• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Doubt, faith and denial

First, the good part, yes, believing just like everything else you do in your life is a choice. You must choose whether you want to be a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, an atheist, et al. Choose to be it, and then live it authentically. Their fault lies here, be it they are too weak, too idealistic, too.....what have you.

Now, the wrong-headed part.

Who is to say that it is a "clearly wrong idea"?

Kierkegaard has a quote I'm quite fond of and have posted it frequently here on this site;

"If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe."

This I believe handles one aspect of your statement, the other would be a reiteration of the question I previously posed -- Who is to say it is a clearly wrong idea?

Thanks for illustrating the point most clearly;

Abject gibberish. In order for you to justify this God idea you firstly make your statement sound good with a build up, time for an exotic clever sounding name drop "Kierkegaard has a quote". WHO? I don't care!

Next the big line.

If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.

Wot?!! This is a nonsensical statement. You have not understood it not because you are thick but because it's drivel.

You are equally not capable of grasping the flying spaghetti monster. That does not make it real. You do not (I hope) believe in Santa. That does not give you a reason to worship him.

It's the same pattern. Sounding clever, avoiding the actual subject by diversion.
 

Thanks for illustrating the point most clearly;

Abject gibberish. In order for you to justify this God idea you firstly make your statement sound good with a build up, time for an exotic clever sounding name drop "Kierkegaard has a quote". WHO? I don't care!

Next the big line.



Wot?!! This is a nonsensical statement. You have not understood it not because you are thick but because it's drivel.

You are equally not capable of grasping the flying spaghetti monster. That does not make it real. You do not (I hope) believe in Santa. That does not give you a reason to worship him.

It's the same pattern. Sounding clever, avoiding the actual subject by diversion.

HAHAHA! Thank you for proving my point so quickly, who are you? abject gibberish? You're mistaken on so many levels. For one, I don't need to justify anything to you. Second, read a book. Think about what others have thought about. Quoting a person who said something succinctly, to illustrate a point isn't name dropping. It's called citing a source. Don't ask a question if you don't want a response.

If I really wanted to "name drop" I could go on at great lengths to prove that through Hume's Fork and Godel's Second Incompleteness Theorem there is more than enough evidence to provide justification for what most of the inhabitants on this globe throughout the span of time have chosen to believe. It would be wasted on you of course, which is why I won't waste my time.

I apologize if higher intellectual discourse that requires critical thought makes you go stinky, fortunately those of us who can comprehend the most simplest of ideas and understand that if the argument entails knowing God as an objective fact is impossible than you must believe, you must believe because you can not know. Get it? Got it? Good.

Why do you rejectionists insist on always going toward ridicule when your intellectual prowess if found wanting?
 
Last edited:
I apologize if higher intellectual discourse that requires critical thought makes you go stinky, fortunately those of us who can comprehend the most simplest of ideas and understands that if the argument entails knowing God as an objective fact is impossible than you must believe, you must believe because you can not know. Get it? Got it? Good.

Critical thought is not a problem for me.

Your argument is that the fact that you cannot understand the idea of God makes it strong.

That is clearly gibberish. You cannot understand the powers of the Great Spaghetti Monster either so why don't you believe in that as well?
 
Critical thought is not a problem for me.


I disagree. I really, truly do.

Your argument is that the fact that you cannot understand the idea of God makes it strong.

and look here? you've made yourself a liar in the span of one sentence.

That is clearly gibberish. You cannot understand the powers of the Great Spaghetti Monster either so why don't you believe in that as well?


Because I do not CHOOSE to. You can though. G'head g'head...
 
I disagree. I really, truly do.

Your argument is that the fact that you cannot understand the idea of God makes it strong.

and look here? you've made yourself a liar in the span of one sentence.

That is clearly gibberish. You cannot understand the powers of the Great Spaghetti Monster either so why don't you believe in that as well?


Because I do not CHOOSE to. You can though. G'head g'head...
What do you think is a lie in that?

Is your argument that God is a valid idea because you cannot understand it? (It's a yes/no answer)

It is invalid to believe in something because you choose to. You believe that you are looking at a computer screen because your eyes and other senses tell you so. You cannot choose to believe that you are looking at a computer screen when you are swimming in the sea. You do not get to choose what to believe. That is called lying to yourself.
 
Hey you were born atheist until your legal guardians indoctrinated you in to their faith. Unless of course breasts can be considered gods, then babies worship gods.

well...
 
What do you think is a lie in that?

Is your argument that God is a valid idea because you cannot understand it? (It's a yes/no answer)

It is invalid to believe in something because you choose to. You believe that you are looking at a computer screen because your eyes and other senses tell you so. You cannot choose to believe that you are looking at a computer screen when you are swimming in the sea. You do not get to choose what to believe. That is called lying to yourself.

Your claim critical thought isn't a problem for you.

No.


This makes absolutely no sense what so ever. Context, Content, every Characteristic, Completely CaCa...
 
Your claim critical thought isn't a problem for you.

No.


This makes absolutely no sense what so ever. Context, Content, every Characteristic, Completely CaCa...

I am worried about your sanity.

Can you answer the question; Is your argument that because you cannot understand God the idea of God is thus totally valid?

If that is not your argument I do not understand your post. Please explain.

Your posts are making less and less sense. If you are having thoughts which question your faith, that's good. If you choose to drop the act you will find the world a lot more real and interesting and mostly your self worth will be a lot higher. You will be scared by the process but it will be good all the way through.

 

I am worried about your sanity.

Can you answer the question; Is your argument that because you cannot understand God the idea of God is thus totally valid?

If that is not your argument I do not understand your post. Please explain.

Your posts are making less and less sense. If you are having thoughts which question your faith, that's good. If you choose to drop the act you will find the world a lot more real and interesting and mostly your self worth will be a lot higher. You will be scared by the process but it will be good all the way through.


The sane mind in an insane world do make people stop and wonder...

I did, you said it was yes or no.

I don't believe you grasped them from the onset. I don't believe I've ever said that, or didn't say that. I'm not acting, my world is really real, I swear, I am really typing, really wasting my time with you, its all so vivid... My self worth is exactly what it should be, self determined, but thanks for worrying about something for me that I'm not. So far this process has not been good, it has been mildly amusing, some what sadistic, after my second response to you a little masochistic, but good, eh, not so much.

but if you believe it to be so, hey, good for you...
 
Avoiding the generalities that you've presented, let me just say that you're on to it but have really screwed the pooch.

How so?

I'm glad you asked.

First, the good part, yes, believing just like everything else you do in your life is a choice. You must choose whether you want to be a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, an atheist, et al. Choose to be it, and then live it authentically. Their fault lies here, be it they are too weak, too idealistic, too.....what have you.

Now, the wrong-headed part.

Who is to say that it is a "clearly wrong idea"?

Kierkegaard has a quote I'm quite fond of and have posted it frequently here on this site;

"If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe."

This I believe handles one aspect of your statement, the other would be a reiteration of the question I previously posed -- Who is to say it is a clearly wrong idea?

You, who are you in relation to what that person thinks, feels, believes? You're insignificant. I'm not being insulting when I say this I am being quite literal. You're idea of what is right and wrong as it regards what others choose to believe is of no importance. Just as they are of no importance to you and what you believe. To question their genuineness is an open door invitation for one to question yours.

OK, so the bit in bold, you say does not mean that the argument you put forward for God is that it is not understandable.

In which case I do not understand what your point is.
 

This is the kind of thing which illustrates the point.

In order to intellectually justify the position of belief in the super-silly psudo-natural big words are brought out to make the argument sound clever. The more the discussion moves away from anything which is likely to be unavoidable on an simple emotional level the better. It's not about winning the argument in a way which is going to persuade the non-believer but if the worshiper has batted the words away and sounded clever whilst doing it he has succeeded within his own mind and thus can congratulate himself that reality has been beaten again by the power of GOD!!

That you decide to hide behind a shield of anti intellectualism in order to justify your beliefs, says nothing about me. Those of us who are willing to think about things with our intellect, will occasionally use "big words" as a matter of course.
 
That you decide to hide behind a shield of anti intellectualism in order to justify your beliefs, says nothing about me. Those of us who are willing to think about things with our intellect, will occasionally use "big words" as a matter of course.

LOL!!

It's OK for you to use big words. Not my preferred style, but if it's yours fine. The problem arises when the words used are not understood by the person writing them. That's my point.
 

LOL!!

It's OK for you to use big words. Not my preferred style, but if it's yours fine. The problem arises when the words used are not understood by the person writing them. That's my point.

I understand what the words mean.
 
The sane mind in an insane world do make people stop and wonder...

I did, you said it was yes or no.

I don't believe you grasped them from the onset. I don't believe I've ever said that, or didn't say that. I'm not acting, my world is really real, I swear, I am really typing, really wasting my time with you, its all so vivid... My self worth is exactly what it should be, self determined, but thanks for worrying about something for me that I'm not. So far this process has not been good, it has been mildly amusing, some what sadistic, after my second response to you a little masochistic, but good, eh, not so much.

but if you believe it to be so, hey, good for you...
lulz.............
 
God Squad. Flying Spaghetti Monster. Pseudo-intellectual. Big words.

etc, etc, etc

Sad.
 
People are free to believe as they want and to express that belief.

I really wish the Philosophy forum was used for philosophy discussion, not religious brouhaha.

There should be a sub forum for atheism.
 
The dictionary is your friend.

It's really simple;

I think that this;-


Kierkegaard has a quote I'm quite fond of and have posted it frequently here on this site;

"If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe."

is trying to give an air of gravitas and profoundity to a meaningless statement. If you can explain how it does not apply to anything that cannot be understood or that it means something else then I will be educated.

If you cannot do this then I will consider that I am right. I will also continue to think that it illustrates the whole point of this thread in that it is a prime example of something very close to lying. I will call it untruth. That is the avoidance of the subject to divert the conversation and thus have the show of winning the argument without anything significant being said.
 
It's really simple;

I think that this;-




is trying to give an air of gravitas and profoundity to a meaningless statement. If you can explain how it does not apply to anything that cannot be understood or that it means something else then I will be educated.

If you cannot do this then I will consider that I am right. I will also continue to think that it illustrates the whole point of this thread in that it is a prime example of something very close to lying. I will call it untruth. That is the avoidance of the subject to divert the conversation and thus have the show of winning the argument without anything significant being said.

I would disagree with the quote in question, as it displays a fideistic attitude. How on Earth that discredits my use of the phrase "ontological nihilists" is beyond me.
 
Or we could keep the religious discussions in the Religion Forum.

Well the problem is that if the religious forum isnt a echo chamber they report those posts that dont comply. So then the religious threads end up here because they have no choice over there.
 
Back
Top Bottom