PDA

View Full Version : Atheists Are Right, "God" Isn't "Real"



Rev. Jupiter
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 07:38 AM
"He who says there is no God, without having defined God in a complete and absolute manner, simply talks nonsense. I wait for his definition, and when he has set this forth after his own fashion, I am certain, beforehand, of being able to say to him, "I agree with you, there is no such God"; but that God is certainly not my God. If he says to me: "Define your God," I should reply, "I will take good care to do nothing of the kind, for a God defined is a God dethroned." Every positive definition is deniable, the Infinite is the undefined." - Eliphas LÚvi

Discuss.

Ardito
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 11:36 AM
Yeah, pretty much.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 11:42 AM
I agree with the sentiment. God can't be defined, understood or known, so nobody should ever ascribe any quality to 'him' whatsoever. All we can know about God is that 'he' isn't anything we know; which is to say, he isn't absolute, conscious, autonomous, omnipresent, omnipotent, a first cause, moral, a designer, a creator, good, a 'he' or anything any religious person has naively defined 'him' as.

Ardito
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 11:52 AM
I agree with the sentiment. God can't be defined, understood or known, so nobody should ever ascribe any quality to 'him' whatsoever. All we can know about God is that 'he' isn't anything we know; which is to say, he isn't absolute, conscious, autonomous, omnipresent, omnipotent, a first cause, moral, a designer, a creator, good, a 'he' or anything any religious person has naively defined 'him' as.

You have failed to note intuitive knowledge, which is at the centre of all mystical/transcendentalist thinking. That one cannot explain it does not mean that one does not know it.

■eudiskaz
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 11:59 AM
"He who says there is no God, without having defined God in a complete and absolute manner, simply talks nonsense. I wait for his definition, and when he has set this forth after his own fashion, I am certain, beforehand, of being able to say to him, "I agree with you, there is no such God"; but that God is certainly not my God. If he says to me: "Define your God," I should reply, "I will take good care to do nothing of the kind, for a God defined is a God dethroned." Every positive definition is deniable, the Infinite is the undefined." - Eliphas LÚvi

Discuss.

It's a neat little sentiment. Unfortunately, it has no necessary bearing on reality, or fact.

It certainly proves absolutely nothing.

Rev. Jupiter
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 12:03 PM
It's a neat little sentiment. Unfortunately, it has no necessary bearing on reality, or fact.

Precisely.

The point is that reality and fact ≠ truth.

■eudiskaz
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 12:04 PM
Precisely.

The point is that reality and fact ≠ truth.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, exactly.

Rev. Jupiter
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 12:20 PM
I'm not quite sure what you mean, exactly.

That's evident.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 12:23 PM
You have failed to note intuitive knowledge, which is at the centre of all mystical/transcendentalist thinking. That one cannot explain it does not mean that one does not know it.

Ok, so you can intuit God, but can't understand God. So God could be anything. A walrus, two walruses, a musical walrus. It could also be a walrus that wants us to murder each other, or wants us to only eat haddock. This is the problem of religion. It's forced to be so vague in its scramble to evade the perspicacity of reason that it ends up inadvertently neutering itself.

Ardito
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 12:29 PM
Ok, so you can intuit God, but can't understand God.

>implying understanding necessarily means one can put it into words

That's exactly my point.

■eudiskaz
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 12:32 PM
That's evident.

... Don't be quick to clarify what you mean then.

And of course it's evident, I fucking said it myself. Do you have to constantly be as ridiculous as possible? Please, if you're going to troll, troll somewhere else.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 12:40 PM
>implying understanding necessarily means one can put it into words

That's exactly my point.

Exactly. You can't translate your intuition of God into words. Therefore God can't be any concept that can be given linguistic expression. Not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, not absolute, not conscious, not intuitable and so on.

