Frank Apisa wrote:I deal with Jason's "personal experience with God" in the same way every time I hear it.
I ask the following question:
How do you know you are not deluding yourself with this notion of a personal experience?
If the answer is "I do not know"...then we are right back where we started.
This is what makes me more friends with nontheists rather than theists. Theists often want to claim knowledge. Atleast the non-theists like Frank have the respect to know that they cannot know.
Thanks Frank. I feel exactly the same about your experiences.
TTF
Einherjar,
Imagine someone who yells at the sky "the atheists are right! You don't exist! I deny you!" These are the theists who are trying to punish God by refusing to worship him you see. You can imagine it coming about through great loss like death of a loved one.
I am quite sure they are theists though no matter what they say they are.
As usual, I agree with Phoenix: theism is a philosophical non-issue. Its significance lies solely in the political oppression of fundamentallism, both Christian and Musllim.
Eorl wrote:Einherjar,
Imagine someone who yells at the sky "the atheists are right! You don't exist! I deny you!" These are the theists who are trying to punish God by refusing to worship him you see. You can imagine it coming about through great loss like death of a loved one.
I am quite sure they are theists though no matter what they say they are.
what about satanists? are they practicing an extreme form of disaffected theism? just curious, because i've never bothered looking into satanism. theism is problematic enough for me.
JL Nobody
Well, I think that's unfair. You are thinking of religion. But a person can be theist without being member of an established religion. Theism is a personal, individual belief, not an organized church.
Religions always oppress, even when they are not fundamentalist.
Eorl wrote:Einherjar,
Imagine someone who yells at the sky "the atheists are right! You don't exist! I deny you!" These are the theists who are trying to punish God by refusing to worship him you see. You can imagine it coming about through great loss like death of a loved one.
I am quite sure they are theists though no matter what they say they are.
I've a hard time imagining that. Well, not really, but all I can seem to picture is cartoon caracters.
yitwail wrote:Eorl wrote:Einherjar,
Imagine someone who yells at the sky "the atheists are right! You don't exist! I deny you!" These are the theists who are trying to punish God by refusing to worship him you see. You can imagine it coming about through great loss like death of a loved one.
I am quite sure they are theists though no matter what they say they are.
what about satanists? are they practicing an extreme form of disaffected theism? just curious, because i've never bothered looking into satanism. theism is problematic enough for me.
"Movements" calling themselves satanists have popped up from time to time and from place to place for centuries. The only thing they all have in common is an animosity towards christianity.
From what I understand, Satanists are generally atheists; Satanism is one of the few atheistic religions. I will admit never truly looking into it, but that's what I was told at one point by one who called themself a Satanist.
There is also another untouched position involving non-theism, which I call naturalistic theism, or just Naturalism (my term, not the traditional one). This happens to be my position on the matter.
Basically it says that under the presumptions of atheism, atheism itself becomes untenable. Its logical conclusion turns itself upside down.
Specifically, the atheist rhetoric contends certain things about God(s) much as theism does. The simple question becomes: well what are we talking about? Well, we're still talking about God, aren't we?
Put another way, an atheist might say "God is a concept." Well, okay. Don't concepts exist?
The point is, once you make an affirmative statement about the nature of God, positive or negative in the traditional sense, you establish the existence of God. I know it sounds funny to atheists (and probably to theists) but I maintain this is the logical conclusion of atheism and it has profound philosophical implications.
At the risk of hijacking this thread, I'll end by saying this. I've found that I cannot call myself an atheist with the understanding that the term means "there is no God" or "without belief in God" when I know very well that "God" is the very epitome of ambiguity, is the subject of countless philosophical papers, and is still a widely debated topic.
The atheist view on this topic states that "God" is a concept, widely held, worshipped, ambiguous, and that what most people think about the concept is inaccurate. That's fine, and that's basically what I think too. But the question, Does God exist? seems pretty simple to me: of course it does. It's what we're talking about.
So you can surely see, this is not "theism" in any traditional sense, but I can't call it "atheism" with a clear head either.
Nietzsche wrote:From what I understand, Satanists are generally atheists; Satanism is one of the few atheistic religions. I will admit never truly looking into it, but that's what I was told at one point by one who called themself a Satanist.
well, aleister crowley, whom some might consider a satanist, made the immortal quip, "Thank God I'm an atheist."
Val, you say that my comment is unfair--
"You are thinking of religion. But a person can be theist without being member of an established religion. Theism is a personal, individual belief, not an organized church."
I wasn't necessarily thinking about churches; I was talking about a mode of thinking. I don't agree that all religions oppress (I'm thinking of the non-oppressive thought of Hindu Vedanta, zen Taoism and Buddhism, and the non-fundamentalistic Christianity of Paul Tillich, Meister Eckhart, and others). I reserve that criticism for fundamentalism. While some fundamentalist are not actively oppressing others, they have the frame of mind that permits and encourages the oppression of others.
val wrote:JL Nobody
Well, I think that's unfair. You are thinking of religion. But a person can be theist without being member of an established religion. Theism is a personal, individual belief, not an organized church.
