Where did God come from?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
The default position, if we must define one, is the absence of a philosophy. Simple existence. Nihilism is not an absence of philosophy.

Then a misuse of the term on my part. Nonetheless, I think the only philosiphy based totally upon reason is nihilism. There are plenty on rationalists that are not nihilists of course but they are not basing that purely on rationalism.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
All assignment of value is voluntary. If it was needed, it wouldn't be subjective, but rather an objective stance that is thrust upon us. People construct philosophies for themselves, regardless of need.

Just because people have a need to give meaning to things (it seems everyone is compelled to) doesn't create objectivity in anything.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Nothing is needed, in the strictest sense of the world.

That is the point. That is the very basis of what I'm saying. It shocks me that you can't see a negative side to that or at the very least have somehow blinded yourself to it completely. Ignoring it I can understand but you seem to actively reject it.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
1. neitzche was a nihhlistic god complexed idiot

Neitzche felt that the best course was to reject nihilism, IIRC.

Ok, Sym. You're entitled to your opinion.

Saying that reason alone leads to, or is inherently, nihilistic, is to assign objective value to a subjective realm. Which is false. I can't really say it any other way.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Ok, Sym. You're entitled to your opinion.

And you are entitled to yours.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Saying that reason alone leads to, or is inherently, nihilistic, is to assign objective value to a subjective realm. Which is false. I can't really say it any other way.

And your opinion is quite flawed. But I don't feel the need to impress that upon you further.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And your opinion is quite flawed. But I don't feel the need to impress that upon you further.

😬

Simply saying it is flawed doesn't really mean too much, and sounds an awful lot like condescension. The religion forum can bring heated debate more than most, but I've always valued you as a member and contributor. But when you're repeatedly "shocked at how delusional I am" it's hard to take such forward claims in anything but an antagonistic tone. Debate with me if you want to, but try not to be such a jerk about it. It sucks the fun out of the discussions, and isn't needed between two posters who otherwise should be able to respect and like each other.

Anyway, you never invalidated my last statement there in my last post, which is at the heart of the matter, so I'll hardly concede the point despite your emphatic rebuttals.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then a misuse of the term on my part. Nonetheless, I think the only philosiphy based totally upon reason is nihilism. There are plenty on rationalists that are not nihilists of course but they are not basing that purely on rationalism.

Just because people have a need to give meaning to things (it seems everyone is compelled to) doesn't create objectivity in anything.

That is the point. That is the very basis of what I'm saying. It shocks me that you can't see a negative side to that or at the very least have somehow blinded yourself to it completely. Ignoring it I can understand but you seem to actively reject it.

Neitzche felt that the best course was to reject nihilism, IIRC.

neitche's philosophy is egotistical, selfish, addicted to his personal conception of power irrespective of the cost it came at, and revolving around "might is right", and ultimately nihhlistic as he cudnt even finally found solace in the idea of a powerful man having enugh reason to continue his own existance as power alone wasnt enough.

also, i think you are very wrong to beleive that the only reasonable philosophy is nihhlism.

Not to mention that Nietzche said so many different things that he contradicted himself more often than, hell, the Bible itself. Pinning him into a few sentences of summary, and thinking it encapsulates his philosophy on something, is helpful for internet posts and term papers, but falls apart utterly when you actually read his works.

^i know. although in his defence, i will say his philosopy was a lot more consistant than many many other famous philosophers before his time. still consistantly wrong isnt so much better than inconsistantly wrong.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Simply saying it is flawed doesn't really mean too much, and sounds an awful lot like condescension.

So did your post.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
But when you're repeatedly "shocked at how delusional I am" it's hard to take such forward claims in anything but an antagonistic tone.

I dropped the use of delusion, mainly because of the connotation involved. I'm simply of the opinion that you've chosen to believe what comforts you rather than believe absolutely nothing but the facts.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Debate with me if you want to, but try not to be such a jerk about it. It sucks the fun out of the discussions, and isn't needed between two posters who otherwise should be able to respect and like each other.

Alright.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Anyway, you never invalidated my last statement there in my last post, which is at the heart of the matter, so I'll hardly concede the point despite your emphatic rebuttals.

I'm honestly not sure what it means.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
also, i think you are very wrong to beleive that the only reasonable philosophy is nihhlism.

I said it's the only philosophy based entirely upon reason. It's reasonable to believe anything you want (unless you wholly defy reality, which could be a problem).

Sym, are you a Christian?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Sym, are you a Christian?

In discussion of religion I usually identify as Ignostic or Apatheist with a Presbyterian upbringing.

The whole story is very complicated.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I dropped the use of delusion, mainly because of the connotation involved. I'm simply of the opinion that you've chosen to believe what comforts you rather than believe absolutely nothing but the facts.

