A Question to God

[EKublai]

I live my life every day by asking the same question asked by Socrates in every sentence of The Republic, "What is the good life?" My life is bound to that question and therefore, not to religion. I idolize no higher being besides my own power to ask these questions. I find that the only true reasoning for my being atheist is because religion relies upon a higher being to decide what the good life is. If we ourselves can only lead the good life in one fashion, then what is the good life but the predictable, dull one. And after we die we would go into an eternal bliss, a situation that I feel could possibly worse than to go to Hell and suffer eternally. Either way, both will eventually become dull and predictable because of this word, 'eternal.' Happiness? What is happiness without grief to compare it? What is surrow with no joy to balence? What good is an 'eternal' life when it is missing one of the most valuable characteristics of all. Chaos. Chaos is the nearest thing to perfection in this world, because as I have realized, there almost always has been, there always is, and there always will be grief, joy, anger, pain, and all other emotions in the mortal life. Chaos is the pandemic that kills and gives birth everyday, and never stops. So I must ask God, the all-knowing, and of course I offer him nothing to credit me as philosopher of equal intelligence, but I must beg to as why? Why when we die, do we substitute the 'perfect' life, for the 'eternal' one. Whether sending us to Heaven or Hell, we always suffer, knowing that while we lived, we were able to experience the imperfections of the world that made it so livable.

[Devildoubt]

EKublai, your questions are good and sincere, and I respect that.

I, however, do believe in God and by no means am I a "perfect" nor a "holier-than-thou" Christian. We learn from experience, simple as that.

Yes, there is great beauty and sadness in life, and if it were not for death we would take life for granted. As a believer in the Judeo-Christian teaching and tradition, we had a choice in the "Garden of Eden." There was the "Tree of Life" and the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." Instead of "life" we chose "the knowledge of good and evil." Which means with our God-given Free Will we chose an existnce of separating things into categories instead of accepting life as a symbionic whole.

Whether you take the "Eden" story as truth or legend doesn't matter, the point is that humans have always taken life for granted and it takes death for us to really treasure it as a gift.

I admire your sensitivity and search for truth. Btw, Are you sure you're an aetheist cuz you seem more agnostic to me? Correct me if I'm wrong.

[TheMason]

At 12/4/06 02:07 AM, EKublai wrote: I live my life every day by asking the same question asked by Socrates in every sentence of The Republic, "What is the good life?" My life is bound to that question and therefore, not to religion. I idolize no higher being besides my own power to ask these questions. I find that the only true reasoning for my being atheist is because religion relies upon a higher being to decide what the good life is. If we ourselves can only lead the good life in one fashion, then what is the good life but the predictable, dull one.

There is an inherent contradiction here. Even if you are an atheist, there is a higher power that decides what the good life is for you. This higher power is called society. You are born and raised within an external structure that teaches you what is good. Obviously you are educated or at least well read. But why do you think you are that way? Generally speaking we are a society that pushes education. Furthermore, there is a rule of law in which a code is set forth that tells you what the good life is, a social morality if you will...

Also Socrates described a state in which people are born into the roles that they will have throughout their life. There was little independence or self determination in his republic.

Anyway, just a few rambling thoughts before I have to go to work...

Great topic!

[SteveGuzzi]

At 12/4/06 02:07 AM, EKublai wrote: I find that the only true reasoning for my being atheist is because religion relies upon a higher being to decide what the good life is. If we ourselves can only lead the good life in one fashion, then what is the good life but the predictable, dull one.

many paths lead to the same destination,
it ain't just about the road taken it's the journey that you're makin.

[Tomsan]

At 12/4/06 04:00 AM, Devildoubt wrote: . Btw, Are you sure you're an aetheist cuz you seem more agnostic to me? Correct me if I'm wrong.

There is no such thing as an agnostic, you only have agnostic atheists and agnotisc theists, and ofcourse gnostic atheists and theists. you cant be agnostic on its own. the latter two are people who in opinion, have no inttelegence or whatsoever

[qygibo]

At 12/4/06 11:54 AM, Tomsan wrote:

There is no such thing as an agnostic, you only have agnostic atheists and agnotisc theists, and ofcourse gnostic atheists and theists. you cant be agnostic on its own. the latter two are people who in opinion, have no inttelegence or whatsoever

No, agnostics are unsure as to whether or not deities exist or not. Atheists just don't believe in the higher power period.

[TheMason]

At 12/4/06 11:54 AM, Tomsan wrote:

At 12/4/06 04:00 AM, Devildoubt wrote: . Btw, Are you sure you're an aetheist cuz you seem more agnostic to me? Correct me if I'm wrong.

There is no such thing as an agnostic, you only have agnostic atheists and agnotisc theists, and ofcourse gnostic atheists and theists. you cant be agnostic on its own. the latter two are people who in opinion, have no inttelegence or whatsoever

Agnostic:
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

Yes you can be an agnostic. However, most do tend to lean towards either the atheist or theist. But you can be an agnostic without leaning. Perhaps a person just doesn't know...it is possible.

Gnostic:

an adherent of Gnosticism

Gnosticism:

the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis

A Gnostic believes not only that there is a God, but there is a knowledge of God that is reserved for the elect few who are capable of understanding it. So how can a Gnostic be an atheist?

Please, before you pass judgement on other people or other belief structures; learn about the people/group you're talking about. Then how 'inttelegent' you really are will shine down like a ray of illuminating sunshine...

[cold-as-hell]

Fuck me hes got something there.

If we go to heaven or hell for eternity then it will be predicted and boring.

So are you saying that pleasure and pain in equilibrium is perfection? Much like your random chaos?

[EKublai]

At 12/4/06 07:10 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/4/06 02:07 AM, EKublai wrote: I live my life every day by asking the same question asked by Socrates in every sentence of The Republic, "What is the good life?" My life is bound to that question and therefore, not to religion. I idolize no higher being besides my own power to ask these questions. I find that the only true reasoning for my being atheist is because religion relies upon a higher being to decide what the good life is. If we ourselves can only lead the good life in one fashion, then what is the good life but the predictable, dull one.

There is an inherent contradiction here. Even if you are an atheist, there is a higher power that decides what the good life is for you. This higher power is called society. You are born and raised within an external structure that teaches you what is good. Obviously you are educated or at least well read. But why do you think you are that way? Generally speaking we are a society that pushes education. Furthermore, there is a rule of law in which a code is set forth that tells you what the good life is, a social morality if you will...

Also Socrates described a state in which people are born into the roles that they will have throughout their life. There was little independence or self determination in his republic.

Anyway, just a few rambling thoughts before I have to go to work...

Great topic!

Good points. But I think I may have been implying something that I did not mean to. The fact that the question that both socrates and I ask are the same do not mean we believe in the same answer. My view is that since we can all admit to a certain amount to chaos in our lives, we can also admit that we have allowed ourselves to travel through the road to success drunk, not knowing whether where we are going is actually good life. But because the motivation is there, nothing, not society, not life, or even death, can change the fact that we persue it, even if 'it' is unknown. Since I believe this to be true, I cannot except the concept of a God (atheism) because a higher being that did not orginate from human thinking and is therefore superior is like walking down that same road sober. Religion is the only thing that does this. It is the only law that when broken it is garanteed to have reprecussions. Even society itself cannot claim that it is a higher being than me because while it heavily influences my conduct (which I point out, is only because I wish to live for awhile) it stil cannot contain me from saying that Society is not justice, and therefore living opressed by the laws of society, besides being dull and predictable, are violations of human thinking, the same thinking that asks, "what is the good life?"

[EKublai]

At 12/4/06 02:08 PM, cold-as-hell wrote: Fuck me hes got something there.

If we go to heaven or hell for eternity then it will be predicted and boring.

So are you saying that pleasure and pain in equilibrium is perfection? Much like your random chaos?

