A particular philosophy of Religion

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

A particular philosophy of Religion

#1  Postby jamest » Sep 22, 2018 12:07 am

Religion is seemingly always diversely subjective, involving numerous material icons, including many specific humans (and animals). Welcome then to the absolute failure of religion, since the aim of that religion was to promote some material 'thing' as God, or Godly.

... Which would be fucking ridiculous since the creator of material things cannot iself be a mere material thing.

I will have NO problem in converting the masses here to understand that religion is shite. I just wanted you to know three things:

1) I can prove that it's shite, you cannot.

2) Philosophical arguments for God's existence supersede religious arguments for it.

3) NOTHING scientific is of metaphysical significance unless and until someone seeks to present it as such, in which instance they are NOT presenting themselves as scientists, but as metaphysicists.

Chew the fat. Say something intelligent and I'll probably respond.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18615
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: A particular philosophy of Religion

#2  Postby felltoearth » Sep 22, 2018 12:38 am

jamest wrote:
Chew the fat. Say something intelligent and I'll probably respond.


As opposed to the other threads you started?
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 14574
Age: 54

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: A particular philosophy of Religion

#3  Postby SafeAsMilk » Sep 22, 2018 3:06 am

jamest wrote:Religion is seemingly always diversely subjective, involving numerous material icons, including many specific humans (and animals). Welcome then to the absolute failure of religion, since the aim of that religion was to promote some material 'thing' as God, or Godly.

... Which would be fucking ridiculous since the creator of material things cannot iself be a mere material thing.

I'm pretty sure that any purveyor of religion or just about any form of mysticism are totally aware of this. The idea is that since you cannot represent the transcendent, you have to point to it indirectly through the mundane. Nobody except for children think that God is an old guy with a beard.

I will have NO problem in converting the masses here to understand that religion is shite. I just wanted you to know three things:

1) I can prove that it's shite, you cannot.

It proves itself shite. You can't even prove what you're selling is not shite, and you've failed to understand the basic concept of symbolism above, so I doubt this claim.

2) Philosophical arguments for God's existence supersede religious arguments for it.

Who cares? They're both shite, and are incapable of proving anything.

3) NOTHING scientific is of metaphysical significance unless and until someone seeks to present it as such, in which instance they are NOT presenting themselves as scientists, but as metaphysicists.

Still waiting to hear about why anyone should give a shit about "metaphysical significance", whatever that is.

Chew the fat. Say something intelligent and I'll probably respond.

Yes, but will you respond intelligently? I wait with bated breath.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14774
Age: 42
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: A particular philosophy of Religion

#4  Postby Calilasseia » Sep 22, 2018 4:00 am

jamest wrote:Religion is seemingly always diversely subjective, involving numerous material icons, including many specific humans (and animals). Welcome then to the absolute failure of religion, since the aim of that religion was to promote some material 'thing' as God, or Godly.


Finaly waking up to the absurdity of supernaturalism? This I have to see ...

jamest wrote:... Which would be fucking ridiculous since the creator of material things cannot iself be a mere material thing.


Ah, back to assertionist cant. Do tell us why this assertion is something other than the product of your rectal passage. Especially in the light of modern cosmological physics.

jamest wrote:I will have NO problem in converting the masses here to understand that religion is shite. I just wanted you to know three things:

1) I can prove that it's shite, you cannot.


Ha ha ha ha ha.

Guess what? We did that without your assistance some time ago. Suck on it.

jamest wrote:2) Philosophical arguments for God's existence supersede religious arguments for it.


Oh you mean "let's make shit up, merely a different sort of shit than supernaturalists?" Good luck with that one.

jamest wrote:3) NOTHING scientific is of metaphysical significance unless and until someone seeks to present it as such, in which instance they are NOT presenting themselves as scientists, but as metaphysicists.


Who fucking cares? Oh wait, you're on record as preferring made up shit to data. Once again, we'll all sit around and laugh while you indulge this delusional exercise in cranial masturbation.

jamest wrote:Chew the fat. Say something intelligent and I'll probably respond.


Don't bother. The toenail clippings from my dead budgie could probably do better than you.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22229
Age: 60
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post


Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest