prof god doesnt exist

Post Reply New Topic

I felt the major religions were ret*d...so I invented my own

hail Saltandor

If I spot a diseased way of looking at the world I don't invent an original disease to inflict upon myself. I try to become disease free.

its more just an excuse to have a laugh and write things
ohh and piss people off

lets create a religion were you are my god and we call the religion friends

no its just a book I call a religion to piss people off
it doesn't teach anything, or have any rules, or a god
i just like to annoy fanatical christians

"And lo! the Professor came down and said unto the straying Gentiles: "If you do not payeth attention you shall never complete the Holy Course, and thou shalt never receive the Sacred Degree."

But one student, who was Faithful, had completed his assignment. And Professor God looked upon it, and it was good. He got an A."

You have a point there, however, many theists go so far as to say that all people know about God, some people choose not to accept their knowledge about God.

General revelation and Romans 1. Don't make me go through Romans 1, that we dredge up awful memories of my Romans class.

richard, I'm sorry I insulted you, but that post was too ridiculous to pass up. I am not a militant grammar nazi, but misspelling a thread title is an unforgivable sin.

Awesomelyglorious, the problem I've found with arguing in these threads is that most people don't keep up with theological debates, or don't understand the religion in general. There should be required reading before posting in this forum: the Bible, major theological texts, the Quran, the Origin of Species, The Vedas, Confucius, current events, etc. That would keep this forum silent for a year, but it would be worth it. Besides, I want an excuse to read most of those. Philosophy texts would be optional, because any moron with half a brain can argue philosophy. (The truth hurts, people)

Also, I would like to thank twoshots for being amazing, and burnse22 for making me laugh. You two get a cookie.
***
"And lo, the students goofth off in class, and did not payth Attention to the great Coursework. And thus, the PROFESSOR said, Listen to me well, thy little ones, for lo, this Material shalt be on thy Final Exam!"

You seriously believe theology is more difficult than philosophy?

Have you read Aristotle, Plato, Lucretius, Kant, Sartre, Kierkegaard, Locke, Hume, Spinoza, Nietzsche?

Theology is not a science. It is based on superstition and dogma. It doesn't come anywhere near philosophy or science as a system of knowledge.

Compare the influence of theologians with philosophers. The only important theologians are the philosophers like Aquinas.

And this forum is for Politics, Philosophy and Religion, is it not?

Show a little tolerance, isn't that a "Christian" ideal?

"Whatever a theologian regards as true must be false: there you have almost a criterion of truth. His profound instinct of self-preservation stands against truth ever coming into honour in any way, or even getting stated. Wherever the influence of theologians is felt there is a transvaluation of values, and the concepts "true" and "false" are forced to change places: whatever is most damaging to life is there called "true," and whatever exalts it, intensifies it, approves it, justifies it and makes it triumphant is there called "false." -

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist

/////still waiting

Most thinking people go through life trying to make sense of it and a good deal of the formalized disciplines offer solutions that are based on presumptions that are openly too idiotic to be taken seriously. To defend traditional dogmas by requiring somebody to read a truckload of books is an academic dodge to avoid a specific question. If you have found answers in established literature then it is a good idea to offer them in the context of the occurring discussion and not push off confronting a query with a front of presumed but not confirmed wisdom.

Was thinking of the same verse.

Well, most people do not seem to know a lot about the religions that they are attacking, that is pretty true. I disagree on the required reading part because a lot of debates aren't religion, and well, too much elitism can just destroy fun argumentation. Besides, you have an excuse to read all of those, you want to read them, perfect excuse.

No, philosophy is a lot more difficult than you make it sound. Most people really do not know a lot of philosophy, and I suppose there is some room for intuition, but a lot of people have sucky philosophical intuition using philosophical reasoning to push into ungodly levels of relativism, or other crap.


Well, the major issue is that basic theology is less difficult than philosophy, but at higher levels, you end up combining philosophical and textual inputs, such as in debates of free will, determinism, and moral responsibility. The tasks become more and more difficult as you have to take ideas that probably should not go together and bring them together.


Theology, although arguably not a correct system of knowledge, is however, a rigorous data system with troubles. I mean, basically, you are combining hermeneutics with philosophy and trying to sort out all sorts of issues and difficulties, so even if we argue that theology is less correct than science or philosophy, that does not mean that theology necessarily has less challenges.


Important to who??? I mean, that is an essential question we must undertake before we get started. I mean, John Calvin is very important for the history of the West, and for Christians but he isn't known for being a philosopher. Without Martin Luther we probably wouldn't see a lot of the rise of liberalism we have today, but Martin Luther is not known as a philosopher. Jacob Arminius is known for being a major source for one of the splits in modern Protestantism but he is not known for being a philosopher. These figures are certainly important innovators whose impact is still felt today, and of course John Wesley, or Servetus probably have had impacts to be felt by more people than many of those of the philosophers, so I really do not see the issue. Heck, I could even argue that the divide between philosopher and theologian is artificial given the overlap between the 2 categories, as Aquinas, Ockham, Kierkegaard, and Schleiermacher certainly were theologians more than philosophers, and many modern philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, and others have more importance to the religious community than likely to that of strict philosophy.

I mean, heck, let's just even *think* for a second about your claim. How many people are bound to be that caught up in the changes in academic philosophy? I mean, yes, you can argue that modern liberalism is partially the result of 17th century philosophers and thus goes deeper than the impact of the Protestant enlightenment, and yes, you can argue that Fascism went back to ideas of some philosophers more than just theological resentment towards the Jews and other groups, historical factors, and the psycho/political factors in the landscape of the time. But, to say that the issue is so cleanly cut in favor of philosophers seems rather questionable.

I agree that philosophy to be more difficult that it seems to some, I believe I fall into being one of having sucky philosophical intuition, heck, I suck at everything for that matter, although, with the philosophical reasoning you mentioned, might be because some or perhaps must, may use philosophy to support their bias, whatever it is, always will be reasoning with flaws and fallacies, some more and some less, I suppose.

Well, yes, there is the support of preconceived biases at the cost of more legitimate positions, but I think I was referring more to the idea that people, when first running into philosophy, will push it too far bringing up ideas too bizarre and unsupported but seemingly intellectual.

corroonb, have YOU read Kant? That guy has so many flaws in his logic...

And, hey, I can argue philosophy. That mean anyone can do it. Of course that doesn't mean that they will argue correctly or logically. I probably should have said that in my previous post.