Religions always oppress, even when they are not fundamentalist.
Agreed Val - well put.
JLN - I think your original post was misleading (not on purpose mind you) - I had trouble following it.
Are you saying that all fundamentalism is oppressive in nature? How? Not that I am disagreeing with you (I tend to agree) but do you mean that fundamentalists tend to be exclusivists and thus are oppressive?
Please clarify - I am very interested in understand this. I respect your opinion.
TTF
p.s. I miss Asherman - I wish he would drop by on this thread.
Einherjar wrote:Eorl wrote:Einherjar,
Imagine someone who yells at the sky "the atheists are right! You don't exist! I deny you!" These are the theists who are trying to punish God by refusing to worship him you see. You can imagine it coming about through great loss like death of a loved one.
I am quite sure they are theists though no matter what they say they are.
I've a hard time imagining that. Well, not really, but all I can seem to picture is cartoon caracters.
Einherjar - it tends to be a youth thing. I see it ALLOT at the college were I work. It is more of a 'f@ck God' thing. They are loud - they are angry - and I don't think they are athiests.
But let's be honest - they sound a lot like Nietzche at times. (The philologist of history - not the person who posted above).
TF
Nietzsche destested the Christianity of Paul, but he profoundly appreciated Jesus the man and his teaching.
The problem with, and danger of, fundamentalism is its absolutism, the fundamentalists' certainty that all truth and knowledge is with them, giving them warrant to impose their doctrine by all necessary means on others. What they lack is the realization that their beliefs are human constructions, ideological preference rather than God's word and will.
JLNobody wrote:
The problem with, and danger of, fundamentalism is its absolutism, the fundamentalists' certainty that all truth and knowledge is with them, giving them warrant to impose their doctrine by all necessary means on others. What they lack is the realization that their beliefs are human constructions, ideological preference rather than God's word and will.
Ah! Now I understand. I agree completely. They tend also, to be blind faith believers, and because they lack rationale thier brand of theism tends to be the most dangerous. This is because they can include really actions and beliefs into thier structure without seeing contradiction. For example - the comment I heard the other day by Jerry Fallwell that America should go to Iraq and 'Blow them all away - in the name of Jesus.' Even other Abramic religions that do not see Jesus as a savior see how ignorant and contradictory that statement is - why don't some Christians?
Your statement is timely JL - I have been reading a book on Near Death Experiences (Dr. Melvin Morse - Closer to the Light) and came upon a quote that he used at a chapter heading that matches what you have said:
"The greater the ignorance, the greater the dogmatism." - Sir William Osler, MD.
JLNobody wrote: Nietzsche destested the Christianity of Paul, but he profoundly appreciated Jesus the man and his teaching.
Really? I must admit - I have only read 'Thus spake Zarathustra.' and saw Zarathustra's comments in the light I proposed them above. (Mental note - stop talking out of my rear end.
)
I know that Nietzche hated the concept of any religion that made the human a worthless miserable wretch that could only find it's strength through God. I also know that heloved the Greeks because they understood human excellence. Are you saying that these comments were aimed at Paul and not the teachings of Christ?
I would need to read more - but that guy is SO intense - I can only take him is small doses.
TTF
thethinkfactory wrote:JLNobody wrote:
The problem with, and danger of, fundamentalism is its absolutism, the fundamentalists' certainty that all truth and knowledge is with them, giving them warrant to impose their doctrine by all necessary means on others. What they lack is the realization that their beliefs are human constructions, ideological preference rather than God's word and will.
Ah! Now I understand. I agree completely. They tend also, to be blind faith believers....
There are other kinds????
(Be careful. It's a trick question!)
thethinkfactory wrote:Are you saying that these comments were aimed at Paul and not the teachings of Christ?
Nietzsche's opinion of Jesus is mixed. You'll find him saying several positive things, but there's no doubt he still considered Jesus "a decadent." (Worth pointing out: there's less than five people Nietzsche admired without exception, so it's not exactly an insult.) That being said, the major antagonist of
Der Antichrist is without a doubt Paul and not Jesus, which was I think JLN's point.
JL, conversely the beauty of fundamentalism is the perfection of the path they follow...if they happen to be correct and "all truth and knowledge" is, in fact, with them.
Nietzsche
Quote: (Worth pointing out: there's less than five people Nietzsche admired without exception, so it's not exactly an insult)
Well, there is one person in the Bible, that Nietzsche (I mean, the other one
admired. Pilate, "that noble skeptical roman" as he says.
