Page 2 of 2

Re: Do you have any religion? | What's your religion?

Posted: 03 Nov 2018, 15:46
by jethrow
Considering my avatar, I should prolly weigh in. After growing up somewhere between atheist & agnostic, life experience, science & logical deduction convinced me there is something both good & supreme beyond what can be physically measured. Also, though I put little credit in feelings, when you have a feeling combined with conviction that vastly contradicts what you currently believe, you have to pay attention.

I'm Christian, though I wouldn't classify that a religion. To avoid a dreaded 5+ paragraph response, I'll offer the following two points:
  • Ultimately your belief is a choice, even if that choice is passive
  • It takes vastly more faith to believe there is not a Creator than to believe there is

Re: Do you have any religion? | What's your religion?

Posted: 07 Jun 2019, 19:48
by A_AhkUser
Here's some ideas about atheism since I "voted" atheist.
I see atheism by excellence as nothing other than the criticism of the theistic theses.
This being said, it is, especially in this case, interesting to always have in mind the etymology of criticism (critical etc.): crisis.
First of all, criticism in the sense that it is always a multiscale historical critical encounter; here: it appears that Gio and jethrow, for exemple, people other than myself, believe.
Criticism, then, because this other's belief is lived as critical in relation to an original assumption, as such - in particular: the "freedom".
Criticism, finally, as the other's belief as encounter is self-criticism as such (should it turn out to be inauthentic); somehow the truth of the other's belief has its effect: the
absolute could become relative and the relative, absolute.
"What are the underlying reasons why Christianity is able to speak to people within the framework of our Empire and our philosophies of happiness?" - it may probably have
been a critical question for a Roman.
I mean, it is practically knocking on an open door: how one can hope find the truth without desiring it?

As criticism, atheism can only be based on truth - in other words: it must but cannot be conducted, as a last resort, only in the name of science: otherwise, it is often a
detrimental and complacent strategy, seeking to preserve the statu quo. Moreover, ultimately, credo quia absurdum remains an anthropological reality. Also, ritual came before myth. Atheism criticism can and must also be consistently conducted in the name of love, political equality and freedom. Why don't we want to face up love, politics and freedom? Would it be because they are in crisis - which would lead us to be fully aware of this? The masks would fall off and uncover our bunch of baloney, the myriad of fairy tales of a specific contemporary cynicism? The absolute would become relative and the relative, absolute? Certainly, it's unlikely to happen if the "other" is assumed to "believe" almost exactly like a kid or a fanatic - unless the other's belief is "tolerated" that is, does not, at the root, really move us, desiring being.
A consistent atheism do not take away the means to make to god, this remarkable figure of human history, the criticism that it deserves.
"La mode est aujourd'hui d'acceuillir la liberté d'un rire sardonique, de la regarder comme la veillerie tombée en désuétude avec l'honneur. Je ne suis point à la mode, je
pense que sans liberté il n'y a rien dans le monde; elle donne du prix à la vie; dussé-je rester le dernier à la défendre, je ne cesserai de proclamer ses droits." Châteaubriand, quoted by Berdiaev
Sorry for my bad english and thanks for reading.