This I Believe There is / is not a God

Neapolitan · 10-22-2009, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fruitonica

Well sure, if you believe love manifests as some metaphysical force. Otherwise love is just a term for a complex range of emotions, and all the proof you need is in your experience of them. Science also has a pretty good explanation for emotions if you felt like being pedantic.

I think he was drawing an analogy of something abstract like "love" being real and God, an invisible Being at least to human beings, as real. Whether God is visible or invisible to angels, I don't know. Human beings come to know God through their spiritual nature, their intellect and thier will, there's no physical proof to do so, but that in itself isn't disproof of God Existence.

Love have so many meanings and most people use the word "love" for the words like "like," "desire," or "infatuation." Science can only explain those, but science can't explain Love as a theological virtue.

Fruitonica · 10-22-2009, 01:53 AM

Sure, I understood the point he was aiming for. But I've never seen love as a theological virtue, so I just thought the analogy was shaky.

Guybrush · 10-22-2009, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

Science can only explain those, but science can't explain Love as a theological virtue.

What are you saying? You don't think science can explain why love as a virtue can evolve in a religion? I think you're wrong.

SATCHMO · 10-22-2009, 03:34 AM

I think the primary message is that reductionist reasoning isn't the answer to all things, although scientists would have us think so at times. It's not terribly difficult to reduce the intangible and, admittedly, psychological to hormones and neurotransmitters. While doing so would present the truth from a particular line of reasoning, in a way it really circumvents the issue.

Barnard17 · 10-22-2009, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JesseB5446

I think to say that you don't believe in God because there is no proof is to say that you don't believe in love. You can't prove/disprove love. Therefore we should hang that nonsense as well, right? Go tell your mom/dad/signifigent other/etc. that you don't believe they love you because they cannot physically prove it.

Total non sequitur. Please try harder. Love is a personal emotion with no hard and fast definition and depending on the person using the term can mean a range of feeling. God is a distinct, described entity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JesseB5446

Now who's saying "Believe what I believe or die"? You sound like one of those religious zealot types, only non. To reiterate Neopolitan, I'd be wiiling to bet that the majority of the non-believers in this forum have not read a Bible since the last time they fell asleep in church Easter Sunday umpteen years ago. How does one base his faith on a subject he's never studied? I'm not talking about reading it to pull out all the arguable pieces, but really studied it. We are talking about your eternal soul, maybe, right? You don't think that if it does exist it would be worth spending the time to find out for really real? What do you say to God (if he exists) and asks why you had so many years on the earth to study Nietzsche, Kierkeguaard, Marx, Pascal, Darwin, etc. but not Matthew, Mark, Luke or John?

Which I assume you've done of the Koran, Torah, Adi Granth, Dasam Granth, Homer's Odyssey (from a religious rather than narrative perspective), the Shruti and Shmriti?

The problem with Grand Narrative religions is they all assume they're right. I'd rather piss off all Gods and know where I stand than hedge my bets on the wrong one (and, for all we know, the Buddhists have it right so you may as well focus on appeasing your karma rather than chumming up to a deity.) As for my response to God, I'd tell him if his prophets could write a decent book he'd be in with a chance. As it stands even Tolkien was more interesting, and that was very fucking boring.

I'd also point out that Marx' writing played an absolutely vital role in the development of the modern world, both by means of politics but also the conditions under which people today live. It's important literature by merit of the effect it has on us in ways that other listed authors such as Nietzsche have failed to achieve. It's also quite ironic your use of Pascal as an example considerate of Pascal's Wager ...

sleepy jack · 10-25-2009, 02:10 AM

And Kierkegaard (which she sort of butchered the spelling of) who was a Christian theologian.

Neapolitan · 10-25-2009, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnard17

Total non sequitur. Please try harder. Love is a personal emotion with no hard and fast definition and depending on the person using the term can mean a range of feeling. God is a distinct, described entity.

I think JesseB5446 was on the right track; in Christianity God is Love. So if he proves one she proves the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnard17

Which I assume you've done of the Koran, Torah, Adi Granth, Dasam Granth, Homer's Odyssey (from a religious rather than narrative perspective), the Shruti and Shmriti?

I think JesseB5446 might know the Torah by another name, The Pentateuch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnard17

The problem with Grand Narrative religions is they all assume they're right. I'd rather piss off all Gods and know where I stand than hedge my bets on the wrong one (and, for all we know, the Buddhists have it right so you may as well focus on appeasing your karma rather than chumming up to a deity.) As for my response to God, I'd tell him if his prophets could write a decent book he'd be in with a chance. As it stands even Tolkien was more interesting, and that was very smurfing boring.

Are constucting your own Grand Narrative where you are right and JesseB5446, Christianity and all other religions are wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnard17

I'd also point out that Marx' writing played an absolutely vital role in the development of the modern world, both by means of politics but also the conditions under which people today live. It's important literature by merit of the effect it has on us in ways that other listed authors such as Nietzsche have failed to achieve. It's also quite ironic your use of Pascal as an example considerate of Pascal's Wager ...

Karl Marx lead to Marxist Writings, Marx Writing lead to Marxist Communism and Marxist Communism lead to Communist Regimes that are responsible for majority of the 20th century democide and genocide. Communism is responsible the more deaths then any political ideology in the history of mankind. Is that what you meant by "vital role?"

Guybrush · 10-26-2009, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

Karl Marx lead to Marxist Writings, Marx Writing lead to Marxist Communism and Marxist Communism lead to Communist Regimes that are responsible for majority of the 20th century democide and genocide. Communism is responsible the more deaths then any political ideology in the history of mankind. Is that what you meant by "vital role?"

Do you really hold Marx responsible for all those deaths?

First you're only seeing one side of the coin, only the negative - and you're being stupid because Marx didn't kill all those people. That's highly derivative, it's like blaming Darwin for the holocaust. Marx saw that an oppressed and starving work force in England at the time suffered and didn't have much rights while supporting the people of the upper crust. Marx thought this was unfair - he was a humanitarian which makes your comment seem rather naive and needlessly defensive.

Barnard17 · 10-26-2009, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

I think JesseB5446 was on the right track; in Christianity God is Love. So if she proves one she proves the other.

Strawman argument. You assume God to be true, ergo love can be true. People who do not believe in God are still able to believe and consider love, it just doesn't conform to your perception of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

Are constucting your own Grand Narrative where you are right and JesseB5446, Christianity and all other religions are wrong?

Where have I constructed a Grand Narrative in the slightest?

She invoked Pascal's Wager as a reason to read the Bible and consider it as a theologically truthful work. My point was that with all the other Grand Narrative religions claiming a monopoly on the truth to really work Pascal's Wager you have to do a LOT of reading and get in the pockets of a stupendous amount of Gods. Otherwise you're hedging your bets on one horse when there's fifty others running all with equally good odds. How is your response AT ALL relevant to what I said?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

Karl Marx lead to Marxist Writings, Marx Writing lead to Marxist Communism and Marxist Communism lead to Communist Regimes that are responsible for majority of the 20th century democide and genocide. Communism is responsible the more deaths then any political ideology in the history of mankind. Is that what you meant by "vital role?"

Yes, pretty much as explained in the second half of the sentence after the section you put in bold.

If we ignore the whole "'Communist' Regimes=/=Communism" argument, considerate of the fact that any Totalitarian Government has always been about the will of their supreme leader more than any relevance it keeps to the ideological views they purport in an attempt to gain popular support. Surely the fact that Marx and Engel's writings have been so heavily influential make them important texts to study when you take on board immediate global history and ongoing international politics, such as Cuba and China? By no means are they the inconsequential triflings that Jesse seems to imply.

anticipation · 10-27-2009, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

Karl Marx lead to Marxist Writings, Marx Writing lead to Marxist Communism and Marxist Communism lead to Communist Regimes that are responsible for majority of the 20th century democide and genocide. Communism is responsible the more deaths then any political ideology in the history of mankind. Is that what you meant by "vital role?"

where is wayfarer when you need him?

10-22-2009, 01:53 AM	#302 (permalink)
Fruitonica Pale and Wan Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Aus Posts: 917	Sure, I understood the point he was aiming for. But I've never seen love as a theological virtue, so I just thought the analogy was shaky.

10-22-2009, 03:34 AM	#304 (permalink)
SATCHMO Al Dente Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 4,708	I think the primary message is that reductionist reasoning isn't the answer to all things, although scientists would have us think so at times. It's not terribly difficult to reduce the intangible and, admittedly, psychological to hormones and neurotransmitters. While doing so would present the truth from a particular line of reasoning, in a way it really circumvents the issue.