This is fine, since I believe an infinite number of things exist beyond the human understanding. In fact, it gets more complicated insofar as 'number' and 'thinghood' wouldn't actually apply to them. The difference between me and the religious is that I understand calling what lies beyond our cognitive reach 'God' is absolutely meaningless. The religious simply can't accept that what lies beyond us stays beyond us and is irrelevant to us.

Rev. Jupiter
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 12:48 PM
... Don't be quick to clarify what you mean then.

And of course it's evident, I fucking said it myself. Do you have to constantly be as ridiculous as possible? Please, if you're going to troll, troll somewhere else.

If you're really that unskilled at sitting and pondering the meaning of my words, I'll spell it out for you.

Fact is not truth. Fact is perception. To establish the factuality of something is to establish something is bound by perception. To even consider factuality as a legitimatizing quality is binding oneself to the whims of subjectivity.
To think of God in terms of existence or nonexistence is to relegate God to the realm of empiricism, to the world of the manifest. God, being un-manifest, cannot be thought of in terms confined to the manifest.

Atheists deny God because they do not understand the philosophical perspective necessary to speak on the nature of God.

tl;dr - Of course God makes no sense in material terms, because God cannot be adequately described or understood in material terms.

Wychaert
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 01:04 PM
Alright Rev,
Explain to me how You see god then..?

Rev. Jupiter
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 01:39 PM
Explain to me how You see god then..?

"God is the Unique, and he is so perfect that he does not resemble any of the things that exist or any of the things that do not; you cannot describe him using your human intelligence, as if he were someone who becomes angry if you are bad or worries about you out of goodness, someone who has a mouth, ears, face, wings, or that is spirit, father or son, not even of himself. Of the Unique you cannot say he is or is not, he embraces all but is nothing; you can name him only through dissimilarity, because it is futile to call him Goodness, Beauty, Wisdom, Amiability, Power, Justice, it would be like calling him Bear, Panther, Serpent, Dragon, or Gryphon, because whatever you say of him you will never express him. God is not body, is not figure, is not form; he does not see, does not hear, does not know disorder and perturbation; he is not soul, intelligence, imagination, opinion, thought, word, number, order, size; he is not equality and is not inequality, is not time and is not eternity; he is a will without purpose." - Umberto Eco

wivienne
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 01:52 PM
Exactly. You can't translate your intuition of God into words. Therefore God can't be any concept that can be given linguistic expression. Not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, not absolute, not conscious, not intuitable and so on.



Just want to say that i agree. True. Thats why from time to time when you meeting an atheist and starting talking to him finaly he or she in most cases say : well...maybe i believe in something biiig and far from us...

Because everybody have an intuition and thats something with what we were born. So not very easy to be an atheist...

Juthunge
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 01:59 PM
If you're really that unskilled at sitting and pondering the meaning of my words, I'll spell it out for you.

Fact is not truth. Fact is perception. To establish the factuality of something is to establish something is bound by perception. To even consider factuality as a legitimatizing quality is binding oneself to the whims of subjectivity.
To think of God in terms of existence or nonexistence is to relegate God to the realm of empiricism, to the world of the manifest. God, being un-manifest, cannot be thought of in terms confined to the manifest.

Atheists deny God because they do not understand the philosophical perspective necessary to speak on the nature of God.

tl;dr - Of course God makes no sense in material terms, because God cannot be adequately described or understood in material terms.

So in short form, he's completely irrelevant to our life.

Rev. Jupiter
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 02:03 PM
So in short form, he's completely irrelevant to our life.

Speculation upon God's existence or nonexistence is useless due not to futility but to impracticality.
However, as a philosophical construct, God is the clearest symbol through which one can describe the Absolute.

Those that reject God deny the philosophical function that God fulfills and make existence and nonexistence the focus, missing the point in essentially every way.

Ardito
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 02:08 PM
So in short form, he's completely irrelevant to our life.

You appear to be denying the notion of thinking in terms of what a man should do, and insisting on only thinking about what a man can do.

Wulfram
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 02:14 PM
Take your choice:

1. god
2. atheism
3. agnosticism

Three laughably simple, politically-inspired concepts.
People have been spoiled to think that the simple all-inclusive one-word answer is "explanation enough".
Neither has benefited humanity, unless money was made off of them by particular humans.
Has there ever been a serious attempt to push beyond these theories to seek some viable answers?

To assume that god "must exist", or "cant possibly exist" is just a waste of time.
All that results is a contest to see who can come up with most elaborately intellectual answer.
That is all threads like this ever result in.
Both sides should discard these worthless concepts and unite in order to seek some REAL answers.

Wychaert
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 02:27 PM
"God is the Unique, and he is so perfect that he does not resemble any of the things that exist or any of the things that do not; you cannot describe him using your human intelligence, as if he were someone who becomes angry if you are bad or worries about you out of goodness, someone who has a mouth, ears, face, wings, or that is spirit, father or son, not even of himself. Of the Unique you cannot say he is or is not, he embraces all but is nothing; you can name him only through dissimilarity, because it is futile to call him Goodness, Beauty, Wisdom, Amiability, Power, Justice, it would be like calling him Bear, Panther, Serpent, Dragon, or Gryphon, because whatever you say of him you will never express him. God is not body, is not figure, is not form; he does not see, does not hear, does not know disorder and perturbation; he is not soul, intelligence, imagination, opinion, thought, word, number, order, size; he is not equality and is not inequality, is not time and is not eternity; he is a will without purpose." - Umberto Eco



Oke... That didnt make any sence to me.

He Is this, he is that. And then he is not this nor that.

Why would you believe in such a thing?
And can you imagine yourself, what is a live without such thing?

■eudiskaz
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 02:28 PM
If you're really that unskilled at sitting and pondering the meaning of my words, I'll spell it out for you.

Fact is not truth. Fact is perception. To establish the factuality of something is to establish something is bound by perception. To even consider factuality as a legitimatizing quality is binding oneself to the whims of subjectivity.
To think of God in terms of existence or nonexistence is to relegate God to the realm of empiricism, to the world of the manifest. God, being un-manifest, cannot be thought of in terms confined to the manifest.

Atheists deny God because they do not understand the philosophical perspective necessary to speak on the nature of God.

tl;dr - Of course God makes no sense in material terms, because God cannot be adequately described or understood in material terms.

Nope. Fact is truth. By linguistic definition. Knowledge isn't always truth, we can "know"things that are nonetheless not true, but fact always is true, even if we cannot ascertain what fact, or truth is. And you can take your asshat off any time now.

Rev. Jupiter
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 02:37 PM
Why would you believe in such a thing?

Taking off a blindfold, it would be foolish to deny my surroundings simply because it does not fit with the assumptions I formed while wearing the blindfold.


And can you imagine yourself, what is a live without such thing?

Rather dull and uninspired. Been there, done that.


Nope. Fact is truth. By linguistic definition.

So instead of criticizing the concept I was conveying you've raised issue with the particular word choice? And changing the focus of the discussion instead of addressing my points is supposed to make you look more intelligent...how?

Rev. Jupiter
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 02:48 PM
Anyway, this whole thread is hilarious...

I post a quote explaining that atheists are foolish for positing a definition of God to which they can attach the quality of "falsehood", and they proceed to do exactly that.

Excellent job proving me wrong, guys.

EQ Fighter
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 03:43 PM
According to Kardashev scale, a Type 3 civilization would look very close to "Gods" to human beings, and anything above that Type 4 would probably fit the bill in the biblical aspect.

It really just depends on how far you want to extrapolate the curve does it not?

Bernhard
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 04:11 PM
Anyway, this whole thread is hilarious...

I post a quote explaining that atheists are foolish for positing a definition of God to which they can attach the quality of "falsehood", and they proceed to do exactly that.

Excellent job proving me wrong, guys.

We must have read a different thread then.;)
Most replies were more about the relevance of God if God cannot be defined by human beings. If God cannot be defined, how can it be relevant to our lives. Are human beings confined to the knowable world or is there more to man? How can you talk about the existence of God when God isn't something you can define, whence do humans get this knowledge?

In stead of calling it hilarious, I would say these are pretty interesting questions.

EQ Fighter
Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 04:42 PM
If God cannot be defined, how can it be relevant to our lives. Are human beings confined to the knowable world or is there more to man?

I would say Gravity is pretty relevant to human beings, and as of yet it has not been defined by modern physics.

Try jumping off a cliff sometime and see if it is irrelevant. :)

Bernhard
Sunday, January 16th, 2011, 07:37 AM
I would say Gravity is pretty relevant to human beings, and as of yet it has not been defined by modern physics.

Try jumping off a cliff sometime and see if it is irrelevant. :)

That's probably why Newton considered gravity to be evidence that God is actively involved with the world in contrast to the cartesian mechanistic model that was common in those days. But gravity still is empirically observable, although we haven't (yet) completely discovered how it works. A definition of gravity might be given in the future, while according to the quote in the opening post a definition of God is impossible.


Are human beings confined to the knowable world or is there more to man? How can you talk about the existence of God when God isn't something you can define, whence do humans get this knowledge?



As an answer to these questions, I think the following part written by Iamblichus of Chalcis is interesting (It's about the intuitive knowledge of which Ardito spoke.):


Thou beginnest accordingly by saying: "In the first place, it is to be taken for granted that there are gods." Speaking in this way is not right. For the inborn knowledge in respect to the gods is coexistent with our very being, and is superior to all judging and deciding beforehand. Indeed, it is preexistent both to argument and demonstration, and is united interiorly from the beginning to its own divine cause and is coexistent with the inherent longing and impulse of the soul to the Good.
If, however, we must speak truly, the conjoining to the divine nature is not knowing, for this is kept separate after a manner by an otherness.
Prior to this knowing, however, which is as of one individual having knowledge of another, the intimate union as in a single concept is self-originated and indistinguishable. Hence we ought to concede the point as though possibly it might not be granted, not to assume it as a matter of uncertainty'. for it always existed simply in energy. Nor is it proper to put it to proof in this way as though we had authority to judge and reject ; for we are ourselves encompassed in it, or rather we are filled by it, and the very selfhood which we are we possess in this knowing of the gods.
I have, moreover, the same thing to say to thee in regard to the Superior races which come next in order after the gods. I mean the dŠmons, heroes, and uncontaminate souls.
For it is always necessary to bear in mind respecting these subordinate races that they have one defined form of essence; also that we put aside from our conception of them the indefiniteness and instability which are incident to the human constitution and renounce the tendency to incline to the other side which arises from attempts to counterbalance the opposition of the arguments. For such a thing is foreign to the principles of reason and life, but is derived from secondary sources, such even as belong to the power and contrariness of the realm of generated existence. It is necessary, however, to treat of them as being of a uniform nature.
Let it be admitted, then, that with the companions of the gods in the eternal region there is the innate perception of them.
Therefore, even as they have their being always after the same manner, so also the human soul is conjoined to them by Knowledge according to the same principles; never by any conjecture, opinion or reasoning which have their beginning in Time pursuing the essence which is beyond all these, but by pure and faultless intuitions which it received out of eternity from the gods being conjoined with them in these principles.
Nevertheless, thou seemest to consider the knowing of divine beings to be the same as the knowing of other matters, and likewise that a point may be taken for granted from opposing arguments, as is usual in debates. But there is no such similarity. For the perceiving of them is absolutely distinct from everything of antithetic character. It is not made valid by being now conceded or by coming into existence, but on the other hand it is a single concept, and coexisted with the soul from eternity.
I say such things to thee, therefore, in regard to the first principle in us, at which it is necessary for those to begin who would both speak and hear anything whatever concerning the superior races or about ourselves.