I cannot say, it must be different for everyone. In my personal opinion, equilibrium can be both a perfection and imperfection. Perfection because there can be many ways of achieving equilibrium at different time and in different ways (say like a math problem 2+2=4 but also (2*5+10)/5 also equals for.) However, i don't think it's fair to say that equilibrium is the only explanation for perfection. For that reason, i cannot offer an explanation. It's just a gut feeling

[cold-as-hell]

At 12/4/06 02:28 PM, EKublai wrote:

It's just a gut feeling

Fare enough.

[cold-as-hell]

pleasure. pain, equilibrium, perfection, chaos and opinion. All thats left is the kitchen sink

[Imperator]

Because I wanna pretend like I'm a wise, intelligent sage today, I'll answer all above questions with my own:

Painful life, or peaceful death?
Choose wisely......

[cold-as-hell]

At 12/4/06 04:19 PM, Imperator wrote: Because I wanna pretend like I'm a wise, intelligent sage today, I'll answer all above questions with my own:

Painful life, or peaceful death?
Choose wisely......

A bit of both. Having sex with a really hot woman while having a heart attack

[JakeHero]

Meh, I just tend to believe no such thing as morality exists, and therefore, eugenics is a-okay.

[Devildoubt]

At 12/4/06 02:08 PM, cold-as-hell wrote: So are you saying that pleasure and pain in equilibrium is perfection? Much like your random chaos?

"Random chaos"?...Hmm...how about "ordered chaos"?

[cold-as-hell]

At 12/4/06 11:34 PM, Devildoubt wrote:

At 12/4/06 02:08 PM, cold-as-hell wrote: So are you saying that pleasure and pain in equilibrium is perfection? Much like your random chaos?

"Random chaos"?...Hmm...how about "ordered chaos"?

To many varibles

[Devildoubt]

At 12/5/06 12:56 PM, cold-as-hell wrote:

At 12/4/06 11:34 PM, Devildoubt wrote: "Random chaos"?...Hmm...how about "ordered chaos"?

To many varibles

Well, chaos is already randomness, but if everything SEEMS to fit in place, such as the structure of DNA or the Mandrelbrot set, there is a pattern/order in chaos.

[EKublai]

At 12/5/06 05:40 PM, Devildoubt wrote:

At 12/5/06 12:56 PM, cold-as-hell wrote:

At 12/4/06 11:34 PM, Devildoubt wrote: "Random chaos"?...Hmm...how about "ordered chaos"?

To many varibles

Well, chaos is already randomness, but if everything SEEMS to fit in place, such as the structure of DNA or the Mandrelbrot set, there is a pattern/order in chaos.

That is the problem. To make the argument work. It must do more than
seem to persuade, but it must actually do so.

[Tomsan]

At 12/4/06 12:05 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/4/06 11:54 AM, Tomsan wrote:

At 12/4/06 04:00 AM, Devildoubt wrote: . Btw, Are you sure you're an aetheist cuz you seem more agnostic to me? Correct me if I'm wrong.

There is no such thing as an agnostic, you only have agnostic atheists and agnotisc theists, and ofcourse gnostic atheists and theists. you cant be agnostic on its own. the latter two are people who in opinion, have no inttelegence or whatsoever

Agnostic:
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something]

Yes you can be an agnostic. However, most do tend to lean towards either the atheist or theist. But you can be an agnostic without leaning. Perhaps a person just doesn't know...it is possible.

I figured someone would come up with the dictionary specs, and your totally right in that, BUT.
although the word exists, the real being doesnt, this is undebatable because you always lean towards a side. Your example is my prove (such a person doesnt exist)! its a bit of a paradox because someone can say he is agnostic, but there just isnt such a thing. Like there is no real altruism in human nature, every example you would give could be relayed back to own advantage, still the word exists.
This is not really my own opinion, it how the word is used in, namely filosofical, literature.

the word agnosticism however is a "existing" word

Gnostic:

an adherent of Gnosticism

Gnosticism:

the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis

A Gnostic believes not only that there is a God, but there is a knowledge of God that is reserved for the elect few who are capable of understanding it. So how can a Gnostic be an atheist?

Although my dictionary had a bit of a different explaination of the first word, ofcourse that is the definition of the word HOWEVER(lol).
I was reffering to the latin word gnoosis(which in speaking terms is translated to gnostic(atleast in my language, but now I think about it also in english literature)) , which means no more or less then "to know"
by gnostic atheists or theists I ment the people who are certain of themselves.
Maybe its my bad I didnt conclude this extra info in my earlier post, but it seemed pretty obvious to me.

Please, before you pass judgement on other people or other belief structures; learn about the people/group you're talking about. Then how 'inttelegent' you really are will shine down like a ray of illuminating sunshine...

Yeah well that ray of light shined on me a long time ago.

[TheSovereign]

BAM!

[TheMason]

At 12/5/06 07:36 PM, Tomsan wrote: I figured someone would come up with the dictionary specs, and your totally right in that, BUT.
although the word exists, the real being doesnt, this is undebatable because you always lean towards a side. Your example is my prove (such a person doesnt exist)! its a bit of a paradox because someone can say he is agnostic, but there just isnt such a thing. Like there is no real altruism in human nature, every example you would give could be relayed back to own advantage, still the word exists.
This is not really my own opinion, it how the word is used in, namely filosofical, literature.

the word agnosticism however is a "existing" word

Yes, but while there will always be a leaning (no matter how miniscule) it is proper to just say agnostic. Most people understand that when someone is talking about agnostics, the agnostic more than likely has a leaning or gut feeling one way or another...

They're kindof like political moderates...

by gnostic atheists or theists I ment the people who are certain of themselves.
Maybe its my bad I didnt conclude this extra info in my earlier post, but it seemed pretty obvious to me.

You made a well reasoned post about agnostics. However, you're wrong about gnostic. It is originally a Greek word (the language the earliest writings that would become the NT was written in). Secondly, Gnostic in modern usage only refers to the religious sect of Christianity that existed in the first 2-4 centuries after Christ. Therefore, there can be no atheistic Gnostics.

Please, before you pass judgement on other people or other belief structures; learn about the people/group you're talking about. Then how 'inttelegent' you really are will shine down like a ray of illuminating sunshine...

Yeah well that ray of light shined on me a long time ago.

LOL...okay at least you've got a sense of humor my friend!

[Devildoubt]

At 12/5/06 05:57 PM, EKublai wrote:

At 12/5/06 05:40 PM, Devildoubt wrote:
Well, chaos is already randomness, but if everything SEEMS to fit in place, such as the structure of DNA or the Mandrelbrot set, there is a pattern/order in chaos.

That is the problem. To make the argument work. It must do more than
seem to persuade, but it must actually do so.

What do you mean by "doing"?

--Is it not enough to accept the patterns in nature?
--Are you questing the WHY and HOW patterns in nature such as DNA are made?
--Or are you questioning the REASON WHY humans have the capacity to see patterns?

Sorry, I don't quite understand...

[Imperator]

Like there is no real altruism in human nature, every example you would give could be relayed back to own advantage, still the word exists.

Not to interrupt the nice debate going on between you two, but this is false, and social psychologists, sociologists, etc have proven it.

They've even shown how altruism fits into Survival of the Fittest.

My personal experience that this is false comes from the fact that even IF everything gets relayed back to an advantage for the altruist, that advantage may not have been foreseen before the altruistic act takes place.

I think motive is the underlying force behind altruism. Therefore, despite the advantages, altruism can and does exist.

[TheMason]

At 12/5/06 09:06 PM, Imperator wrote:

Like there is no real altruism in human nature, every example you would give could be relayed back to own advantage, still the word exists.

I think the word I'm going to argue does not really exist is:

Blue

[ShardStorm]

Holy CRAP this is deep for Newgrounds.

just saying.

[EKublai]

At 12/5/06 08:50 PM, Devildoubt wrote: --Is it not enough to accept the patterns in nature?
--Are you questing the WHY and HOW patterns in nature such as DNA are made?
--Or are you questioning the REASON WHY humans have the capacity to see patterns?

Sorry, I don't quite understand...

I'm asking why it only seems to fit into a pattern, and why it is not obvious. I can understand why you would be able to see the randomness as a pattern of sorts. But as you said it only seems to be the case, bringing up the question wouldn't it be just as well that the randomness fits no pattern at all? And if all randomness turns out to fit the pattern what does it mean? In my view, it could not respect a pattern because the random life is unpredictable, we are unable to predict the future with the exception of a few cases. However, I concede that if what you expect from life is unpredictability, then you must be leading a very boring life, already knowing that what lies ahead is unknown.

[EKublai]

I see there's a debate on agnosticism. Not to interrupt, bu tI would like to putsome input as it seems I'm the one who sparked the discussion.

At the beginning of the thread I was definitely uncertain, concluding that I was an Agnostic Atheist. Now, I discover that this cannot be true because you cannot have to conflicting religious views. I also noticed that seeing as Atheism is a much more proper term to use for a religious view because what Agnoticism is, is an encompassing philosophical view that declares ignorance, which I think at this point is probably the keenest thing one can do at this point in terms of looking at the matter philosophically. Howver, Atheism is not necessarily the the belief in no higher being like a God, but the belief in the Knowledge there is no god. Therefore, Atheism is the only thing that can apply to religion and Agnoticism is merely the view that people take when they try to find the truth, and not to believe.

[cold-as-hell]

At 12/5/06 05:40 PM, Devildoubt wrote:

At 12/5/06 12:56 PM, cold-as-hell wrote:

At 12/4/06 11:34 PM, Devildoubt wrote: "Random chaos"?...Hmm...how about "ordered chaos"?

To many varibles

Well, chaos is already randomness, but if everything SEEMS to fit in place, such as the structure of DNA or the Mandrelbrot set, there is a pattern/order in chaos.

So im a world where everyone was always blue and water falls up would that be oredered chaos?

[EKublai]

At 12/5/06 11:41 PM, saiGLYPH wrote: I hold the belief that we are not the owners of our decisions, but share responsibility with all the variables that allowed that decision. You can speak out against a higher power because that higher power has given you the means to speak out against it. You can say society is not justice because society has taught you justice. I say society not as the stereotypical collective, but as more of a personal environment.

Is it really about excitement or about a sense of identity, self-affirmation? I think you’re simplifying this all a bit much to make a point that I’m honestly not convinced with. There are still numerous variables within the limitations set by the divine.

The little loophole here is that we function off of earthly desires, the human mind. That being said we don’t have the words nor the capacity to understand what is truly meant by the word happiness, except for the fact that such a condition is an enjoyable one. Of course, I’m still limited by human words and human perception. I would imagine that a mortal would hate heaven. I, nor you, can speak for a spirit.

By removing the absolute from the picture you’re technically free to classify anything you wish as perfection. This to me is a bit circular in thinking. You also seem to imply that the ‘eternal’ is not perfect, but perhaps it’s simply not perfect to the mortal?

I like a lot of what you have to say, especially in the last paragraph, the only thing that concerns me is that you seem to be leaning towards the thinking that all humankind can do is accept things the way they are in generalities. If that is all we can do, we are then accepting that there is no power to what we think, even though you previously stress the seperation of powers that create the decisions we make.

In discussing your strongest argument. I say that by removing the absolute, you are also being too vague about the path on finding perfection. Are you implying that the absolute is not perfection itself. For if it is, we are looking at a picture without perfection, there must be some flaw to it. I ask you, "What is the flaw that constitutes imperfection" Is it the fact that what the picture represents is only one moment in time, to forever go on as it was first made, much like eternal bliss, or is the perfection the missing pixels that did not come out quite right, once again proving that this world is not without its chaos, especially if we consider the pixels missing to be the answer to this question. WE may end up comparing the singular moment of a picture to eternal life in heaven or hell. Would you more likely wonder at a "technically" unflawed picture OR would you more likely wonder at the mystery behind those missing pixels? And being a mortal, would not I desire to keep the same mind in both lives. It is not a very good statement for the case of justice or in fact, free will. Many believe that such a thing does not exist in this case. ANd if this is the case, then wouldn't suffering go unhindered in both the mortal and immortal life?