 |
|
|
|
| It Is Ignorant To State That God Does Or Does Not Exist. |
| Regardless of your occupation, your outlook on life, and your intelligence, it is simply ignorant to state whether or not a God exists. It is the unknown, meaning no one knows. By God, I mean any righteous essence of divinity, or a conjecture of a universal creation as a product of a mind. Such fixated assumptions are a symbol of blatant ignorance. I can understand suggestions to certain theories, and except them as a view, but not a fact. I can’t see how anyone can simply make up their mind on such complicated speculations, keep your mind open. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some won't even acknowledge that there is even the slightest chance that they are wrong. Full blown
ignorance. Some will even do this when concerning issues of opinion. There are no rights and wrongs
when it comes to morals. Say, "I believe in God." No one can argue what you believe. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree with you, it is very ignorant. I like the way finsch described it. (see below)
I believe in a creator, and I understand that not everybody does. I have a problem with people who
think that theirs is the only belief that matters, those who try to force their religious beliefs
onto others whether others like it or not.
Although, it is fun to argue with both sides... Especially those who try to prove the existence of
god. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
As a prologue to my post I’ll explain a few things about the truth I’ve noticed in the past. I
normally think of the conclusions Verum’s talking about as “barriers” to the truth. If the
truth can actually be found and one wishes to know it, a predetermined barrier set on what that
truth may be is going to keep that person from it. Most theists have a predetermined boundary set.
That boundary resisting any truth that may conflict with the idea of there being a god. Most
atheists have similar boundary set, only in visa-versa. How can one claim to be searching for the
truth if they place a limit on what they want to find? When I speak of truth, I’m talking about
the objective truth. Subjective things are often not “true” in the sense that an objective fact
would be. Not that something subjective can’t be true, simply that the conclusion in that scenario
would be reached in ways others may not be able to follow due to the decision being opinionated to
begin with. If the truth is your goal, remove the barriers on what you think, or want, it to be. The
truth can be anything. If you’re not prepared to know it, keep the barriers up. But, if you do,
you’ll only find what you want to, not what may actually be.
On the ignorance portion of the debate’s heading, I can sort of understand what Verum’s talking
about. When someone believes something deeply enough, they want reasoning or justification for doing
so in order to make them feel as if they’re making the right choice. Often I see that they will
interpret anything they can as being “evidence” for their conclusion (science is a popular one
due to its objectivity on many subjects). But, in a case like this, it’s not the evidence that’s
determining the conclusion, it’s the conclusion that’s determining the evidence. A theist might
use science in an attempt to support their belief in a god. At the same time, an atheist might use
science in an attempt to disprove the existence of a god. Now, science doesn’t deal with the
supernatural or paranormal. So doing either is pointless to an outside observer, but to the theist
and atheist mentioned above, it’s undeniable proof that their viewpoint is right. Subjectivity,
too often, gets confused with objectivity. There’s nothing wrong with opinionated decision.
However, people usually confuse their opinion with what is objective. I’ll end my ramble with the
definitions of the two words for anyone who doesn’t know them. “Objectivity” is defined as
“the ability to perceive or describe something without being influenced by personal emotions or
prejudices”. Now, no one is completely objective, since everyone is influenced by their feelings
on almost any subject. But still, one can do their best not to allow their opinion to leak out on an
objective subject. “Subjectivity” is defined as “an interpretation based on personal opinions
or feelings”. So, if your decision or conclusion is based entirely on what you personally want or
feel, it’s most likely subjective. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
My problem is not that people come to some conclusion but that they think that
A) The process they used to come to that conclusion was logic and
B) Their conclusion is the only logical conclusion. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not ignorant because I know God doesn't exist, I just like to argue. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
A native deep in the Amazon being told that microbes exist could say the same thing about germs. He
might be told that he needs a microscope to see them and still not believe, but if he is presented
with a microscope and given the opportunity to look through it but chooses not to, he's not ignorant
he is just foolish. Ask God to make Himself known to you ,and He will ,and you will know that He
is. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 Nov 2008 20:08
Sign In
