«How can you trust one who doesn't pray. If he abandons his Maker, what makes you think he won't abandon you?»
Between you and me, "his Maker", whatever that could be, is not the best principle to follow...specially when that principle might be wrong. i.e. I don't pray, and my friend know I will never abandon them...
I agree with you on the following «'If a man abandons his mother and father in times of need, such as old age, weakness or when they need him, or abandons his spouse, i would question his loyalty to me if one day i needed him.'» But, in here, their is no reference about Him//Her/It. Him//Her/It is not a condition in the preposition. The rest, is to much speculation, to much illusionism and spectacle about something that someone (another person with virtues and vices like, possible, the person who is the subject of the sentence mentioned), a couple of centuries ago, decided to believe and make humankind to believe to - almost like a politicians, nowadays - , and, presently, it is taken as the "True Word". Basically, since our principle is not the same, I will never consider (God) "the one who made" me "first and foremost, … " in the same way you consider. Because I don't even consider him/her/it or whatever. But I agree with your way to consider whom to trust.
«If you want me to explain the flaws in atheism, from my point of view and the pros in why there is a God i can, as you don't believe in God in the first instance»
I'm not an atheist, or, even less, a nihilist. However, my being introduces questions and uncertainties in those places where formerly there was some seeming consensus about what one did or believe and how one went about it. These dynamics, this force, are for me a necessary part of my understanding of Life, for whatever it may be it is NOT an accumulative things linking to GOD, an additive project in which bits of newly discovered perspectives are pasted on to an existing structure, seemingly augmenting and enriching it, seemingly making it acceptable to the pressures of the times. 'Life' as I perceive it is precisely in the operations of recognising the limitations of one's thought for one does not learn something new until one unlearns something old, otherwise one is simply adding information rather than rethinking a structure. (Note that these last words have been taken from Prof. Irit Rogoff's text What is a Theorist? and then adapted to the context). So, no need for explanations why or why not there is a God… I believe in you and me, in the enigmatic stranger that we all are, soon to engage in affairs of any order: sexual, passionate, committed, personal, childish, innocence, reaching out…
«Many of those questions and uncertainties have been answered in the past through religion. Now having heard the answers my job is to go out and debunk or authenticate those answers using my experiences or maybe formulate new ideas using tools at my disposal such as science, logic and deep thought. It seems like you have had the same thought process as me, but the same thought process in two different men can bring them to two different conclusions. Hence my logic and reasoning tells me there is a God 100%»
I don't know which thought process you have used, as in the same way, you don't know which one's I had used. So 'saying/writing' that we had the same one is to much presumption by your side. Anyway, moving on, we, as beings, are political and religious social beings, and, as such, we all raise questions, inquires in to the world around us in a social context - irrelevantly of it being true or base on false assumptions, for the sake of the conversation. What you have been doing, from what I perceive from your words, is that you have been collecting bits and pieces of information and adding then to previous knowledge "...add and reinforce prior knowledge, strengthening it...". Being that built with a set of premises; being one of that premises 'God'. If that premise is used and determined as been the 'thing', as it is, than your conclusion would be that it is the 'thing'. That is straightforward. However, some cultures have one God (in some cultures it is a compassionate and gracious God; in others, a bloodthirsty God; and, even in others, greedy for money and earth richness), other cultures have Gods; and, even, other cultures have something else. It just depends on the geography you occupy in a particular moment in time. For the record, God is dead, since the 19th century (Nietzsche)!!! Since I don't use God as a premise my thought process will arrive to a different position in knowing. And, at least, I'm not criticising the information but, instead, rethinking a structure. So, I don't pray, and my friend know I will never abandon them… So, I believe in you and me.
I agree with you on the following «'If a man abandons his mother and father in times of need, such as old age, weakness or when they need him, or abandons his spouse, i would question his loyalty to me if one day i needed him.'» But, in here, their is no reference about Him//Her/It. Him//Her/It is not a condition in the preposition. The rest, is to much speculation, to much illusionism and spectacle about something that someone (another person with virtues and vices like, possible, the person who is the subject of the sentence mentioned), a couple of centuries ago, decided to believe and make humankind to believe to - almost like a politicians, nowadays - , and, presently, it is taken as the "True Word". Basically, since our principle is not the same, I will never consider (God) "the one who made" me "first and foremost, … " in the same way you consider. Because I don't even consider him/her/it or whatever. But I agree with your way to consider whom to trust.
«If you want me to explain the flaws in atheism, from my point of view and the pros in why there is a God i can, as you don't believe in God in the first instance»
I'm not an atheist, or, even less, a nihilist. However, my being introduces questions and uncertainties in those places where formerly there was some seeming consensus about what one did or believe and how one went about it. These dynamics, this force, are for me a necessary part of my understanding of Life, for whatever it may be it is NOT an accumulative things linking to GOD, an additive project in which bits of newly discovered perspectives are pasted on to an existing structure, seemingly augmenting and enriching it, seemingly making it acceptable to the pressures of the times. 'Life' as I perceive it is precisely in the operations of recognising the limitations of one's thought for one does not learn something new until one unlearns something old, otherwise one is simply adding information rather than rethinking a structure. (Note that these last words have been taken from Prof. Irit Rogoff's text What is a Theorist? and then adapted to the context). So, no need for explanations why or why not there is a God… I believe in you and me, in the enigmatic stranger that we all are, soon to engage in affairs of any order: sexual, passionate, committed, personal, childish, innocence, reaching out…
«Many of those questions and uncertainties have been answered in the past through religion. Now having heard the answers my job is to go out and debunk or authenticate those answers using my experiences or maybe formulate new ideas using tools at my disposal such as science, logic and deep thought. It seems like you have had the same thought process as me, but the same thought process in two different men can bring them to two different conclusions. Hence my logic and reasoning tells me there is a God 100%»
I don't know which thought process you have used, as in the same way, you don't know which one's I had used. So 'saying/writing' that we had the same one is to much presumption by your side. Anyway, moving on, we, as beings, are political and religious social beings, and, as such, we all raise questions, inquires in to the world around us in a social context - irrelevantly of it being true or base on false assumptions, for the sake of the conversation. What you have been doing, from what I perceive from your words, is that you have been collecting bits and pieces of information and adding then to previous knowledge "...add and reinforce prior knowledge, strengthening it...". Being that built with a set of premises; being one of that premises 'God'. If that premise is used and determined as been the 'thing', as it is, than your conclusion would be that it is the 'thing'. That is straightforward. However, some cultures have one God (in some cultures it is a compassionate and gracious God; in others, a bloodthirsty God; and, even in others, greedy for money and earth richness), other cultures have Gods; and, even, other cultures have something else. It just depends on the geography you occupy in a particular moment in time. For the record, God is dead, since the 19th century (Nietzsche)!!! Since I don't use God as a premise my thought process will arrive to a different position in knowing. And, at least, I'm not criticising the information but, instead, rethinking a structure. So, I don't pray, and my friend know I will never abandon them… So, I believe in you and me.
No comments :
Post a Comment