[True Disciple]

Re: Introduction

That one day man will see that religion is nothing but a worldview.

We never claimed that it wasn't. However, True Christianity™ is the only correct worldview.

That it is the root of many evil.

As you are an atheist, you lack all moral guidance, so I would say that aren't really in a position to call anything "good" or "evil."

That man will understand that religion is intrinsically intolerant and therefore incompatible with respect for the other.

I never claimed that I respect other religions. After all, the Bible says that followers of other religions should be killed:

Deuteronomy 13:6-10:
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

Definitely not! And i don't think I will. I wont go into why though as that would be inciting debate and I've already received an infraction for "Pretending not to believe the Bible is true".

What makes you think that? After all, Jesus, who will do the judging in the end, is very clear that unbelievers go to Hell:

Revelation 21:8:
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

[Bible Student]

Re: Introduction

Hello

My name is Scott and I live in Australia.

I am neither theist nor atheist, but rather adopt a philosophical viewpoint known as absurdism. What this basically means is, I believe that although there may be some deep meaning behind life and the universe, I do not and cannot know exactly what it is. (This is similar to agnosticism)

It is not similar to agnosticism it is agnosticism. Who or what would give purpose to the universe except a god? In essence you are saying you cannot know exactly who God is. I have a clue for you. Read the 1611 King James Bible.

[Bible Student]

Re: Introduction

Originally Posted by Absurdist
I come in the spirit of respect and courtesy to seek discussion and perhaps even debate on matters of morality, philosophy and religion.

An absurdist

Dear Absurdist,

Unfortunately this is no debate forum. And why? Because they know very well that you cannot win a debate if you are irrational. I for one would love to discuss and debate these interesting matters with you.

Welcome Absurdist!!

The Fryer

Logically then, Fryer, knowing this, if you are irrational, why would you even think of debating? You already declared up front you would lose.

Go start your own forum and discuss with Absurdity to your heart's content.

[Lost Sheep McUinnean]

Re: Introduction

What a helpful tautology!

Well don't say I haven't taut you something.

[Fryer Good Shepherd]

Re: Introduction

As you are an atheist, you lack all moral guidance, so I would say that aren't really in a position to call anything "good" or "evil."

If you define morality as obedience to god, then yes, I am less moral than you True Christians.
But as we humans are social animals that must cooperate with each other, we intrinsically know what is good and what not.

so no, saying that all atheist lack all moral guidance is like saying that all True Christians are stupid

[Wide-Open]

Re: Introduction

Did you just call me an animal?

[Fryer Good Shepherd]

Re: Introduction

Logically then, Fryer, knowing this, if you are irrational

never said I was. Was referring to you guys.

[Absurdist]

Re: Introduction

It is not similar to agnosticism it is agnosticism. Who or what would give purpose to the universe except a god? In essence you are saying you cannot know exactly who God is. I have a clue for you. Read the 1611 King James Bible.

There are a few key differences.
Firstly agnosticism refers mainly to the existence of a supernatural deity as being unknowable, whereas absurdism deals with the more broad issue of meaning and purpose to existence.
Secondly, an agnostic tacitly accepts the absurd (the fact that humans search for unknowable truths), but an absurdist will nonetheless search for meaning in life while ultimately knowing that the absurd will stop that search from ever being complete.

As for what gives purpose to the universe, could be anything, I don't know. Human life for one is a pretty good purpose. If the universe didn't exist none of us would be around to have stimulating conversations such as these.

[Fryer Good Shepherd]

Re: Introduction

Did you just call me an animal?

Yep, i did.

acccording to the dictionary an animal is:

any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation

maybe you are not capable of doing these things. Are you a plant or tree maybe?

[True Disciple]

Re: Introduction

But as we humans are social animals that must cooperate with each other, we intrinsically know what is good and what not.

Please stop spreading your deceptive atheist propaganda here. The Fact is that humans are born evil:

Psalm 58:3:
The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

There are a few key differences.
Firstly agnosticism refers mainly to the existence of a supernatural deity as being unknowable, whereas absurdism deals with the more broad issue of meaning and purpose to existence.
Secondly, an agnostic tacitly accepts the absurd (the fact that humans search for unknowable truths), but an absurdist will nonetheless search for meaning in life while ultimately knowing that the absurd will stop that search from ever being complete.

As for what gives purpose to the universe, could be anything, I don't know. Human life for one is a pretty good purpose. If the universe didn't exist none of us would be around to have stimulating conversations such as these.

I understand you less and less with each subsequent post. Are you saying that God created everything solely so that there would be people yapping with one another about God knows what?

[Bible Student]

Re: Introduction

Originally Posted by Bible Student
It is not similar to agnosticism it is agnosticism. Who or what would give purpose to the universe except a god? In essence you are saying you cannot know exactly who God is. I have a clue for you. Read the 1611 King James Bible.

There are a few key differences.
Firstly agnosticism refers mainly to the existence of a supernatural deity as being unknowable, whereas absurdism deals with the more broad issue of meaning and purpose to existence.
Secondly, an agnostic tacitly accepts the absurd (the fact that humans search for unknowable truths), but an absurdist will nonetheless search for meaning in life while ultimately knowing that the absurd will stop that search from ever being complete.

As for what gives purpose to the universe, could be anything, I don't know. Human life for one is a pretty good purpose. If the universe didn't exist none of us would be around to have stimulating conversations such as these.

