There is one choice, 1 vote for Waverider's debate

Rant

yo

• This is the end

  This allphilosophy has changed, and in my opinion for the worse. There is no Mephisto, Human-animal, Cod Doc,Glacian, and that great hero of mine Ulysses. It is no wonder they have all scarpered: this is not a web-site dedicated to philosophy, rather it is a web site in homage to Western-theology. So, i say to the editors of this page ( who tried to rub me out) title this ALLWESTERNTHEOLOGY.COM.

  God, Angels,Hell and heaven are no place to be discussing philosophy!

  Voted for by Waverider.

  View 13 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • ExistentialTheist
    March 18, 2005
    Edit | Reply

    if you dont like, then create a thread

    I am an avid reader of both philosophy and theology. Claiming that Western Theology and Philosophy have no intersections is quite frankly ridiculous. If you were to create a thread based on philosophy, then I would love to join in, but I also believe that God and the afterlife are integral parts of the philosophies of many. Im not sure how you can separate them as you clearly do.
  • Waverider
    March 22, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    Existential Theist? Look good buddy, i have read all the arguments for God and the "after life" and quite frankly i find them all too metaphysical. They are not grounded in Good reason, and they are based on fear and hope. Why don't people give up the ghost that there is a God? Maybe there is a God...but i know one thing- he doesnt need people to believe in him or to worship him. A God would respect the man who questioned with boldness the existence of his existence...who would respect blind faith?
  • ExistentialTheist
    March 23, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    I would like first off to know precisely what you mean by "too metaphysical", as there seems to be an argument in itself in that comment. Not to sound pretentious, but you also have to look at who I have been arguing with on here (cough, Keegan, cough), as I wouldnt evaluate arguments for God from my perspective from what you have seen thus far. I would agree with your assertion that God, if He exists, doesnt "need" people to worship them in the same respect that he did not need to create them. I find it much more difficult to swallow my pride and have faith in people, although I have learned in personal relationships, as a rule of thumb, that is often the better route. I would further agree that God might respect the man who questioned with boldness. We must remember Doubting Thomas. The point of faith springs from reason's inability to take us the whole way. Blind faith is the greatest test for the proud, myself included, which is why I remain officially an agnostic. I am not sure overall, however, what objection you would like to focus on, as your previous post is a bit jumpy for me to adequately respond to. How about we isolate one of these issues and move from there?
  • ExistentialTheist
    March 23, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    Ah I forgot to add a couple things: lets be careful with such crazy universal positives such as, "I have read ALL arguments for God's existence and the afterlife." My philosophy of religion professor, certainly more well-informed than any of us on the topic, would not make this claim. Additionally, my comment about theology and philosophy being much closer bedfellows than you might think did not presuppose belief, but merely its potential relevance to one's philosophy, so I am not sure how you jump to this conclusion either. As you so assertively suggested, let us return this site to philosophical glory with careful, systematic logic along with focused and thorough inquiries.
  • • Waverider
      March 24, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      Well i don't know about that, but i'll give it a good try. Where should we start? The universal positive? I think i was saying that i have heard all the arguments on God, and traversing to the conclusion " ...and i don't see any proof of any Gods." I wouldn't pigeon-hole myself and say i was a rampant Atheist...or a sceptic, i think i veer toward the agnostic end of the spectrum, however i can be atheistic in my attitude and i can be sceptical witht he best of them. People have tried for years to prove Gods existence and quite frankly it has got them no-place
    • • Waverider
        March 24, 2005
        Edit | Reply
        Could the owner of this site make it possible to write longer replies. It is irritating when one writes for 10 minutes and loses all the words! ...I think the idea that Nature= God appeals to me. Although " God" would not be in my vocabulary. Do you think God=Nature makes sense? A=B A=A
  • ExistentialTheist
    March 25, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    I think it makes sense certainly, and I would say I am agnostic too. Although it appears as though theologians are on the losing end, since their belief system is indeed based on a universal positive, I don't think atheists have gotten very far either. I cant really ground this entirely, but I would think that a universal negative would be much more difficult to prove. In an effort to be less theological, lets take the example of the little green men. If I were to assert that I had searched every rock, inside every black hole and in the core of every star for little green men, someone could tell me: "Well they are invisible, or perhaps at least to the spectrum of light to which the human eye is sensitive" or "He ran that way while you were looking THAT way", whereas if there were little green men amongst us, we could confidently say there ARE little green men. Im not so sure that its always right to say that the burden of proof is on the theist in light of this. Im not so sure its heavily on anyone.
  • ExistentialTheist
    March 25, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    Sorry started new post to avoid getting stopped. Regarding little green men, however, although kinda a goofy example, shows that proving a universal negative can get a heck of a lot trickier. Regarding proof, however, empirical proof is a thing of science. The question I pose to you is whether or not empirical proof of God could really make sense. Regarding pantheism (God = nature), I suppose I dont see anything wrong with this directly (but remember when describing any theistic position we must define what is meant by God according to it), but I find it in a way to be glorified atheism. I appreciate the reverence it is trying to create, but I have always found it to be purely speculative (far more so than organized religion) and pragmatically not of much use.
  • • Waverider
      April 2, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      Like your comments on this. I think it is a problem with saying " well shit, lok at it...God is in Nature!" then there are the problems as you say in defining what we mean by "God" ...or even nature. An empiricist/scientist would certainly not pay his money for those words. But i think you see the problem keenly. To not divert from the subject too much: if you look at 18th century France, it was the scientists and philosophes that killed theology and built the modern dogma that we have today. There is no spirits,magic, Led Zepplin etc., etc., But this isn't to say one is right and the other is wrong...that would be to join a group: Atheist/Theist.
    • Waverider
      May 3, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      Also Newton's ideas were not wholly adhered to in the 18th century. Newton WAS a big believer in God. He said ( i think the words are near right) that there is an active being that controls the Universe: God. But we can't prove it: do we even need to? " Looking for God is like looking through the glass darkly." Hugh Blair
  • 
    Alexander Hine
    June 8, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    If you guys haven't found God yet you really are one of those old women who loses here glasses on top of her own head. Poor guys, you should just calm down and breathe for a while. The greatest leap of faith is to discover and to never be afraid of what you find, blind faith is fear, open - eye faith, now that's where it's at!
  • ExistentialTheist
    June 11, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    Well if we are so less enlightened than you then why dont you do us the service of defining blind faith vs. open-eye faith. As a side note the latter sounds like empirical faith-- a virtual oxymoron is it not?
  • 
    Energizer Bunny
    September 5, 2005
    Edit | Reply

    Good Point

    Excellent point ExistentialTheist.

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment: