|
|
#81
02-17-2007, 05:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Set over set
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that theology is greater than and includes philosophy [/ QUOTE ] By definition theology is but a very small portion of philosophy. That portion that rests on a fantasy being as the author of all that exists. At least philosophy looks at both sides. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] 
|
|
#82
02-17-2007, 05:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Set over set
[ QUOTE ]
They deal with many of the same questions as theology. Nietzsche says there are no absolutes. Theology says there are. It isn't important how you classify them. I believe that theology is greater than and includes philosophy, but that's of no consequence. What does matter is what are the questions and how are they answered. [/ QUOTE ] I don’t see how you can say theology says there are absolutes. What are you talking about here, absolute morality? If so, absolute morality exists independently of what anyone thinks, including God. God can make rules, but some of those rules will not be good for some people. Those rules may be good relative to the rule maker. God’s morality is an example of relative morality.
|
|
#83
02-17-2007, 10:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Set over set
1 Corinthians 13:11
|
|
#84
02-17-2007, 10:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Closet Satanists
[ QUOTE ]
Again, they don't want the God of the Bible to exist. They may want a senile old grandfather in the sky who will overlook their faults and give them all the presents they want, I don't know. [/ QUOTE ] Considering he killed thousands of innocent infants because they happened to be born Egyptian, why would ANYONE want such an obviously racist god to exist?
|
|
#86
02-18-2007, 04:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Meatballs
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So, the works of Nietzsche and Heidegger are part of Theology. Correct? [/ QUOTE ] They deal with many of the same questions as theology. [/ QUOTE ]So, they deal with k, which is part of P, while k (as you say) is also part of T. And, from this, you deduce that set P is a member of set T. Can you see the error of your ways ? [ QUOTE ] Nietzsche says there are no absolutes. Theology says there are. [/ QUOTE ]So what's that supposed to mean? I'm genuinely puzzled. Since both endeavors, philosophy and theology, concern themselves with the issue of absolutes, this means ..what exactly about which one incorporates the other? [ QUOTE ] I believe that theology is greater than and includes philosophy, but that's of no consequence. [/ QUOTE ]What is of consequence, is your use of the operative word : you believe, indeed, and actually have noting else to base that contention on, i.e. that philosophy is ...part of theology. Jesus Christ Almighty. [ QUOTE ] [Atheists] don't want the God of the Bible to exist. They may want a senile old grandfather in the sky who will overlook their faults and give them all the presents they want, I don't know. [/ QUOTE ]Again, I point out the operative words : I don't know. Truly, you don't. As stated many a time, Man has come to realize that the gods of the past are his own creation, instead of vice versa. It cannot be denied, nevertheless, that a world with a God as prescribed in Christian religion, or even other monotheistic religions (which are, in any case, quite similar) would be vastly preferable for Man to the God-less world we actually inhabit. And for many reasons, too, which have been already presented in other threads. (It's really elementary stuff.) [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If atheists don't believe in God, they don't believe in Satan either. And if it turns out God does exist, why would atheists turn to Satanists? [/ QUOTE ] I didn't say anything about satanists. [/ QUOTE ] Well, you said "Atheists just don't want God to exist; but if the God of the Bible does, they want Satan to win." People who prefer Satan over God are called Satanists. I will accept a retraction but cannot accept that the definition of Satanist has changed. Oh, and you also said "[Atheists] may hate Satan more but still want him to win since he's the underdog." You must be confusing atheists with long-shot bettors. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Mickey Brausch
|
|
#87
02-18-2007, 05:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Meatballs
[ QUOTE ]
Quote: I believe that theology is greater than and includes philosophy, but that's of no consequence. What is of consequence, is your use of the operative word : you believe, indeed, and actually have noting else to base that contention on, i.e. that philosophy is ...part of theology. Jesus Christ Almighty. [/ QUOTE ] This is really a tempest in a teapot. The labels don't matter, think of them as you like. What matters is the substance addressed. [ QUOTE ] It cannot be denied, nevertheless, that a world with a God as prescribed in Christian religion, or even other monotheistic religions (which are, in any case, quite similar) would be vastly preferable for Man to the God-less world we actually inhabit. [/ QUOTE ] I believe this is a minority opinion among atheists. Certainly among the atheistis we have heard from on this forum. [ QUOTE ] People who prefer Satan over God are called Satanists. I will accept a retraction but cannot accept that the definition of Satanist has changed. [/ QUOTE ] If you google Satanism you will find there are many definitions. What I was referring to was those who belong to a religion that worships Satan. [ QUOTE ] Oh, and you also said "[Atheists] may hate Satan more but still want him to win since he's the underdog." [/ QUOTE ] The rest of that quote was: If satan can defeat God there would be hope that man can defeat satan and accomplish his true objective, becoming God. The point is man doesn't want an absolute ruler. So since satan is an underdog they want him to win because that would establish that God isn't omnipotent.
|
|
#88
02-18-2007, 06:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Meatballs
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It cannot be denied, nevertheless, that a world with a God as prescribed in Christian religion, or even other monotheistic religions (which are, in any case, quite similar) would be vastly preferable for Man to the God-less world we actually inhabit. [/ QUOTE ] I believe this is a minority opinion among atheists. Certainly among the atheistis we have heard from on this forum. [/ QUOTE ] His statement is both true and false. our position is that there is no God "as prescribed in Christian religion." Christianity describes God as perfectly loving, and as vengeful. That's just one of the many reasons that the whole construction is inherently contradictory. But we have stated very clearly that we would prefer for a loving God to exist, so if that's the part he's referring to he's right. I don't think most of us would prefer the retributive God who will stick 99+% of us into a state of extreme and permanent torture over nothingness. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] People who prefer Satan over God are called Satanists. I will accept a retraction but cannot accept that the definition of Satanist has changed. [/ QUOTE ] If you google Satanism you will find there are many definitions. What I was referring to was those who belong to a religion that worships Satan. [/ QUOTE ] LaVey would have a field day with this thread. I am still quite convinced that no organized group has ever worshipped Satan. Those who have done so in recorded history have typically been psychotic and were raised in a Christian tradition. Of course, by your reasoning I suppose everyone is a Satanist to some degree. Because don't you hold that worshipping anything from wealth to pagan deities to pantheons through history represents worshipping Satan in disguise? And hey, how else would anyone worship the "Deceiver?" [ QUOTE ] The rest of that quote was: If satan can defeat God there would be hope that man can defeat satan and accomplish his true objective, becoming God. The point is man doesn't want an absolute ruler. So since satan is an underdog they want him to win because that would establish that God isn't omnipotent. [/ QUOTE ] You're way smarter than this. I can't tell if you're just twisting and trying to defend your argument or if you haven't tried to express it formally. Let me lay it out. There are four possibilities (assuming all kinds of crazy things, but that's the context we're working with). 1. God is omnipotent and God wins 2. God isn't omnipotent and God wins 3. God is omnipotent and Satan wins 4. God isn't omnipotent and Satan wins Now, you're saying atheists are rooting for Satan. That is, for options 3 and 4. Of course, option 3 is inconsistent - if I were using Christian reasoning I might say that Satan works above and beyond logic or some weird thing, but unfortunately I'm an atheist. So you're claiming we're going for option 4. But we're really going for option 2, for most interpretations of Satan (just remember, we don't think he's a real being with real attributes, so whether we want him to win depends signficiantly on how we define him). Option 2, not option 4. Now, it's probably true that most atheists would be happy if Satan were to win. That's not the same as hoping for such a result. The most important thing probably is the omnipotence of God. So I think you'll find most of us prefer 2 and 4 over 1. And if Satan wins, then we have acquired proof that God isn't omnipotent. However, the best possible solution would be for us to learn that God isn't omnipotent by some means independent of Satan winning, and for Satan to lose. I think very few of us actually want the sadistic liar Satan to be more powerful than God. That would just be scary.
|
|
#90
02-19-2007, 05:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Please post your favorite Bible verses here
This could have been written about poker skill and poker luck:
Ecclesiastes 9:11 I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
