Atheist Threat

Oct 10th, 2008, in IM Posts, by

View the original article here.


1,311 Comments on “Atheist Threat”

Pages: « 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2244 »

  1. avatar Patrick says:
    April 5th, 2009 at 9:15 pm

    You see Lairedion it all goes in a circle like a dog chasing its tail. Thomas Acquinas 5 proofs place an emphasis that there exist a moral and good God who is un-moveable in the stream of time while everything else changes with time as all other objects are in motion. It is precisely that reason that it is difficult to determine what are and what will be the future morals of atheist while God’s morals will always remain consistent throughout human history. Think about that!

  2. avatar Lairedion says:
    April 5th, 2009 at 10:36 pm

    Patrick, good to see you back but do we need to go all over it again?

    I hope we can agree we disagree on such matters and I really can’t be bothered what a 13th century Dominican priest used to think.

  3. avatar Patrick says:
    April 6th, 2009 at 2:17 am

    @ Lairedion ya we can agree to disagree about many things. However, no intellectual can dismiss Thomas Aquinas so easily?

    Think about it then as Barry Prima did earlier on in this thread when he compared God’s morality to the North Star. The North Star is the great compass in the night sky that has guided seafarers for millenniums as they traveled across open waters without benefit of modern instruments. Just as these sea travelers could get lost from time to time when the star was not visible due to heavy clouding or storms so to do religious people when they go astray and become lost in their morality. Just as the North Star will in time become visible again for the sailor to correct his course, so to is the morality of God as it is a beacon of light and hope for all those lost and who seek God.

  4. avatar Mr Tic Tac Toe says:
    April 6th, 2009 at 3:27 am

    However, no intellectual can dismiss Thomas Aquinas so easily?

    I thought the same way too, when reading P. Lai’s post.
    But then again, im probably biased on aquinas, as i once too deep in via negativa.

    Anyway, wasnt Aquinas that argued humans are naturally capable of knowing “truth”(in this case: moral) even without God’s revelation?

    From that point of view, Whether one believes in the existence of God or not, is irrelevant to his moral.
    Then Aquinas’ arguments was actually in line with atheist’s!

    As for Revelations, faith, and supernatural truth, thats God’s problem, not ours.

  5. avatar Patrick says:
    April 6th, 2009 at 9:49 am

    @ Tic Tac Toe, Yes humans, according to Paul in his letter to the Romans 2:19 to 2:21, states that humans (all) are capable of knowing God because he wrote “For what can be known about God is clearly evident to them because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what He has made. As a result they have no excuse for although they knew God they did not give Him glory as God or give him thanks….” Thomas Aquinas was more than familiar with Paul’s letter to the Romans and therefore it may even have been the inspiration for the development of “The Five Proofs of God”. Therefore it is a false conclusion to assert that Thomas’ arguments are actually in line with atheist as you claimed above.

  6. avatar Oigal says:
    April 22nd, 2009 at 4:25 pm

    “kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him. But all the woman that hath not known a man by lying with him, keep for yourselves..
    Yup..can see the morality fairly bursting thru there..

    To be fair this our friend Moses in the Old testament, the tone has been lowered a tad since then ..chuckle..so much much for unchanging morality and the word of God..try following Adam’s family tree for a laugh in genealogies.

    As for the North Star..it exists, no one has to take it on faith..therein is the difference.

    Still its always fun to watch ol Pat Froth and spittle

  7. avatar Observato says:
    April 23rd, 2009 at 10:14 pm

    Wether we need religion or not, is beyond our logic. You will never completely comprehend your self, let alone the complexity arround you, neither the phsyciaters, neither the scientists. All you can do are mostly rationalizations, which you hope they would make your feeling better. Rationalization is not better than just believing. Its rather manipulative. Shutdown your logic, and just let things go …

  8. avatar Mike Oxblack says:
    April 24th, 2009 at 12:25 am

    Shutdown your logic, and just let things go …

    I see you follow this advice to the letter.

  9. avatar Mike Oxblack says:
    April 24th, 2009 at 12:40 am

    Atheists may also follow ethical philosophies with a strong emphasis on doing good and right action, not necessarily supported with religious texts.

    …and we are innately moral beings anyway, possessed of a morality that has evolved alongside our capacities for abstract reasoning and for language (and perhaps religion itself even). For me, religion seems a rather negative way of looking at humanity. As Nietzsche said, religion robs us of our better nature thus actually reducing our capacity to reason morally. i.e anything bad we do is done because we are naturally abject and base but our good deeds are ascribed to God and his laws and are in some sense out of our hands. This system doesn’t appeal to our better natures.We should have a better opinion of ourselves than that. The old argument that without religion we’d all be running around raping and killing is a deep insult to human nature.

  10. avatar Observato says:
    April 24th, 2009 at 7:46 am

    Truth is not what should be true according to one’s opinion. Non can deny our life is short, our resources on finding it are limited. Fortunately, it has been thousands year of journey of mankind. Patterns, visible and invisible, are arround us here to find. Before one question if worshipping God is true or not, let he/she find that worshipping himself (taking granted what was become his opinion, that is rather constructed in short period of his life, heavily affected by his/her fear and ego, like and dislike) is an evil blocker towards enlightment.

    And the truth is not something concluded. It is something found.

  11. avatar farya_marukh says:
    April 24th, 2009 at 10:43 am

    hey wait a minute…
    do people really have to be atheist to ensure freedom of mind?
    well, i guess we just have to learn that religion and God is two different thing.
    religion is an organization, God is something out there that’s bigger than all of us- history show that due to imperfection of humankind we still need this “there’s a higer power out there” mentality, just to give motivation. People may believe in God, therefore they can keep all the morality issues (which oftenly mis-represented in religion) and lots of stuffs unchanged, we still can go to Mosque, Church, etc, but just be careful on religion. They have strong motives (political, economical, etc) to rule the world and say this is wrong, this is right, you cannot do this and that, punish him/her, blabla and before you realise suddenly religious leader make somekind of rules that forbid spouses to have sex in a certain position, or whatever…
    I think secularism is a better way to us all than atheism… Some people will always need something to depend to just because they don’t have enough confidence to live this life alone.

  12. avatar farya_marukh says:
    April 24th, 2009 at 10:46 am

    hey I like Observato comments… Truth is something to be found… it’s not something un-changeable…

    It’s Karl Popper’s and George Soros’ ideology actually… The Open Society Concept… People should read their works… they’re really good…!!!

  13. avatar Patrick says:
    April 26th, 2009 at 12:05 am

    @ Patung – Don’t see the point of posting if you are going to erase everything I write and that you decide is disagreeable to you regardless that it contains no vulgarities or ethnic slurs of any kind. Free speech here @ IM = free exchange of ideas and more interaction = A better IM. You can’t unleash Oigal and Lairedion and some of the other unsavory characters and allow them to attack others and then not allow them to be subjected to written retribution. In the long run, you are only hurting yourself Patung or maybe you would have made an excellent communist proof reader for the Kremlin?

  14. avatar David says:
    April 26th, 2009 at 12:37 am

    Right Patrick, ok, go ahead then, just keep me out of it.

  15. avatar Odinius says:
    April 26th, 2009 at 12:43 am

    farya_marukh said:

    hey I like Observato comments… Truth is something to be found… it’s not something un-changeable…

    It’s Karl Popper’s and George Soros’ ideology actually… The Open Society Concept… People should read their works… they’re really good…!!!

    I’m a huge fan of the Open Society too, but we should also mention the guy who came up with the idea…Henri-Louis Bergson :)

  16. avatar Odinius says:
    April 26th, 2009 at 12:54 am

    This may seem like a stupid question, but when you think about it, it’s not.

    What’s the point of arguing the existence/non-existence of God? Is anyone ever actually convinced by these discussions?

    Specifically, is it possible to “prove” that God exists without making reference to any holy books? Conversely, is it ever possible to “prove” that God does not exist?

    As I see it, the answer to both of these questions–and the one immediately preceding it–is “no.” Thus I believe religion is a matter of faith and of subjective perception of the world. Therefore, it really shouldn’t intrude on terrestrial political matters, nor should any religious person feel that they have the right to impose their views on anyone else. At the same time, “evangelical atheists” in the West need a reality check: the same rules apply to them. Science–or the 2009 version of it–does not explain everything, and even when it tries to, does so in part on currently-unfalsifiable theories. Thus there’s a whole lot of the same “applied faith” as with the religious.

    Now I’m NOT saying these two things are equivalent. But we simply cannot know with certainty the exact nature of the physical, or the existence of the metaphysical. That makes me think that someone who tries to impose an atheistic worldview on the religious is doing something not unlike the religious person who tries to impose their worldview on those who do not share it.

  17. avatar Patrick says:
    April 27th, 2009 at 6:18 am

    @ Odinius (you said) – “Specifically, is it possible to “prove” that God exists without making reference to any holy books? ”

    Do you really understand the 5 proofs of God’s existence? If you did then you would have comprehended that the proofs offer no scripture at all but rely totally on man’s ability to reason the existence of God in the natural world. God’s existence through reasoning was enough to convince many great minds from Aristotle to Einstein that there was some great power (God) that created and held the Universe together as they concluded it could not have been created by chance alone.

