6 ms·
This doesn't surprise me. There is much much more wisdom (read: concentrated intelligence) in real religion (like Judaism or Christianity) than any modern/post
by lst 18y ago
This doesn't surprise me.
There is much much more wisdom (read: concentrated intelligence) in real religion (like Judaism or Christianity) than any modern/post-modern mind is willing to agree...
- trominos 18y agoThis isn't wisdom. It's just a weird (and in my opinion unfair) method of dividing contested assets. Regardless, it's annoying that you're trying to turn a mildly interesting solution to an old puzzle into a statement about how close-minded atheists are.
- lst 18y agoSo you mean that I mean that atheists are close-minded? What does 'atheist' really mean? It's the negation of God, OK? Many of the best scientists out there initially were atheists, and have been convinced by science itself of the existence of some kind of 'God'. So please don't try to convince me, try to back-convert them to atheism!
- lst 18y ago(I'm simply too curious to listen to some convincing argument against my poor expositions... is there really no really convinced atheist out there willing to contrast my poor opinion? If it is really this way: poor poor poor atheism...)
- Retric 18y agoWhile I am not an atheist the logical argument is simple. If a god or gods wanted people to warship them then they could demonstrate their existence and define a single world religion. The wide range of religions around the world suggest that the god or gods don't care about warship. So either their is no god or there are gods but it its impossible to tell anything about them which means acting like there is no god is the most rational choice.
- vitaminj 18y agoI'm not entirely sure why a god (or gods) would ever want the people to have a warship. Unless it's used to fight off other warships from competing gods. In which case warship possession is a plausible want for a god.
- lst 18y agoAtheism is getting older and older. I know that I'm offensive now, but atheists seem to me like people offending their own intelligence. Let me cite Louis Pasteur: A little bit of science moves away from God, but much science makes return to him.
- lst 18y agoDo you know the definition of (christian) faith? Faith informs us: God himself talked to us (see the Bible), and even visited us (see Jesus Christ). But you need faith for that, and faith is not something that we can produce or create, it's something we only can accept or deny. So, it's not that it's impossible (as you say) to tell anything about God. It would even be enough to observe Nature. As I said in another comment, many of the best scientists converted to some kind of deism, because they saw the great Intelligence inside Nature, and they could not find any other explanation than the existence of a Supreme Intelligence. 2 examples? Albert Einstein; Antony Flew.
- gjm11 18y agoEinstein did not convert to any kind of deism as a result of seeing the great Intelligence inside Nature and concluding that there must be a Supreme Intelligence. More specifically, (1) he did not believe in a Supreme Intelligence (he explicitly disclaimed belief in a personal God, and likened his view to that of Spinoza who more or less used "God" as a synonym for "Nature"), and (2) there was no "conversion". Antony Flew is not one of "the best scientists" for the simple reason that he was never a scientist at all. He is a philosopher. Also, there is much reason (entirely independent of his conversion to deism) to believe that his mental faculties are in pretty bad shape. Which is fair enough for someone in his eighties, of course, but the argument "this must make sense if an eminent philosopher is convinced by it" -- which is a pretty hopeless argument in any case, considering some of the things eminent philosophers have been convinced by -- really doesn't work at all when the eminent philosopher no longer has the sharp mind that made him an eminent philosopher in the first place.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- iron_ball 18y agoIf Judaism and Christianity are real religions, what are the fake ones? Did you mean, say, Scientology and neopaganism? Or did you mean, say, other major world religions?
- lst 18y agoA real religion is elevating the best part of yourself, without encouraging some too human inclination (I could make examples, but I don't want to). All 'fake' religions are (in reality) some kind of auto-idolatry (let it be violence, egocentrism, and so on, it's a never-ending list...)
- yters 18y agoThat's an interesting division. But, how does elevating ourselves, even if the better part, not reduce to ego gratification too?
- lst 18y agoEgo gratification is not bad: it's good and even necessary to grow. But we can't always (by ourselves) distinguish between gratification (read: elevating growth) and egoism (destructive growth). So we need some 'illumination', which is, in another term: Religion.
- yters 18y agoI'm sorry you get downvoted so much for your views. They are interesting and you conduct yourself well. So, feel encouraged.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- ReverendBayes 18y agoAllowing that both are real is incorrect, even as they define themselves. Christianity and Judaism, by identity, allow only one of them to be real, if real is defined by correspondence with existence.
- lst 18y agoBy 'real' I mean a religion which is elevating the human spirit, in contrast of being any kind of ideology. P.S. Judaism and Christianity are the only 2 religions which can be defined really similar. They are much less in contrast as most people think.
- lallysingh 18y agoYes yes, there are real religions, and the rest are imaginary, as theology is a complex field... What, nobody else saw that one coming?