rojse
RF Addict
Does the charity stores for each of the different faiths allow people to work for it outside of the faith?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What do you feel is wrong with atheism?
- Thread starter credance
- Start date
- Status
Does the charity stores for each of the different faiths allow people to work for it outside of the faith?
rojse
RF Addict
Firstly, the desirability of something does not make it true or not. I desire a bag full of one hundred dollar notes in my hand, but this does not mean that it is true.
Secondly, how can you say: "family fails you loved ones fail you everything at one point or another fails you but i always have God" and this "At least when my life sucks i can blame God". Surely there is some contradiction between the two?
Kungfuzed
Student Nurse
You believe in God because your life sucks and you have no self confidence? You can't handle your own problems so you talk with your imaginary friend?
Sure, one day I'll get sick and die, but that's what makes living so special. Each life is like a sand castle, completely unique and is gone in an instant. There will never be another me, so I better be the best me I can be.
When times get rough I turn to those I love for support and when times get even rougher I find the strength to go on inside me and I become stronger. You'll be surprised how far you can walk on your own once you drop your crutches.
I here what you all are saying i lived that way for 40 years and i failed so sadly i tried to kill myself. My little girl who knew Jesus seemed more fulfilled in her life than i had in 40 years of handleing my own life so because of what i seem in her the peace and joy she had before my last breath i accepted Christ and turned my life to God this removed the load for me God became not only my crutches but my Father whos shoulders some days i ride on. I failed at living my life on my own. But just because i am a failure doesnt mean you will be i am sure you all are much stronger than myself but i can tell you if a day comes when you just get tired of carring the load there is an easier way. My little girl showed it to me and i have never turned back since that day. Does that make me a weak man ?? yes weak and tired to weak and to tired to do life on my own and i praise the Lord that i had the choice to admit weakness becuase the truth is i was but one breath away from ending my life . Yes i failed and yes i am a weak man i admit i can not do it on my own i need God. Peace and Love Rod
rojse
RF Addict
Firstly, I am sure an adult man has more concerns in life that a young girl.
I have had my problems too - I won't pretend that they have been as large as yours, because I have never considered killing myself, but they were pretty big in my life. However, I got through them by applying myself to the task at hand, asking for assistance when I need it, and using my abilities and intelligence, not by hoping that some mystical being would help me out.
If your faith gives you consolation in regards to assistance in difficult spots in life, good for you.
DarkSun
:eltiT
I don't think that there is anything wrong with Atheism. Belief in no God, whether I believe it's right or not, is a person's own choice. I may disagree, but I'd never even contemplate judging them or trying to change them. They're entitled to believe what they will, just as any other human being is.
Yerda
Veteran Member
Maybe i just looked at the questian wrong i looked at it like why it would be wrong for me. when i guess the way i should have looked at it as a whole. what doesnt work for me might work for someone else i am no judge of others it just didnt work for me. Peace and Love Rod
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Existence is a function of context - significance and relationship. If there's a thing in my universe to which I have some relation, then that thing exists for me.
As long as they aren't "illusions," then illusions are real.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
The existence of the self is the prime relationship that defines all of existence: observer and the thing observed. The "big bang" in which all of the universe "I" experience comes into being, waiting for the imposition of forms to organize it and make it useful. Language and thought depend on it.
Grammatical convention.
From Nietzsche's Will to Power, Book III:
"There is thinking: therefore there is something that thinks": this is the upshot of all Descartes' argumentation. But that means positing as "true à priori" our belief in the concept of substance-- that when there is thought there has to be something "that thinks" is simply a formulation of our grammatical custom that adds a doer to every deed. In short, this is not merely the substantiation of a fact but a logical-metaphysical postulate--Along the lines followed by Descartes one does not come upon something absolutely certain but only upon the fact of a very strong belief.
If one reduces the proposition to "There is thinking, therefore there are thoughts," one has produced a mere tautology: and precisely that which is in question, the "reality of thought," is not touched upon--that is, in this form the "apparent reality" of thought cannot be denied. But what Descartes desired was that thought should have, not an apparent reality, but a reality in itself. The concept of substance is a consequence of the concept of the subject: not the reverse! If we relinquish the soul, "the subject," the precondition for "substance" in general disappears.
One acquires degrees of being, one loses that which has being . . . The degree to which we feel life and power (logic and coherence of experience) gives us our measure of "being", "reality", not appearance.
The subject: this is the term for our belief in a unity underlying all the different impulses of the highest feeling of reality: we understand this belief as the effect of one cause--we believe so firmly in our belief that for its sake we imagine "truth", "reality", substantiality in general.-- "The subject" is the fiction that many similar states in us are the effect of one substratum: but it is we who first created the "similarity" of these states; our adjusting them and making them similar is the fact, not their similarity (--which ought rather to be denied--).
One would have to know what being is, in order to decide whether this or that is real (e. g., "the facts of consciousness"); in the same way, what certainty is, what knowledge is, and the like.-- But since we do not know this, a critique of the faculty of knowledge is senseless: how should a tool be able to criticize itself when it can use only itself for the critique? It cannot even define itself!
Must all philosophy not ultimately bring to light the preconditions upon which the process of reason depends?--our belief in the "ego" as a substance, as the sole reality from which we ascribe reality to things in general?
The oldest "realism" at last comes to light: at the same time that the entire religious history of mankind is recognized as the history of the soul superstition. Here we come to a limit: our thinking itself involves this belief (with its distinction of substance, accident; deed, doer, etc.); to let it go means: being no longer able to think. But that a belief, however necessary it may be for the preservation of a species, has nothing to do with truth, one knows from the fact that, e. g., we have to believe in time, space, and motion, without feeling compelled to grant them absolute reality.
If one reduces the proposition to "There is thinking, therefore there are thoughts," one has produced a mere tautology: and precisely that which is in question, the "reality of thought," is not touched upon--that is, in this form the "apparent reality" of thought cannot be denied. But what Descartes desired was that thought should have, not an apparent reality, but a reality in itself. The concept of substance is a consequence of the concept of the subject: not the reverse! If we relinquish the soul, "the subject," the precondition for "substance" in general disappears.
One acquires degrees of being, one loses that which has being . . . The degree to which we feel life and power (logic and coherence of experience) gives us our measure of "being", "reality", not appearance.
The subject: this is the term for our belief in a unity underlying all the different impulses of the highest feeling of reality: we understand this belief as the effect of one cause--we believe so firmly in our belief that for its sake we imagine "truth", "reality", substantiality in general.-- "The subject" is the fiction that many similar states in us are the effect of one substratum: but it is we who first created the "similarity" of these states; our adjusting them and making them similar is the fact, not their similarity (--which ought rather to be denied--).
One would have to know what being is, in order to decide whether this or that is real (e. g., "the facts of consciousness"); in the same way, what certainty is, what knowledge is, and the like.-- But since we do not know this, a critique of the faculty of knowledge is senseless: how should a tool be able to criticize itself when it can use only itself for the critique? It cannot even define itself!
Must all philosophy not ultimately bring to light the preconditions upon which the process of reason depends?--our belief in the "ego" as a substance, as the sole reality from which we ascribe reality to things in general?
The oldest "realism" at last comes to light: at the same time that the entire religious history of mankind is recognized as the history of the soul superstition. Here we come to a limit: our thinking itself involves this belief (with its distinction of substance, accident; deed, doer, etc.); to let it go means: being no longer able to think. But that a belief, however necessary it may be for the preservation of a species, has nothing to do with truth, one knows from the fact that, e. g., we have to believe in time, space, and motion, without feeling compelled to grant them absolute reality.
Paraprakrti
Custom User
I feel that many atheists nearly deify the universe, however inadvertently. And this, to me, is very close, if not categorically the same, as impersonal Brahman realization in Vedanta. Once we get into Brahman as a Person, atheists reject. I feel that both the impersonal and personal aspects have origin in the Supreme Absolute Truth. If we reject one, our understanding is incomplete. So in conclusion, I'd say that atheism is incomplete.
Yerda
Veteran Member
Atheism, I think if left to deal within it's field, is perfectly complete. The deification of the universe may (or may not) be common amongst atheists but it is not atheism.
Yerda
Veteran Member
I've never considered this. How does theism become a response to atheism?
logician
Well-Known Member
Why should one belief trump, or be more important than, the other. This puts both on an equal footing. Certainly many people believe in god because they are afraid to be considered godless.
Paraprakrti
Custom User
Surely not in the case atheism becomes nihilism.
Yerda
Veteran Member
Sorry?
- Status