    @ Patung – That’s exactly my point as well so we are finally in agreement! : > )

  18. avatar Odinius says:
    April 27th, 2009 at 6:47 am

    Patrick: The 5 proofs aren’t terribly convincing that God does exist, though they do aptly demonstrate that the existence of God may be reasoned logically. Those are two entirely different points. As others have said better than me, the proofs are too reliant on the idea that the residual category has to be divine, and interestingly, there’s no attempt to regress it in the way he does everything else. Probably because he would have been stoned to death had he done so, but it stands as a flaw if considered today.

    Many things, furthermore, need not be regressed in the way he does, for example the teleological proof. Evolution explains the natural order as well. Obviously Aquinas wrote this before Darwin, so can’t fault him for that omission either. But again, renders him less useful to someone today.

    Though I admire Aquinas as a thinker, I dare say that the non-religious are unlikely to be swayed by his proofs.

  19. avatar Observato says:
    April 27th, 2009 at 9:04 am

    May be they be more neutrally called as ’5 arguments’ of the existence of God, as well as 5 counter arguments against them. Religions did exists at the time Greek philosophers thinking rationally and one of them, I forgot the name, said: life is too short and the question is too difficult. As about Thomas Aquinas, well his arguments may satisfy the need of religious persons who seek confirmation of human ratio to religious faith. But to ‘philosophers’ folk, I belief the previous answer is near ultimate (at least, for now).

  20. avatar Patrick says:
    April 27th, 2009 at 9:46 am

    Observato says “Though I admire Aquinas as a thinker, I dare say that the non-religious are unlikely to be swayed by his proofs”.

    My answer: Albert Einstein and other atheist as noted earlier accepted the 5th proof as they came to realize in their science that the universe was too complex and too many things depended on each other that it more than suggested an intelligent designer.

    Observato says “Religions did not exists in the time of the Greek philosophers”.

    My answer: REALLY? You mean the Greek history I learned was all wrong? Damn! I knew all those classes at the University were a waste of time.

  21. avatar Patrick says:
    April 27th, 2009 at 11:46 am

    Observato says?????????????????????????????????????????????????
    Religions did exists at the time Greek philosophers (change)
    “Religions did not exists in the time of the Greek philosophers”. (original)

    Hey Patung what happened to your promise to allow the free exchange of viewpoints? You changed (edited after my post) the statements above by in attempt to show me up? Pathetic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I know because I always cut & paste!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  22. avatar janma says:
    April 27th, 2009 at 12:06 pm

    You changed (edited after my post) the statements above by in attempt to show me up? Pathetic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    yeah, like you need help Patrick….

  23. avatar Observato says:
    April 27th, 2009 at 12:21 pm

    Patrick. What the mess is going here.
    I referred to polytheistic religion of ancient Greek. The original question was likely about Gods and Goddess. But I think it still be relevant where we are questioning about single God. After more, if it has been proven God is exist, how we then prove that God is One. Or God is rather .. eh .. being in Trinity state?

    Not that I’m atheist. I only oppose the idea that our ratio should prove absolutely that God exists. After all, isn’t there a thumb rule that our ratio will always find a relative truth, can be nullified by next inventions, that if you rely on it, you will result on: a relative truth that God exists. Human ratio may approach it … but not in the way some theological students misusing thus destroying their logic, not just on this issue but almost on everything.

    Peace to thus who follow guidance.

  24. avatar David says:
    April 27th, 2009 at 12:27 pm

    Hey Patung what happened to your promise to allow the free exchange of viewpoints? You changed (edited after my post) the statements above by in attempt to show me up? Pathetic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Nope, been sound asleep, there’s another moderator but he is on holiday, … changed what?….. Ah now I see it

    Observato says?????????????????????????????????????????????????
    Religions did exists at the time Greek philosophers (change)
    “Religions did not exists in the time of the Greek philosophers”. (original)

    No idea.

  25. avatar ET says:
    April 27th, 2009 at 1:33 pm

    Odinius said

    What’s the point of arguing the existence/non-existence of God? Is anyone ever actually convinced by these discussions?

    No. Noone will ever be convinced by these discussions. Because most people enter these discussions with preconceived ideas based on education and socio-cultural, even psychological patterns. They have internalized these patterns to a degree that their belief or non-belief in a god has become part of their individual personality set-up and departing from it would be experienced as an act of self-denial or mental suicide.

