Well, that might be slightly libelous, but he convinced me I could post it without inciting a riot.
Embracing negation of the divine is (literally) not embracing the divine. It must remain possible, else the divine would be a tyrant and free will non-existent, but there is nothing noble nor righteous in rejecting nobility and righteousness.
Not that I intended a moral/ doctrinal discussion (I do not mind one, but provide enough tangents unprompted, and am already concerned my tone was too docrinaire.)
Possible certainly. I completely reject athiesm as being an irrational position of faith. It is one thing to say there may not be a divine. Quite another to say that there is not.
Agreed. It sometimes seems agnosticism is the largest demographic, and justifiably so.
Well, they are not mutually exclusive; IMHO, faith and reason are more productive when informed by each other than when in opposition. I consider both good arguments for some kind of divinity; if the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, surely none of the parts is greater than the sum.
Mans inclination to construct replacement faiths even in the midst of tearing down old ones is certainly interesting. Some would argue that is just psychological but, as you say, if it is only that its value is debatable, and thus its presence in a highly successful species perplexing. We could argue false faith provides false motivation and incentive to strive and persevere, but if false it would essentially motivate us to get into self-destructive situations for no good reason.
Then he crafted our nature and in embracing it, all of it, we exalt him.
If the divine did not make men then we have only our nature and ought find joy in embracing it. All of it.
If the divine did not make men then we have only our nature and ought find joy in embracing it. All of it.
Embracing negation of the divine is (literally) not embracing the divine. It must remain possible, else the divine would be a tyrant and free will non-existent, but there is nothing noble nor righteous in rejecting nobility and righteousness.
Not that I intended a moral/ doctrinal discussion (I do not mind one, but provide enough tangents unprompted, and am already concerned my tone was too docrinaire.)
Possible certainly. I completely reject athiesm as being an irrational position of faith. It is one thing to say there may not be a divine. Quite another to say that there is not.
Agreed. It sometimes seems agnosticism is the largest demographic, and justifiably so.
I do find it interesting that men possess such a great capacity for both faith and reason in turn. I wonder if that capacity for faith is itself an argument for the existence of the divine. It seems such a useless and perhaps even harmfull thing from an evolutionary point of view.
Well, they are not mutually exclusive; IMHO, faith and reason are more productive when informed by each other than when in opposition. I consider both good arguments for some kind of divinity; if the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, surely none of the parts is greater than the sum.
Mans inclination to construct replacement faiths even in the midst of tearing down old ones is certainly interesting. Some would argue that is just psychological but, as you say, if it is only that its value is debatable, and thus its presence in a highly successful species perplexing. We could argue false faith provides false motivation and incentive to strive and persevere, but if false it would essentially motivate us to get into self-destructive situations for no good reason.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Atheism: The Iconoclasm of the West?
- 10/03/2012 05:42:56 AM
1489 Views
I think about as highly of athiesm as I do of christianity. *NM*
- 10/03/2012 05:54:20 AM
441 Views
I would chide you on that basis for having a love/hate relationship with God, but who does not? 
- 10/03/2012 06:05:11 AM
693 Views
- 10/03/2012 06:05:11 AM
693 Views
If the divine made men...
- 10/03/2012 06:27:42 AM
679 Views
True, but by the same token, in denying our nature we deny the divine.
- 10/03/2012 06:57:40 AM
703 Views
I was actually just saying in Skype this is the first post you've made in a long time I've enjoyed.
- 10/03/2012 07:02:56 AM
720 Views
Thanks? 
It is all Dans fault, really.
- 10/03/2012 07:21:19 AM
988 Views
It is all Dans fault, really.
- 10/03/2012 07:21:19 AM
988 Views
But you do comparable things all the time!
- 10/03/2012 08:35:31 AM
925 Views
You've made this analogy before and it's still a bad one, those aren't comparable
- 10/03/2012 03:43:08 PM
811 Views
You said what I was thinking far more respectfully than I probably would have.
- 11/03/2012 12:14:55 AM
771 Views
You're right and wrong.
- 10/03/2012 05:09:32 PM
1155 Views
Re: You're right and wrong.
- 11/03/2012 12:28:25 AM
1052 Views
Nope, Buddhists are explicitly atheist and also explicitly Ontologically engaged
- 11/03/2012 01:39:20 AM
1045 Views
Actually, Buddhists are not explicitly atheist in the conventional sense of the world.
- 11/03/2012 02:42:36 AM
856 Views
I guess it is that old impersonalism that seems the great disappointment in most Eastern religions.
- 11/03/2012 04:48:54 AM
931 Views
What you talkin' 'bout, Willis? *NM*
- 10/03/2012 06:29:35 PM
353 Views
I think he's saying that most arguments used on behalf of Atheism actually come from the Bible.
- 10/03/2012 06:58:50 PM
829 Views
Basically what Dan said; atheism as iconoclasm sans icons (unless we count religion as symbolism.)
- 11/03/2012 12:46:52 AM
817 Views
What exactly do you mean by "The irreparable damage it inflicted in the Great Schism"?
- 10/03/2012 07:57:59 PM
880 Views
That Byzantiums iconoclasm was one of the many wedges between it and Rome that led to the Schism.
- 11/03/2012 12:27:05 AM
796 Views
Bull. Shit.
- 11/03/2012 01:54:07 AM
899 Views
I did not say it was decisive, but that it did irreparable damage to the relationship.
- 11/03/2012 04:23:43 AM
901 Views
Bull. Shit.
- 11/03/2012 04:30:08 AM
772 Views
It is not like I just pulled it out of my rear, any more than my HS history text or Wikipedia did.
- 11/03/2012 04:57:31 AM
836 Views
Bull. Shit.
- 11/03/2012 05:14:01 AM
909 Views
Irreparable damage is damage that cannot be repaired, not necessarily serious or fatal.
- 11/03/2012 10:34:57 AM
974 Views
Mierda.del.Toro
- 11/03/2012 12:36:59 PM
874 Views
1969 may be "sometime back" in Roman Catholic history,but is ~a millenium after the time in question
- 12/03/2012 05:47:11 PM
1211 Views
You really must get steamed by anyone calling you out on your hyberbolic comments
- 12/03/2012 06:55:06 PM
982 Views
On the contrary, I am not the one screaming "bullshit" in as many languages as possible.
- 13/03/2012 12:07:54 AM
1038 Views
ο κοπρος. του ταυρου.
- 11/03/2012 02:19:11 PM
955 Views
Very edifying; can you do Mandarin or Swahili next?
- 12/03/2012 05:47:23 PM
844 Views
No. Even English seems to be beyond your grasp.
- 12/03/2012 06:29:50 PM
763 Views
Citing scripture does not justify telling me to kill myself.
- 13/03/2012 12:08:02 AM
912 Views
Give it up already. You are wrong.
- 12/03/2012 12:53:37 AM
1058 Views
I will do the former at least; pretty sure this "discussion" has reached rock bottom.
- 13/03/2012 12:12:46 AM
730 Views
More or less your last line
- 11/03/2012 01:37:42 AM
785 Views
That is a broader argument, but more consistent with iconoclasms established meaning.
- 11/03/2012 05:12:12 AM
937 Views
Would you include the iconoclasm that Joel cites in the canonical Judeo-Christian tradition as well?
- 11/03/2012 12:44:49 PM
780 Views