Source: http://www.esotericarchives.com/oracle/iambl_th.htm#chap2

Rev. Jupiter
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 08:03 AM
If God cannot be defined, how can it be relevant to our lives.

God cannot be defined in purely human terms. Thus, he serves as a model for the Absolute to lend context to the philosophical questions of humankind, and through this, the true face of the Absolute is known by purifying the mind of purely human concepts.


Are human beings confined to the knowable world

Certainly not.


How can you talk about the existence of God when God isn't something you can define, whence do humans get this knowledge?

Intuition, provoked by contemplation and praxis. Through this, God can become known, if not knowable.

Sindig_og_stoisk
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 08:24 AM
I am more then a bit confused as to what point you are trying to make. Are you advocating a Deist worldview?

Because surely you realise that the God you speak of is not the God of the Bible, Quran nor the God of any organised religion.

Rev. Jupiter
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 08:29 AM
I am more then a bit confused as to what point you are trying to make. Are you advocating a Deist worldview?

No. A transcendentalist worldview.


Because surely you realise that the God you speak of is not the God of the Bible, Quran nor the God of any organised religion.

"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garuda. To what is One, sages give many a name; they call it Agni, Yama, Mātarisvan." - Rig Veda book 1, hymn 164, verse 46

"God is not external to anyone, but is present with all things, though they are ignorant that he is so." - Plotinus

"Himself is not made, yet in fantasie he fantasieth all things, or in appearance he maketh them appear; for appearance is only of those things that are generated or made, for appearance is nothing but generation. But he that is One, that is not made nor generated, is also unapparent and unmanifest. But making all things appear, he appeareth in all, and by all; but especially he is manifested to or in those things wherein himself listeth." - Hermes Trismegistus

"God became man so that man might become a god." - Pope Athanasius I of Alexandria

"God is at home, it's we who have gone out for a walk." - Meister Eckhart von Hochheim

Meister
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 09:10 AM
If there truly was a God and he sent his son down to save us all, he should have given his son the "Book" which stated in no uncertain terms the way we should all be living etc, not leave it up to control freaks to write their own versions and have everyone fight over what vague phrases mean.

Oh hang on, if there is a God he wouldn't have had to send his son down in the first place, just appear...

All this God is testing us stuff might have been plausible eons ago, but we have clearly failed and how many times do you have to see your child cut themselves before you take the blade away and show them the proper way.

Hamar Fox
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 09:24 AM
If there truly was a God and he sent his son down to save us all, he should have given his son the "Book" which stated in no uncertain terms the way we should all be living etc, not leave it up to control freaks to write their own versions and have everyone fight over what vague phrases mean.

Oh hang on, if there is a God he wouldn't have had to send his son down in the first place, just appear...

All this God is testing us stuff might have been plausible eons ago, but we have clearly failed and how many times do you have to see your child cut themselves before you take the blade away and show them the proper way.


Basically. We see in this thread how religion has devolved into a system of excuses for why its every claim has been empirically refuted or rationally exposed as inconsistent. Now we have the religious claiming God 'can't be known' but only 'intuited', a cosy little refuge from rational critique -- although ironically the same person said just a few days ago that God was reason. But now he's not reason and can't be accessed by way of reason.

When they think nobody's looking, they'll switch from their highly abstract, undefinable 'God' back to their traditional anthropomorphic God and continue to pontificate on this and that, only to revert to their ace-in-the-hole inconceivable God when under pressure.

Caledonian
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 09:24 AM
Religious mysticism equals men fancy talking to themselves about preconceived higher spiritiual dimensions that are unknown and unattainable left purely to the imagination alone.

Rev. Jupiter
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 09:51 AM
If there truly was a God and he sent his son down to save us all, he should have given his son the "Book" which stated in no uncertain terms the way we should all be living etc, not leave it up to control freaks to write their own versions and have everyone fight over what vague phrases mean.

Oh hang on, if there is a God he wouldn't have had to send his son down in the first place, just appear...

All this God is testing us stuff might have been plausible eons ago, but we have clearly failed and how many times do you have to see your child cut themselves before you take the blade away and show them the proper way.

It's amusing to me that your sole arguments against Christianity are based upon heretical sectarian and reformist doctrines that are only a few centuries old, if that.


Basically. We see in this thread how religion has devolved into a system of excuses for why its every claim has been empirically refuted or rationally exposed as inconsistent.

How is it an excuse to say that disproving God with rationality is like disproving gravity with penguin migration charts?


Now we have the religious claiming God 'can't be known' but only 'intuited', a cosy little refuge from rational critique -- although ironically the same person said just a few days ago that God was reason. But now he's not reason and can't be accessed by way of reason.

Actually, the word used was λόγος, loosely translated as "reason".

And it's not contradictory at all.

The unmanifest can only be known through the manifest, as we are all material beings in a material world (whether that material world is illusory or not is a subject for another thread).
Thus, the God of the New Testament can only be known through Christ. The Adi-Buddha can only be known through Shakyamuni Buddha.
Symbols, riddles, and the like allow the intellect to turn in on itself, and thereby negate itself, transcending rationality rather than regressing from it.


When they think nobody's looking, they'll switch from their highly abstract, undefinable 'God' back to their traditional anthropomorphic God and continue to pontificate on this and that, only to revert to their ace-in-the-hole inconceivable God when under pressure.

Actually, it's that we don't see any difference. What we argue against is dividing the two instead of seeing them as facets of the same force/concept/truth.


Religious mysticism equals men fancy talking to themselves about preconceived higher spiritiual dimensions that are unknown and unattainable left purely to the imagination alone.

Actually, it equals nothing. A whole lot of nothing.

Hesychasm, my friend.

Wulfram
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 10:08 AM
You've all read this one before I'm sure:

Until we are able to perceive the entire picture, the universe and everything outside it in its entirety then no one can ever know for sure if god exists or if there is a purpose to it all.

Simple as that.

Neither side can prove or disprove the other.
Time to get back to Germanic preservation.

Ardito
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 10:10 AM
Neither side can prove or disprove the other.

If you'd taken care to read the thread, you'd have noted that no attempt to prove the existence of God was made on the part of any transcendentalist.

Wulfram
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 10:13 AM
If you'd taken care to read the thread, you'd have noted that no attempt to prove the existence of God was made on the part of any transcendentalist.

I meant you both attempt to disprove each others arguments.

Rev. Jupiter
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 10:13 AM
You've all read this one before I'm sure:

Until we are able to perceive the entire picture, the universe and everything outside it in its entirety then no one can ever know for sure if god exists or if there is a purpose to it all.

Simple as that.

The disagreement here is over whether or not we actually are able to perceive the entire picture.

I say that we are, so your point is moot.


Time to get back to Germanic preservation.

My spiritual understandings are the same as those held by any sane man of good breeding prior to the Enlightenment. To me, a reestablishment of transcendentalism and a total elimination of agnosticism, relativism, and materialism are one and the same as Germanic preservation.

Ardito
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 10:15 AM
I meant you both attempt to disprove each others arguments.

None of that has happened either.

What we've been saying is, Hey, look over there, there's something cool over there you should see, and the reaction has been, No, there's nothing over there, everything that can possibly be is in this corner.

Wulfram
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 10:17 AM
I say that we are, so your point is moot.

The point I was making was that this thread and your arguments were pointless to begin with.
These kinds of debates are always ultimately worthless except to show off a pompous sense of intellectualism.


My spiritual understandings are the same as those held by any sane man of good breeding prior to the Enlightenment. To me, a reestablishment of transcendentalism and a total elimination of agnosticism, relativism, and materialism are one and the same as Germanic preservation.

Uh-huh. Maybe you should open another thread explaining how this supposed to work.

Wulfram
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 10:22 AM
None of that has happened either.

What we've been saying is, Hey, look over there, there's something cool over there you should see, and the reaction has been, No, there's nothing over there, everything that can possibly be is in this corner.

Hm...please explain how this is not a debate.

Rev. Jupiter
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 10:24 AM
The point I was making was that this thread and your arguments were pointless to begin with.
These kinds of debates are always ultimately worthless except to show off a pompous sense of intellectualism.

From your perspective. Your perspective is derived from the philosophical assumption that truth is relative, so arguing about it is pointless.

I'm an absolutist, so I can see nothing more worthy of discussion.

Your agnosticism is precisely the lack of understanding the quote in the first post of this thread refers to. Look at the word agnosticism...a-gnosis. Lacking wisdom.

Awesome.

Hamar Fox
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 10:25 AM
My spiritual understandings are the same as those held by any sane man of good breeding prior to the Enlightenment. To me, a reestablishment of transcendentalism and a total elimination of agnosticism, relativism, and materialism are one and the same as Germanic preservation.

Really? I don't think anyone will question the fact that Christians love non-European races. God created Mr Chong and Latiyaheisha Williams the same as everyone else. We're in essence the same as them and we have a moral obligation to love them as we would anyone else.

Wulfram
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 10:25 AM
From your perspective. From your perspective, truth is relative so arguing about it is pointless.

I'm an absolutist, so I can see nothing more worthy of discussion.

Your agnosticism is precisely the lack of understanding the quote in the first post of this thread refers to. Look at the word agnosticism...a-gnosis. Lacking wisdom.

Awesome.

Reverend, what does all this intellectualizing have to do with Germanic preservation?
How are Germanics supposed to benefit from it?

Meister
Tuesday, January 18th, 2011, 04:23 AM
[QUOTE=Rev. Jupiter;1056185]It's amusing to me that your sole arguments against Christianity are based upon heretical sectarian and reformist doctrines that are only a few centuries old, if that.QUOTE]

I don't care about any of that. My point was that people have been killing and controlling each over religion for centuries. You have even had people of the same religion but different dominations killing each other. Now surely if there was a God and they were seeing all of this brutality they would want to stop it somehow.

I was answering the question in an objective manner. My own personal beliefs are a different matter, I do believe and I have sat in churches and enjoyed the serenity I feel when there, but that by no means I can prove any of it as being real, except to myself. I also believe in the idea of numerous old Gods.

Which is what people have to understand, religion/spirituality is a very personal thing, if you believe it, great and keep it to yourself, don't kill someone because they believe that God is "A" and you believe God is "B" because as others have pointed out we could argue forever (and humanity has done just that) and we will never get anywhere.

Werwolfthron
Tuesday, January 18th, 2011, 03:02 PM
My view of 'God' is that it is so complete and perfect that we cannot assign 'him' any attributes because that would limit God and his perfection. Not even existence because that implies spaciality.

Aquilian
Wednesday, January 26th, 2011, 11:39 AM
The black people over here still cling to their forefather spirit worship, no matter the 3 centuries spent trying to Christianize them. This has started me thinking along strange lines recently. The Bantu "civilization" were headed nowhere before Western colonists arrived. There are no reason to believe they would have independently invented the wheel for example. One can not deny that if the God of Europeans do exist then clearly He doesn't have even a rudimentary care about the Bantu people. But there is a lesson to be learned from them. Whether their "gods" created them or were created by them, the results they achieved speaks for themselves. From a historic perspective having one God is a very powerful driving force. It provided our people with a single unifying focus for our will power. I am recently of the opinion that the matter of will power is key.
There will be no Germanic revival if we allow our will to be diluted.

I know an apologize for the fact that my proposition here may seem inappropriate in the sense that it moves the question away from the philosophical "realness" of God to the more psychological question of "do we need Him?".

ThroughTheAges
Saturday, April 9th, 2011, 01:53 PM
To me God is like a position or title. One person's God is another being's brother, other's son, and yet another's total stranger. It's relative. The way ancients believed in gods is far different than the two sides of this "debate" believe. A lot of times wars were fought not because their was a single God everyone agreed upon, but a bunch of different people who thought their believed God was better than that of others. Corrupt kings and rulers are partly to blame for this corruption of belief. They just used pre-existing god beliefs to rally believers around them (see GW Bush for modern example).

The irony of this is both modern sides come from the same source - Aristotle and his pupils. He coined terms like "Universe" which means "single rotation" in his native Greek. The same coining of a term brings us "God of the Universe" and "University". The fact that this term is based in earth-centric belief notwithstanding (Aristotle believed the "universe" rotated one time around the earth each day - hence the term), it has a strong hold on today's world. Everyone want something that is universal, and which answers all problems in the known "universe". Science is one school of thought, and monotheist religion is another. People will be surprised that Aristotle is more influential in the creation of monotheistic religion than Abraham ever was. His thought was wrapped into Christianity by the Greco-Roman Byzantines and moved back to Rome. Muslims started their religion based partly out of the teachings of Socrates and Aristotle, and they are even mentioned in the Quran as prophets. I don't even know what modern Jews believe in, if anything uniformly defined, but they are influenced by ancient Greece as well.

I think the more people try to find universal truth the more they tend to exclude other truths. It's good to explain things with scientific research, but not good to eliminate things which could exist just because science doesn't know how they could exist. Belief fills the void. Equally, monotheists and other religionists who go by their passed on version of God while calling everything outside their canon "Satan" (or whatever they call it) is also damaging to the pursuit of truth.

I don't think the Bible speaks of a "God of the Universe" anymore than "Universities" teach everything there is to know about reality in the so-called universe. I believe in personal God(s), but I think humans defining his (her / its) scope or even role is assuming something not even spoken of in the Bible. The Bible doesn't even speak of how vast the universe (or what astronomers see), partly because they didn't have the instruments to see it. Most of them were concerned with who was going to save them from the latest baddie (Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, etc.). And saying he is "God of the Universe" could be limiting if millions of universes exist which some unfathomable being actually has the time, attention and mind-power to follow and rule over. After all saying what's outside this universe or before the Big Bang is like saying what's north of the North Pole. It's out of our reference system of 3-D space and the moving time position (probably along a 4th dimension of unknown nature).

Segestan
Saturday, April 9th, 2011, 06:22 PM
"He who says there is no God, without having defined God in a complete and absolute manner, simply talks nonsense. I wait for his definition, and when he has set this forth after his own fashion, I am certain, beforehand, of being able to say to him, "I agree with you, there is no such God"; but that God is certainly not my God. If he says to me: "Define your God," I should reply, "I will take good care to do nothing of the kind, for a God defined is a God dethroned." Every positive definition is deniable, the Infinite is the undefined." - Eliphas LÚvi

Discuss.

The weakness of faith is it forces the believer to resort to clever uses of ideas and words.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Wednesday, April 14th, 2021, 08:42 AM
I completely understand the point of the thread. On the other hand, I don't think God isn't understandable, even if there's no ability of man to incarcerate that within our limits other than by projecting our own inferiorities. We only know what we understand and that's not always very much, but it doesn't invalidate all knowledge. What we call God is not always as essential as perceived, especially if God is supposed to be central to all life. If we are wholly dependent upon God, then it follows that there is proof of this in reality beyond speculation, so we must accept what it is that we undeniably derive existence from. Whatever we cannot do without, certainly is our God, to a certain extent, as we are helplessly and hopelessly beholden to it outside our control. Anything else is a useless idol deserving no gratitude and indeed, may be formless clay without our direction as subjective and trite gods before the objective God of all.