Facts are objective criteria that are falsifiable. Any personal philosophy is a subjective decision, and doesn't happen because of any factual basis (reason/logic) but from a person's own interpretation of those facts. Nilhilism, or any personal ideology, is a subjective decision...meaning, it is intrinsic to the person. It isn't falsifiable, and it certainly doesn't occur naturally from reason or any other factual matter, which is an objective criteria. I'm repeating myself now, because I don't know how else to say it.

It's like saying theism leads to happiness. Possible, but one does not necessarily flow from the other. Or that atheism leads to genocide (a popular argument). Atheists have committed genocide, no doubt, but to equate one directly with the other would be as false as if we paraded 4 altruistic atheists around and said that "atheism as an approach = altruism as a philosophy." Both interpretations would be false because it assigns a concrete conclusion to a subjective intellectual stance. In other wrods, correlation doesn't equal causation.

One of probably two things is happening: you're confusing objective/subjective realms and substituting one for the other (objective facts needing to lead to nihilism), or you're assigning an objective stance to a subjective decision. Like saying that Evangelical Christians will always enjoy jello. An embellished example, granted, but the principle remains intact.

The fact that you're so adamant about this leads me to believe that you might tend toward depression in a completely rational worldview (maybe I'm wrong, but otherwise your tenacity is a bit mystifying). But that's true for you. It's not an objective statement. It's the difference between 2 + 2 = 4 and "reason as an approach = nihilism as a philosophy." You're saying the latter is every bit as undeniably true as the former. And the fact that people exist to refute that stance, myself among them, should be all the proof that is needed. I don't delude myself as to my place in the universe...it just doesn't bother me. One need not substitute something else in place of reason and logic in order to accept it. This borders on common sense understanding of life to me, which is why I find it so hard to believe that you insist that people who subscribe to a materialistic point of view are either nihilists or delusional. Maybe its that you can't understand such a stance because you don't share it. Or maybe for other reasons. But it's entirely possible.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So did your post.

Really? I said you're entitled to your opinion and I stated the crux of my argument. Is that condescension? Or is being called delusional?

Originally posted by Kapton JAC
Where did God come from?

over yonder behind there

God comes from a word called god, by Christians..But it is El... Otherwise, it is not knowable nor understandable or fathomable....

This is why religion is a hoax. They seem to know this thing we call god, yet they can never understand IT'S ways according to their own teachings in the Bible "Gods way are higher than yours/ours."...paraphrased.

To the OP ... and everyone else really.

< ---- not "religeous" as such, but faith costs you nothing, time - money - energy - it is a choice, it is not a fact.

No one KNOWS the truth, its simply a matter of belief, and IF (i said if) all it took for you to be given eternal paradise when you pass from this world was to spare some thought of faith - forget church - forget donations - forget rules, commandments and confessions - but faith at the cost of NOTHING..well, i ask you all..

isn't it just worth it?

to believe?

Originally posted by Juk3n
To the OP ... and everyone else really.

< ---- not "religeous" as such, but faith costs you nothing, time - money - energy - it is a choice, it is not a fact.

No one KNOWS the truth, its simply a matter of belief, and IF (i said if) all it took for you to be given eternal paradise when you pass from this world was to spare some thought of faith - forget church - forget donations - forget rules, commandments and confessions - but faith at the cost of NOTHING..well, i ask you all..

isn't it just worth it?

to believe?

You have to put that faith into practice. Or else your not proving it to yourself, and he would see through your lie anyway.

Originally posted by Juk3n
To the OP ... and everyone else really.

< ---- not "religeous" as such, but faith costs you nothing, time - money - energy - it is a choice, it is not a fact.

No one KNOWS the truth, its simply a matter of belief, and IF (i said if) all it took for you to be given eternal paradise when you pass from this world was to spare some thought of faith - forget church - forget donations - forget rules, commandments and confessions - but faith at the cost of NOTHING..well, i ask you all..

isn't it just worth it?

to believe?

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Faith is an interesting animal. Do you put it on something that is not proven or put it on yourself and the consequences of them.

What did that sentence mean?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
What did that sentence mean?

Originally posted by Juk3n
To the OP ... and everyone else really.

< ---- not "religeous" as such, but faith costs you nothing, time - money - energy - it is a choice, it is not a fact.

No one KNOWS the truth, its simply a matter of belief, and IF (i said if) all it took for you to be given eternal paradise when you pass from this world was to spare some thought of faith - forget church - forget donations - forget rules, commandments and confessions - but faith at the cost of NOTHING..well, i ask you all..

isn't it just worth it?

to believe?

This is a simplified version of Pascal's Wager, and not a very good argument for belief.

Originally posted by Juk3n
No one KNOWS the truth, its simply a matter of belief, and IF (i said if) all it took for you to be given eternal paradise when you pass from this world was to spare some thought of faith - forget church - forget donations - forget rules, commandments and confessions - but faith at the cost of NOTHING..well, i ask you all..

isn't it just worth it?

to believe?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
This is a simplified version of Pascal's Wager, and not a very good argument for belief.