Comments for TheRationalGod http://www.therationalgod.com Just another WordPress weblog Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:27:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 Comment on Atheism Symbol by Kiplar http://www.therationalgod.com/archives/13#comment-34 Kiplar Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:42:06 +0000 http://therationalgod.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/atheism-symbol/#comment-34 It's amazing that the religious will try anything to discredit the athiests or agnostics of the world. One of the main reasons atheism is struggling to take hold in the world is that we are disorganised. You could almost say that we're trying to hold on to our free thoughts and individuality so as to not be classified like this. If we were to group, grow our ideas and spread them (sure, like you)I am sure we will finally rid this world of the evil that is religion. It’s amazing that the religious will try anything to discredit the athiests or agnostics of the world.

One of the main reasons atheism is struggling to take hold in the world is that we are disorganised. You could almost say that we’re trying to hold on to our free thoughts and individuality so as to not be classified like this.

If we were to group, grow our ideas and spread them (sure, like you)I am sure we will finally rid this world of the evil that is religion.

]]> Comment on Philosophy and God by zungus3 http://www.therationalgod.com/archives/6#comment-2 zungus3 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:29:05 +0000 http://therationalgod.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/philosophy-and-god/#comment-2 I have enjoyed reading about the Rational God on the website but that also raised a lot questions I had about Christianity. Since the bible bases its arguments on faith alone, can we then say that there is a lie in what its writers have written? For example can we say that the account of Jesus changing water into wine is just a misunderstanding by the writer of the story? Can we say that the writer of the story of Lazarus in the bible misunderstood what happened at the grave and thought that he was dead while it was not the case? The bible accounts of Jesus are the only material that is about miracles that has ever been written by many writers concuring regarding his power and his relationship to a God who is outside the universe. One might say that the disciples fabricated all the stories in the new testament since they were close to Jesus and since they wanted freedom from the Romans (which makes them likely to claim the powers of God that the Roman would fall for) but what about what Isiah writes in the chapter 53 which has been termed the prophecy about Jesus? Was that fabricated too or was that chapter just inseted after Jesus' death just to support the accounts of the New Testament? I would wish to hear thoughts on these questions. Thanks you. I have enjoyed reading about the Rational God on the website but that also raised a lot questions I had about Christianity. Since the bible bases its arguments on faith alone, can we then say that there is a lie in what its writers have written? For example can we say that the account of Jesus changing water into wine is just a misunderstanding by the writer of the story? Can we say that the writer of the story of Lazarus in the bible misunderstood what happened at the grave and thought that he was dead while it was not the case? The bible accounts of Jesus are the only material that is about miracles that has ever been written by many writers concuring regarding his power and his relationship to a God who is outside the universe. One might say that the disciples fabricated all the stories in the new testament since they were close to Jesus and since they wanted freedom from the Romans (which makes them likely to claim the powers of God that the Roman would fall for) but what about what Isiah writes in the chapter 53 which has been termed the prophecy about Jesus? Was that fabricated too or was that chapter just inseted after Jesus’ death just to support the accounts of the New Testament?

I would wish to hear thoughts on these questions.

Thanks you.

]]> Comment on Christian Science and Pantheism by Bible Versus and Gardens » Christian Science and Pantheism http://www.therationalgod.com/archives/18#comment-28 Bible Versus and Gardens » Christian Science and Pantheism Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:21:52 +0000 http://therationalgod.wordpress.com/2007/11/25/christian-science-and-pantheism/#comment-28 [...] Did you like this brief introduction? Find out about it in full detail here. [...] [...] Did you like this brief introduction? Find out about it in full detail here. [...]

]]> Comment on Materialism Philosophy by cafedog http://www.therationalgod.com/archives/22#comment-31 cafedog Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:01:18 +0000 http://therationalgod.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/materialism-philosophy/#comment-31 to me dawkins seems to stuck in Cause-and effect science to make any substantial statement on god and universe at large. Personally I still hold to field theory. I am glad i found your wonderful blog on pan-theism. still taking it in. to me dawkins seems to stuck in Cause-and effect science to make any substantial statement on god and universe at large. Personally I still hold to field theory.
I am glad i found your wonderful blog on pan-theism. still taking it in.

]]> Comment on A Definition of Monism by ikbol http://www.therationalgod.com/archives/19#comment-29 ikbol Wed, 09 Jan 2008 07:30:21 +0000 http://therationalgod.wordpress.com/2007/12/08/a-definition-of-monism/#comment-29 bit new at this - so if you reply, please let me know at rafa@blueyonder.co.uk bit new at this - so if you reply, please let me know at rafa@blueyonder.co.uk

]]> Comment on A Definition of Monism by ikbol http://www.therationalgod.com/archives/19#comment-30 ikbol Wed, 09 Jan 2008 07:29:02 +0000 http://therationalgod.wordpress.com/2007/12/08/a-definition-of-monism/#comment-30 There should ideally be a double definition of monism. You are talking about "substantive monism". There should also be a "behavioral monism" (which of course doesn't yet exist) - the view that there is one right way to behave in any situation. This should be set against a thoroughgoing [behavioral] pluralism, [also not yet existing] - the view that there are multiple effective ways to behave in any situation, and no one right or wrong way. There should ideally be a double definition of monism. You are talking about “substantive monism”. There should also be a “behavioral monism” (which of course doesn’t yet exist) - the view that there is one right way to behave in any situation. This should be set against a thoroughgoing [behavioral] pluralism, [also not yet existing] - the view that there are multiple effective ways to behave in any situation, and no one right or wrong way.

]]> Comment on Materialism Philosophy by thoughtintoaction http://www.therationalgod.com/archives/22#comment-32 thoughtintoaction Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:52:12 +0000 http://therationalgod.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/materialism-philosophy/#comment-32 This same thing came to mind as I reviewed the recent works of rambling atheists. To to be philosophical materialist is to say you don't believe in mathematics. If you believe in mathematics even though you cannot see, touch, feel, taste or smell it then you are not a philosophical materialist and should not present yourself as one. This same thing came to mind as I reviewed the recent works of rambling atheists. To to be philosophical materialist is to say you don’t believe in mathematics. If you believe in mathematics even though you cannot see, touch, feel, taste or smell it then you are not a philosophical materialist and should not present yourself as one.

]]> Comment on Understanding Spinoza by therationalgod http://www.therationalgod.com/archives/15#comment-17 therationalgod Sat, 10 Nov 2007 09:46:55 +0000 http://therationalgod.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/understanding-spinoza/#comment-17 Jpmanzi, The answers to your questions would probably depend on who you were talking to. I think the phrase "scientific pantheism" is just alluding to the fact that pantheism does not make any irrational assumptions. If science decrees some fact or idea then pantheists wouldn't wish to deny that fact. So they probably are the same, but why anyone adds the term scientific I am not really sure. The second part, is pantheism just another name for spiritual atheism is a more difficult question. I am sure that there are some who would call themselves spiritual atheists and pantheists at the same time. However, I don't think a spiritual atheist is necessarily a pantheist, nor is a pantheist a spiritual atheist. So no they are not the same. There may be some overlap between the two but there is also plenty of scope for a person to be one and not the other. Jpmanzi,

The answers to your questions would probably depend on who you were talking to. I think the phrase “scientific pantheism” is just alluding to the fact that pantheism does not make any irrational assumptions. If science decrees some fact or idea then pantheists wouldn’t wish to deny that fact. So they probably are the same, but why anyone adds the term scientific I am not really sure.

The second part, is pantheism just another name for spiritual atheism is a more difficult question. I am sure that there are some who would call themselves spiritual atheists and pantheists at the same time. However, I don’t think a spiritual atheist is necessarily a pantheist, nor is a pantheist a spiritual atheist. So no they are not the same.

There may be some overlap between the two but there is also plenty of scope for a person to be one and not the other.

]]> Comment on Understanding Spinoza by jpmanzi http://www.therationalgod.com/archives/15#comment-16 jpmanzi Tue, 06 Nov 2007 04:23:18 +0000 http://therationalgod.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/understanding-spinoza/#comment-16 Geez, Took me forever to find your site again. Accidently deleted it off the blogroll. I really need to do my homework on pantheism. Is there any difference between Pantheism and Scientific Pantheism. In no way do I mean to belittile pantheism by asking this but is PAN just another name for spiritual atheism> Geez,

Took me forever to find your site again. Accidently deleted it off the blogroll. I really need to do my homework on pantheism. Is there any difference between Pantheism and Scientific Pantheism. In no way do I mean to belittile pantheism by asking this but is PAN just another name for spiritual atheism>

]]> Comment on Atheism Symbol by tougar http://www.therationalgod.com/archives/13#comment-5 tougar Sun, 28 Oct 2007 03:55:34 +0000 http://therationalgod.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/atheism-symbol/#comment-5 interesting observation. interesting observation.

]]>