am who I am" which has literally the opposite significance than what you ascribe to it. It establishes God as an independent entity who needs not justify Himself to His peoples, but rather expects their unconditional worship.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Quift posted:Wait, you claim that the ancient Greeks literally thought that Zeus had a dick and walked around raping People? I'm not sure how else you interpret "zeus thought tittyana had a sweet rack so he turned himself into a bull and hosed her" Like I don't know what that would mean as a metaphor other than he literally turned himself into a bull and raped a woman. Also not entirely sure how the Greek myths work if you assume it's all a metaphor and not people actually going to hell to rescue their dead girlfriend. It's not really very heroic if it's just some dude dropping acid and flailing around on the ground for an hour. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Sep 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well to be specific your account has been chosen as the prophet of god. Which may or may not be against the rules. Truly I say unto you, posters: this man is an infidel, and dwells not in the eye of God. To do him injury is no sin, but to he who slays the infidel, there await many rewards in the hereafter. So sayeth the prophet of the Lord.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Truly I say unto you, posters: this man is an infidel, and dwells not in the eye of God. To do him injury is no sin, but to he who slays the infidel, there await many rewards in the hereafter. So sayeth the prophet of the Lord. That whole Thou Shalt Not Kill thing is just an allegory, eh?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Quift posted:Wait, you claim that the ancient Greeks literally thought that Zeus had a dick and walked around raping People? If there is some metaphorical framework wherein Greeks winked at each other and were like "get it? we don't believe in literal physical gods" then it is absent from the historical record.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Well, if we accept Socratic philosophers as pretty much the only relevant Greek thinkers, it basically turns the entirety of the Greek mythology into fairy tales because their metaphysics was completely divorced from it. And I suppose most people implicitly take this approach.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That whole Thou Shalt Not Kill thing is just an allegory, eh? Being the prophet of God is a bewildering experience, yet I'm completely confident that everything I'm saying is divine truth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Well, if we accept Socratic philosophers as pretty much the only relevant Greek thinkers, it basically turns the entirety of the Greek mythology into fairy tales because their metaphysics was completely divorced from it. That's pretty much any religion, modern or ancient.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm not sure how else you interpret "zeus thought tittyana had a sweet rack so he turned himself into a bull and hosed her" I dont care if you are trolling or not. The story is so brilliant I will walk you through it anyway. This story is quite foundational for not only my thought but also our society (being our foundational myth). This being my first post in this thread that is not phone posted I will try to articulate things a bit more step by step instead of leaping wildly within my own context. It is also absolutely vital to get this myth before going to the other one. The one about Adam and Eve and a garden. The princess Europa (name not by chance, this myth talks about the beginning of our culture) walks on the beaches of the Phonecian City of Tyrus .The sky god Zeus turns into a white bulld kidnaps her, brings her to Crete and Rapes her. Her first son is King Minos (The king of the Minoans) who married the Titan Pasiphae who was an ancient Moon Godess (titan). The White Bull is a symbol not only of virility but also of wealth and fertility. it is one of the most commonly used symbols for wealth. Agricultural wealth. So far we have learned that the first kings of Crete came from the Pheonecian city of Tyrus and that they brought agriculture to Europe and founded the Ciy of Knossos.This is the beginning of Agriculture in Europe and the beginning of a long transformation of the European continent and the spread of agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin. It also talks about the marriage between the Phoenician culture and the local Cretan one to create the uniquely Minoan Culture. The Titans are older gods than the Olympians very much like the differences between the Jotun, the Vanir and the Aesir in Norse mythology. They are primordial meaning that they descend directly from Gaia and Uranus (the earth and the Sky ). So the Titans are from an era before agriculture and represent more ancient concepts. The Olympians arrive to Crete with agriculture and represent concepts that are important in an agricultural context. All this has taken place in the ancient depths of time even in the myth. This is a myth within the myth. Back to the events. The Rule of Minos was not uncontroversial at the time and his brothers (might be read as either his actual brothers or his subjects.) challenged his rule. King Minos asked the divider of Power, Poseidon to give a sign of his kingship. Poseidon created a beautiful white Bull (again) that walked ashore the island of Crete and everyone saw that Minos was indeed the true King. Minos then refused to sacrifice this Bull back to Poseidon and instead sacrificed a lesser Bull. This sin of royal greed angered the Gods and Poseidon cursed Minos wife Pasiphae and kindled a passionate love in her for the Bull. To mate with the Bull she asked the famous engineer Daedalus (Literally meaning Craftsman) to build her a wooden cow within which she could mate with the bull in secrecy. The result of this unholy union was Minotaur. To recap. To prove his kingship over his fellow men Minos brought riches and wealth to Crete from across the Mediterranean. Sea power is the divider of powers regal and divine, and brings wealth from across the sea. This is probably both tribute from the rest