Why would I take the mistaken concept of god that ANYONE has? I have NO idea what Einstein thought about god, although his daughter said there was no doubt that he was an atheist. As far as Spinoza goes, my concepts are at least as valid as his, in fact, since I have his views and many others that came after him to base my views on, then mine are far more likely to be accurate than his. The fact is, that I know, by faith in the total lack of any evidence, that no god or gods exist, that the supernatural is nonsense. As far as how the universe came to be, I have no idea, but, I do not that since no gods exist, it was not created. Anyone who studies philosophy and then says ahhhhhhhhhhh, he was so great, is a fool in my opinion. In fact, no one should be allowed to study the great, and even the bad philosophers of the past until such a time as they can formally and competently present their own personal philosophy of life, based on their own personal beliefs from the life they have lived, and not based on the philosophical works of others. IF after they have presented their own philosophy and then studied the works of history, and want to change theirs fine.
out of context of course. you might also consider what fairy tales actually ARE - they are not stories for children. try reading Jack Zipes or Rainer Maria Rilke.
If I were ever going to attempt to post something intentionally out of context, it would be stupid to link to them. Your words speak for themselves. I'm disappointed you didn't have the integrity to own up to it. Ah well...that's probably part of the chip. Be well, Cassandra.
if you look at the content of that thread, it is pretty clear that you are taking that quote out of context. In all honesty Felicity, a huge part of the problem between atheists and christians lies on the side of the christians. believers in all religions can include the tolerant and the respectful, but when the dogmatic are those who are most vociferous, it is the same as when similar people espouse any belief - it creates a barrier to dialogue. I find you dogmatic.
It wouldn't hurt you to read Spinoza - and it is wrong to assume that we know more than those who have gone before us. we know more about the material world, but it doesn't mean we are smarter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza
Of course you were giving it back to people who where being rude also. That doesn't excuse it. This is like saying "certainly not all black people are (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s, but the way a lot of them act, you can't blame me for being prejudice!" It's bigoted, close-minded, and no excuse. See? You have a problem with my confidence in my belief. I knew that right from the start. You are "dogmatic" also, my dear. And a bit bigoted against religion and religious people. (To continue the analogy), you're not like the redneck driving the General Lee heading out for a lynching Saturday night before church services on Sunday, but you are like the ladies at the after-church luncheon chatting about how gossipy their "darkies" are and how you are just being a good person by keeping them employed. I know it's a long and twisted analogy--but it does fit, IMO.
I can give you a few pointers. First become very familiar with sophisticated creationist arguments. Second, become good with the philosophy. Become well versed in the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, etc. Third, study the evidence for the historicity of the gospels and the resurrection of Christ. Fourth, research instances of miracles, and near death experiences. Another thing. Become familiar with refutations of arguments against controversial actions by God in the bible. Become familiar with refutations of philosophical arguments against God, problem of evil, etc. Become familiar with arguments that say that the bible contradicts itself.
I have read Spinoza, and and Plato and Aristotle and and Augustine and Aquinas and Sartre and Locke and Nietzsche and Hegel and Confucius and Tzu and and Kant (first name, not last lol) and many many more that most people would not even recognize. Oh, and My statements still stand, each individual should be made to put his own personal philosophy in formal thesis order, before being allowed to study the philosophers of the past. How can we get new OPINIONS on life when our head is full of the nonsense of the past. And philosophy is just that OPINION, not fact, nor science and not reality, it is JUST OPINION. I wish to see what people that are NOT first year philosophy majors can do, without the cobwebs of the past.
In their defense, an idea is not harmed just because it is old. Some of those philosophers are smart people who should be consulted when building a philosophy. However, you do have an interesting argument.
you still need to read it in context. if I were making the statement in a different context, I would agree with you. I have many people who have confidence in their belief who are not dogmatic. please show me where I have been dogmatic. if that were the case, my attitude to people of faith in the real world would be quite different. a more accurate representation might be that I resented the gossipy ladies for saying I didn't wash because my skin was darker than theirs. see my updated version above
It seems to me that there are people who will read someone, and then believe everything they say is true - and become disciples of a particular philosopher or belief system .... and there are others who - like you - dismiss everything out of hand as if it has nothing at all to offer. the balance is somewhere in between.
They are your first two in that thread. It's not hard to do--use the "search this thread" option and type in your name. I checked on your claim of "not in context." Seriously, Cassandra, you are showing your true colors. It's not good.
lols ... you are pushing (*)(*)(*)(*) uphill ... what kind of comments were in the posts prior to mine? and what is the history of my discussions with that - or those - posters. you want to talk about true colours? have a look at your own.
Do you remember what I said above? Are you suggesting that your tone and approach is justifiably arrogant there? How hypocritical when you are so hyper-sensitive to any Christian stating his/her belief in concrete terms! ...Like that matters. You have no excuse--you are showing yourself to be the very definition of "hypocrite."
What context is this in? http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/151186-you-sure-youre-right.html
Would you believe what Einstein's daughter said about his beliefs over what he said himself? His daughter probably just had no concept of Spinoza's "god", which is natural rather than supernatural. How do you know that no gods exist (remember that "god" is a very broad term)? Prove that negative, and then you will "know". And you admit that you do not know how the universe came to be (I'm surprised you admit that, since you "know" so much), but you are ready to say how it didn't happen? Ah, reinvent the wheel before you learn any engineering practices. No doubt we should all rediscover the calculus for ourselves before we crack open a textbook, as well.