Inanimate objects cannot have a purpose. The universe would have to be pantheistic to have purpose. Pantheism infers godhood. You still remain in your own trap. In order for humans to be the purpose of the universe then the universe must have purposely put them there. That requires cognition. So you are simply replacing God with the word universe, when you really mean God. Again read your 1611 King James Bible to help you with your dilemma.

Here, let me help you. What you mean is that you personally are so ignorant you do not know why the universe exists. And your mind is so closed that nothing will give you the answer. Or it is so open that nothing stays in.

[Absurdist]

Re: Introduction

Inanimate objects cannot have a purpose. The universe would have to be pantheistic to have purpose. Pantheism infers godhood. You still remain in your own trap. In order for humans to be the purpose of the universe then the universe must have purposely put them there. That requires cognition. So you are simply replacing God with the word universe, when you really mean God. Again read your 1611 King James Bible to help you with your dilemma.

Here, let me help you. What you mean is that you personally are so ignorant you do not know why the universe exists. And your mind is so closed that nothing will give you the answer. Or it is so open that nothing stays in.

I don't discount pantheism anymore than monotheism or atheism, and in the case of pantheism the words 'Universe' and 'God' are interchangeable.
You're correct, I am ignorant as to why the universe exists. That's exactly my point! It would be conceited of me to suggest otherwise.
My mind is open enough to not be axiomatic about premises beyond my scope of comprehension.

[Bible Student]

Re: Introduction

Originally Posted by Bible Student
Inanimate objects cannot have a purpose. The universe would have to be pantheistic to have purpose. Pantheism infers godhood. You still remain in your own trap. In order for humans to be the purpose of the universe then the universe must have purposely put them there. That requires cognition. So you are simply replacing God with the word universe, when you really mean God. Again read your 1611 King James Bible to help you with your dilemma.

Here, let me help you. What you mean is that you personally are so ignorant you do not know why the universe exists. And your mind is so closed that nothing will give you the answer. Or it is so open that nothing stays in.

I don't discount pantheism anymore than monotheism or atheism, and in the case of pantheism the words 'Universe' and 'God' are interchangeable.
You're correct, I am ignorant as to why the universe exists. That's exactly my point! It would be conceited of me to suggest otherwise.
My mind is open enough to not be axiomatic about premises beyond my scope of comprehension.

But absurdism has nothing to do with ignorance. It does not postulate that one does not comprehend but rather one cannot and will never know how or why the universe came into existence.

Carried to absurdism's extreme conclusion the reason one will never know the how or why is simply because there cannot be a reason for the existence of the universe as far as humans are concerned. If you are going to belong to a religion, i.e. absurdism, at the very least you should understand its tenets.

[Absurdist]

Re: Introduction

But absurdism has nothing to do with ignorance. It does not postulate that one does not comprehend but rather one cannot and will never know how or why the universe came into existence.

I don't understand your premise here. If one cannot know X, they by definition do not know X and are thus ignorant of X.

Carried to absurdism's extreme conclusion the reason one will never know the how or why is simply because there cannot be a reason for the existence of the universe as far as humans are concerned.

I think that's probably true, in a sense. I find it hard to imagine anything happening for 'no reason' whatsoever because as far as I am aware every effect is preceded by a cause, even if I am not aware of that cause directly. From that I deduce that something 'caused' the universe to come into existence. But even that may not be true because perhaps cause and effect are intrinsic to our universe and do not operate outside it.
And how would we find this initial cause, if it exists? (taking out of consideration books like the bible for the moment) Can we simply look at the universe as it is now and induce backwards toward the beginning of time? Scientific induction can only allow us to determine the initial conditions of the universe, not the cause of those initial conditions nor the cause of the laws which govern how those conditions evolve to the current state we observe. In other words, science can tell us how the universe came into being, but not why.
As for 'reason' in the human sense, (as in, the reason I am inside now is because it's hot outside) I think that is probably not the case as it implies purpose. Water has no purpose when it boils, it simply does so as a result of certain conditions and the laws of physics. The universe could be much the same, created as a result of some particular conditions outside itself. Or it could be that someone or something decided to create the universe from the outside because it could and it seemed like a good idea. We can never know, because our observations are limited to events inside the physical universe.
As far as humans are concerned, I think it somewhat vain to assume that an universe thirty billion lightyears wide and fifteen billion years old, filled with such amazing complexity and majesty, was created only to provide a habitat for the inhabitants of one planet, however unique and remarkable we may be. And if we are not the reason for the universe's existence, then our purpose, our 'meaning of life', becomes whatever we want it to be. We are free to live our lives as we see fit and just feel thankful for the privilege of being alive and sentient so that we can ask the question, "why are we here?" even if we don't get an answer.

If you are going to belong to a religion, i.e. absurdism, at the very least you should understand its tenets.

Absurdism is not a religion. It is an epistemological philosophy. As such I do not belong to it. I understand its tenets quite well but I am not constrained by them. I can modify my own personal beliefs and still say that I believe the absurdist philosophy to be rational. There are no pastors or popes of philosophy to chastise me for what I choose to believe, only other philosophers, and when I meet them they are usually not dogmatic. We discuss each others beliefs and read each others books in order to better understand the viewpoint of others, and ourselves, without the need for absolutes like right and wrong. It is the secular equivalent of your study of the bible.

[Absurdist]

Re: Introduction

I understand you less and less with each subsequent post. Are you saying that God created everything solely so that there would be people yapping with one another about God knows what?

No, of course not, True Disciple.
I was just using that example to show that, in my opinion, the world could have been created for any number of reasons and that I don't know which reason is the real one.

I'll try to be clearer, but it was almost midnight when I wrote that and I was falling asleep. Sorry.