of Greece and more importantly the Minoan trade networks. The early Kings used their wealth to get power and then betrayed the gods and kept the wealth and power to themselves. Something which was an affront to the Gods. The ancient Cretan culture being so blinded by the riches that they were seduced and slept with a bull (again, wealth). This was done with the help of the craftsman and engineers who dressed the Queen/Moon godess into a cow made our of wood and leather. The result of this corruption was the Minotaur. Minos now orders Daedalus to build a labyrinth around the offspring of this union. The Labyrinth of the Minotaur. The Minotaur is half human half bull. He is neither a real human (real humans do not live as agriculturalists, nora bull). Every year 7 your men and 7 young women from Athens must be sacrificed to the labyrinth (among other offerings, but the Athenians are important later). This to satisfy the greed of Kings. Now, remember that this myth talks about the beginning of agriculture in a Greek context. The labyrinth is one of my favorite metaphors. It stands for the City of Knossos and the workings of the social order. So the labyrinth is the economic system of agriculture which supports cities and also kings.The latest incarnation of the symbol is the Matrix. It's basically the same thing. The architect of the labyrinth (Daedalus) is locked on the roof of the Labyrinth (Which symbolizes the mind of those within it). He builds wings to escape and leaves together with his son. His son believes himself to be a God since he is free but instead dies and falls into the Icarian sea (His actions are forgotten and he doesn't get an actual burial. Which is extremly important to the Greeks). Daedalus then arrives in Athens and gives his knowledge to Athena, the goddess of wisdom. The wisdom of Athena is the forbidden knowledge of the labyrinth. Which is why she is the headache of her father Zeus who represent the world order that requires humans to live in labyrinths. She later gives the solution to the labyrinth to the Athenian youngster Theseus uses this forbidden knowledge to slay the Minotaur and razes the labyrinth. Ie, the agricultural society built by the Minoans and the tribute system they had built over the rest of Greece. Also referred to as the Collapse of the Minoan Civilization.The collapse of the Minoan culture is strongly tied to the [URL=)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse]Bronze age collaspe[/URL] Eventually after the Dark ages of Greece the Minoan Culture is replaced by the Greek culture. So the Myth is about the Birth of European (contra Asian) Culture and society. It is NOT about a god raping princesses. These stories were made to maintain knowledge in a very condensed form in a vocal tradition. The stories were told and retold over centuries and then interpreted and discussed around the fire at night. Every night. To write down the discussion once writing arrived was probably viewed as meaningless. Somewhere the stories are true. They are not only true on a historical level (They talk about actual historical events), but also about the future and the present since history tends to repeat itself. Later iterations contain additions from the later historical events from which new insights could be drawn. These myths are warnings, history, sociology, philosophy and religion all wrapped into one. They can all be interpreted on several levels and were generally viewed as LITERALLY true by the Greeks who told them. But truth here is defined very differently than in our culture. It is all true, but should not be taken at face value. Our systems of thinking are VERY different from the context in which these stories were meant to be interpreted and all of them are open to plenty of interpretations. The one interpretation above is only one of many possible stories hidden within the myth. There are also a few parallels between this myth and the myth of Ragnarök in a norse context. But that is a separate post. The ability to read myths becomes important when we are discussing the existance of our current God. The supplantment of the Titans by the Olympians mirrors the latters supplantment by the entity we call God. He exists in the context of the myths that we try to interpret about him but is still subject to change only instead of having a single pantheon changing, merging over time you get the same entity that changes meaning over time. Thus the God of Abraham is not the same as the God of Moses who in turn is not the same as the God of Jesus. All while they are all the same god.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Quift posted:Wait, you claim that the ancient Greeks literally thought that Zeus had a dick and walked around raping People? What the gently caress are you talking about? How can you possibly infer this belief from my previous post? quote:I went with moses since the later interpretations of God differ quite strongly from the earlier ones.with moses god goes from the only God (among others) that the Jews should worship to the only living God. Meaning that the other Gods are no longer gods at all. This is a huge difference. And the scene where moses meets this God is also from where you get the name of God. I am. You haven't answered the question. Why does Moses get to define the limits of the category 'god' several millennia after he almost certainly didn't exist?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:You haven't answered the question. Why does Moses get to define the limits of the category 'god' several millennia after he almost certainly didn't exist? Because Moses said so. He wrote the book. Just like L. Ron Hubbard was allowed to define his religion through his Sci-Fi books.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
You know I actually think technology can progress to a point where like pre-1800's concept of a deity could ultimately be entirely possible. So in that fashion yes, there could be a "God", but only in the way a "god" has been understood for most of human existence. One planet and they control everything in it. This metaphysical poo poo about universal creator? poo poo no. To me religions lost all their hope when we started understanding what an absolutely minuscule part of the universe we inhabit. If there is a God of the entire universe he wouldn't have time for the sick petty mind games deities play in every mythological epic ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
How to be esoteric: Make a statement that can't be proven true or false. When questioned; hammer on the fact that it can't be proven false. This is what "Who What Now" has been doing for the last 2 pages or so. wiregrind fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Sep 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Quift posted:The ability to read myths becomes important when we are discussing the existance of our current God. The supplantment of the Titans by the Olympians mirrors the latters supplantment by the entity we call God. He exists in the context of the myths that we try to interpret about him but is still subject to change only instead of having a single pantheon changing, merging over time you get the same entity that changes meaning over time. Thus the God of Abraham is not the same as the God of Moses who in turn is not the same as the God of Jesus. All while they are all the same god. And they are all myths so its a moot point. "But you see, my invisible friend is not the same as your invisible friend despite the fact that my invisible friend is all powerful and all knowing like your invisible friend, despite not being able to demonstrate any of these qualities outside of 2000+ year old stories."
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And they are all myths so its a moot point. Except he isn't an invisible friend and he isn't supposed to demonstrate anything because it would be antithetical to his nature.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Except he isn't an invisible friend and he isn't supposed to demonstrate anything because it would be antithetical to his nature. For all intents and purposes, he is. Claims to the 'Omnipotence' of said friend are no more valid than claims made by pre-iron age era books about him. steinrokkan posted:Except he isn't an invisible friend and he isn't supposed to demonstrate anything because it would be antithetical to his nature. Wow, that's funny, his book claims otherwise. Who'd a thunk.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:For all intents and purposes, he is. Claims to the 'Omnipotence' of said friend are no more valid than claims made by pre-iron age era books about him. Ad the first point - omnipotence is not the naive concept imagined by most laymen. Ad the second point - According to the theology established by Augustine, or possibly earlier, the supposed Commands and acts of God described by the Old Testament have no significance as literal phenomena compared to the experience of the God of the New Testament whose presence is only perceivable through individual experience - in early Christianity this takes the form of Illuminationism, later on develops into Scholasticism etc. In other words, the Christian God only links up with individual minds based on the purity of their will. I suppose there an be some confusion about the role of miracles in Christianity, but I think Augustine formulates their nature well when he says that miracles are not violations of nature, but rather violations of our understanding of nature, and therefore not interventions of God at the time of their occurrence, but rather part of the overall design. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Sep 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Ad the first point - omnipotence is not the naive concept imagined by most laymen. Oh, I forgot, interpretation basically lets you say whatever the hell you want regardless of wording or core concept  steinrokkan posted:I suppose there an be some confusion about the role of miracles in Christianity, but I think Augustine formulates their nature well when he says that miracles are not violations of nature, but rather violations of our understanding of nature, and therefore not interventions of God at the time of their occurrence, but rather part of the overall design. AHAHAHAHAHAHAH! No.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Oh, I forgot, interpretation basically lets you say whatever the hell you want regardless of wording or core concept quote:AHAHAHAHAHAHAH! So the statement "All phenomena conform to the same unchanging natural laws, including supposed miracles" is laughable to you? Because that's what both Augustine and Aquinas claimed. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Sep 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:So the statement "All phenomena conform to the same unchanging natural laws, including supposed miracles" is laughable to you? Because that's what both Augustine and Aquinas claimed. On Aquinas quote:He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times. Augustine also believed that Astrology was a valid science. Just because they are saints, doesn't mean they cannot be dead wrong. And in most cases, especially relating to nature and reality, they are almost entirely wrong. Appealing to Aquinas and Augustine doesn't really help your argument other than 'this is my belief' rather than any sort of proof or evidence. Augustine also believed we fell into sin because 'Adam did not maintain control over Eve.'. Such a good source for valid worldviews. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Sep 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Just because they are saints, doesn't mean they cannot be dead wrong. And in most cases, especially relating to nature and reality, they are almost entirely wrong. Appealing to Aquinas and Augustine doesn't really help your argument other than 'this is my belief' rather than any sort of proof or evidence. It's important to appeal to them because they constituted the belief system that lives on to this day, and which should be takled without ad hominem arguments.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:It's important to appeal to them because they constituted the belief system that lives on to this day, and which should be takled without ad hominem arguments. The thread is about the existence of God. This is not Kyrie's thread about the validity of Catholicism. You have to actual back Aquinas and Augustine's claims with evidence, pure philosophy doesn't really mean anything as far as actual grounds, only 'What Ifs'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
That Russel quote is quite ignorant if only because it claims that Plato, the master of strawman sophistry, somehow approached problems with open mind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:That Russel quote is quite ignorant if only because it claims that Plato, the master of strawman sophistry, somehow approached problems with open mind. I'm sure Bertrand Russel was quite aware of that. Whether or not Aquinas and Augustine, who spent their entire lives trapped in a Platonic inspired religious ideology, is another story.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The thread is about the existence of God. This is not Kyrie's thread about the validity of Catholicism. It's impossible to talk about God as an abstract thing with universal application. It's possibe to talk about God as understood by a speific religion. If you want the former, you are killing any discussion before it even started.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'm sure Bertrand Russel was quite aware of that. Whether or not Aquinas and Augustine, who spent their entire lives trapped in a Platonic inspired religious ideology, is another story. It's really a generic criticism of any ideologue. It could be said with same validity that Marx approached his works on capitalism with a clear purpose which prevented him from making an unbiased conclusion. It discards the process that led to the apparent point of departure of the author, it reduces the person and her philosophy to a one-dimensional product.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:It's really a generic criticism of any ideologue. It could be said with same validity that Marx approached his works on capitalism with a clear purpose which prevented him from making an unbiased conclusion. It discards the process that led to the apparent point of departure of the author, it reduces the person and her philosophy to a one-dimensional product. Except Aquinas and Augustine got no closer to justifying the existence of god as a reality outside of masturbatory self-justification of their own religion. For all intents and purposes of this thread, God was no more proven by them than by any other religious leader and any other god or goddess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Except Aquinas and Augustine got no closer to justifying the existence of god as a reality outside of masturbatory self-justification of their own religion. For all intents and purposes of this thread, God was no more proven by them than by any other religious leader and any other god or goddess. Much like Marx never proved the fact of class consciousness exceedingly better than any other philosopher in history proved any other moral system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Much like Marx never proved the fact of class consciousness exceedingly better than any other philosopher in history proved any other moral system. I know, right? Its as if even great thinkers can be wrong about their claims.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I know, right? Its as if even great thinkers can be wrong about their claims. I never said I considered "my guys" infallible. I never even said I agreed with them. I just defended them against crude misrepresentations of their beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I never said I considered "my guys" infallible. I never even said I agreed with them. I just defended them against crude misrepresentations of their beliefs. Considering Russell's more well rounded and his opinion being based more on evidence than theology, and his view from outside the Catholic domga, I think I'll stick with Russel over Augustine and Aquinas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:It's impossible to talk about God as an abstract thing with universal application. And yet we do. You don't get to lay down dogmas about what is and isn't capable of being discussed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Nothing ever means anything except everything always means something different, when the skeptic takes the meaning from what it normally means. Know what I mean?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Except he isn't an invisible friend and he isn't supposed to demonstrate anything because it would be antithetical to his nature.  steinrokkan posted:That Russel quote is quite ignorant if only because it claims that Plato, the master of strawman sophistry, somehow approached problems with open mind. Others: You're wrong socrates Socrates: I'm definitely not a self-insert, also ~dumb equivalence~ Others: Grr, drat you socrates, I'm forced to concede ground to you because of how smart/handsome you are ~fin~
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:You know I actually think technology can progress to a point where like pre-1800's concept of a deity could ultimately be entirely possible. So in that fashion yes, there could be a "God", but only in the way a "god" has been understood for most of human existence. One planet and they control everything in it. Ironically I agree 100% with this post. Also, massive effortpost above on myths. And yes. Moses did write the actual book. So Smudgie Buggler posted:What the gently caress are you talking about? How can you possibly infer this belief from my previous post? Sorry about the confusion. Was replying to several posts at once. The Zeus dick thing just stood out. Moses gets to define the most basic concepts since it is the oldest work we have. I would could also accept Jesus as a source except his books are not written by him. But then again, that is always the case. But I would prefer if we agreed on the same version of God at a time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
Quift posted:And yes. Moses did write the actual book. So lol no, nobody actually wrote down the Torah as we understand it today until after the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem Where do you think all those borrowed sections from the Epic of Gilgamesh in Genesis come from?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 07:55
|
|