    For believers this becomes even more evident when morality is viewed as based on divine guidance or law. The two become interwoven so that denial of one is automatically viewed as rejection of the other. God is regarded as the creator of everything, also moral order, so rejection of the god-notion would automatically be interpreted as rejection of any moral order. The resulting fear of chaos makes them cling to their familiar theological constructions and prevent them from further critical investigation.

    Non-believers on the contrary consider the possible existence of god as a threat upon their ideas of self-determination and imagined freedom from dogmatic influence, thereby forgetting that their own views – and in fact the general make-up of human society itself – are also a constraint forcing them into cultural and political correctness. When confronted with this however they will tie themselves in all kinds of knots to hold on to their preconceptions.

    So these discussions are basically dead-end streets . Why can’t people just honestly admit that they don’t know and get on with their lives? Meanwhile nothing prevents them from looking for the answers, provided they pose the right questions.

  26. avatar Patrick says:
    April 27th, 2009 at 8:57 pm

    @Patung – try MD as she would be my likely suspect!

    @ET says “So these discussions are basically dead-end streets”

    mmmmmm? are you absolutely sure about that statement?

  27. avatar Astrajingga says:
    May 23rd, 2009 at 7:22 am

    Well, I’m not ET, but believing in God or not is seems to me a matter of ‘taste.’

    You can’t arguing whose taste is better.

    We can’t argue, because taste doesn’t always got something to do with logic, ethic, or aesthetic.

    I agree with him. It’s a dead-end streets. Unless someone can control others’ mind, feeling, and also ‘taste’ then, there would be a final conclusion.

  28. avatar dejavu says:
    May 24th, 2009 at 3:56 am

    What is wrong to be atheist, agnostic, alien followers, whatever. Everyone has freedom to choose what he/she wants to believe. Respect for that!

  29. avatar Odinius says:
    May 24th, 2009 at 5:42 am

    ET said:

    No. Noone will ever be convinced by these discussions. Because most people enter these discussions with preconceived ideas based on education and socio-cultural, even psychological patterns. They have internalized these patterns to a degree that their belief or non-belief in a god has become part of their individual personality set-up and departing from it would be experienced as an act of self-denial or mental suicide.

    Well said. Totally agree.

  30. avatar Patrick says:
    May 26th, 2009 at 1:43 pm

    Laughing With…(Lyrics by Regina Spector)

    No one laughs at God in a hospital
    No one laughs at God in a war
    No one’s laughing at God when they’re starving or freezing or so very poor

    No one laughs at God when the doctor calls after some routine tests
    No one’s laughing at God when it’s gotten real late and their kid’s not back from that party yet

    No one laughs at God when their airplane starts to uncontrollably shake
    No one’s laughing at God when they see the one they love hand in hand with someone else and they hope that they’re mistaken
    No one laughs at God when the cops knock on their door and they say “We’ve got some bad new, sir,”
    No one’s laughing at God when there’s a famine, fire or flood

    But God can be funny
    At a cocktail party while listening to a good God-themed joke or
    Or when the crazies say he hates us and they get so red in the head you think that they’re about to choke

    God can be funny
    When told he’ll give you money if you just pray the right way
    And when presented like a genie
    Who does magic like Houdini
    Or grants wishes like Jiminy Cricket and Santa Claus

    God can be so hilarious
    Ha ha
    Ha ha

    No one laughs at God in a hospital
    No one laughs at God in a war
    No one’s laughing at God when they’ve lost all they got and they don’t know what for

    No one laughs at God on the day they realize that the last sight they’ll ever see is a pair of hateful eyes
    No one’s laughing at God when they’re saying their goodbyes

    But God can be funny
    At a cocktail party while listening to a good God-themed joke or
    Or when the crazies say he hates us and they get so red in the head you think that they’re about to choke

    God can be funny
    When told he’ll give you money if you just pray the right way
    And when presented like a genie
    Who does magic like Houdini
    Or grants wishes like Jiminy Cricket and Santa Claus

    God can be so hilarious

    No one laughs at God in a hospital
    No one laughs at God in a war

    No one laughs at God in a hospital
    No one laughs at God in a war

    No one’s laughing at God in a hospital
    No one’s laughing at God in a war

    No one’s laughing at God when they’re starving or freezing or so very poor

    No one’s laughing at God
    No one’s laughing at God
    No one’s laughing at God
    We’re all laughing with God

Pages: « 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2244 »



Your view on “Atheist Threat” :


RSS
RSS feed
Email

Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-14
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact