Your Complete Opposite

[12ogue]

My friend's philosophies about God vs. Mine.
I met an awesome friend on WoW. I've talked to him for about 3-4 years because of that game and continue to talk even though both of us quit the game for a while. Unfortunately, he was completely different and could not agree with any of the ideas I had in mind.

He is a staunch atheist and refuses to believe in God. He even tried to bring up an argument scenario to discuss about faith. But I don't believe that he is an unintelligent person at all who has 10 year old comments. He was originally an Irish Catholic, and continued to believe in faith until he believed that God failed him. Now he continues to hate God and brings up numerous amounts of Athiest-based research on why God is fake. I believe he even went through books from ancient times to prove me wrong. (I didn't listen to him tbh when he gave me this LONG speech on past evidences).

The thing is, he understands Christianity quite well; the only problem for him is embracing it once again. But I also just recently embraced Christianity (4 months ago). Is there any way I can inform him through Christian philosophies rather than the Bible about the truth?

 

[Verv]

I would advise you to read C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity as an excellent resource for understanding the basics of Christian philosophy and ideas on things.

The next thing to really look into would be the writings of St. Thomas Acquinas that deal with origin of the Universe and the nex would be St. Augustine who answers amazing questions about Christianity and morality.

I find most of my religious arguments when not citing the Bible go back to these highly influential and profound thinkers.

 

[GoodNewsJim]

I've been a Christian for 4 years since 2006 when God spoke to me,"Good News" and the same day my dad hands me a Good News Bible.

I don't think there is anyway to convince some people out of their position.

You can explain to him that if he can play WOW that he has it pretty well off. If someone he knows died(what I took when you said God failed him), its no big deal, they'll be waiting for him in Heaven. Everything is pretty cool to the Christian believer. Maybe pray for him.

I don't see how you can wrestle him down philosophically into believing in Christ especially since the Christian philosophy devoid of God is pathetic. To surmise what the apostle Paul said,"If we live not for this life, but for the next, and it doesn't exist, then we deserve more pity than anyone in the world. Thankfully that's not the case."

 

[us38]

He is a staunch atheist and refuses to believe in God.

One can't refuse to believe in god. Or anything, for that matter. "Refuse" implies choice in the matter.

 

[DailyBlessings]

One can't refuse to believe in god. Or anything, for that matter. "Refuse" implies choice in the matter.

We do make choices, and they do influence how we believe. You are not born with a stamp on your head (or a gene in your composition) that tells you what you must believe. This is a matter of both our own reflection and the environments we are surrounded by.

 

[12ogue]

I've been a Christian for 4 years since 2006 when God spoke to me,"Good News" and the same day my dad hands me a Good News Bible.

I don't think there is anyway to convince some people out of their position.

You can explain to him that if he can play WOW that he has it pretty well off. If someone he knows died(what I took when you said God failed him), its no big deal, they'll be waiting for him in Heaven. Everything is pretty cool to the Christian believer. Maybe pray for him.

I don't see how you can wrestle him down philosophically into believing in Christ especially since the Christian philosophy devoid of God is pathetic. To surmise what the apostle Paul said,"If we live not for this life, but for the next, and it doesn't exist, then we deserve more pity than anyone in the world. Thankfully that's not the case."

Yeah, I guess it is definitely true that I can't convince him out of his position.

I guess I reworded things a bit incorrectly. He actually dislikes modern Christianity, and that became the chief reason why he decided to move away from the truth. He told me the rules they often set up seems selfish and self-centered. Not to mention totally unnecessary in many cases.

Basically, he tends to wish that Christianity was more traditional in a sense. The division between Christianity into several denominations and the influences many of the early Christian leaders such as Martin Luther and John Calvin gave to the churches were what he called the fall of Christianity. He disliked the idea of having arguments spread throughout Christianity and the divisions caused because of that.

 

[TheOutsider]

Now he continues to hate God and brings up numerous amounts of Athiest-based research on why God is fake.

An Atheist that hates God? How does that work?

 

[12ogue]

An Atheist that hates God? How does that work?

Yeah I reworded it a tad bit wrong D:. Read my second post on this thread ^^.

 

[us38]

We do make choices, and they do influence how we believe.

Believe that I have a unicorn in my house. Right now. You can't, not because you are refusing to believe, but because you are literally unable to make yourself believe.

You are not born with a stamp on your head (or a gene in your composition) that tells you what you must believe.

I didn't say that we were. I said that we didn't have a choice in what we believe. The world either persuades us to believe in something, or fails to persuade us to believe in something. What we find persuasive is not a matter of choice.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I didn't say that we were. I said that we didn't have a choice in what we believe. The world either persuades us to believe in something, or fails to persuade us to believe in something. What we find persuasive is not a matter of choice.

If this were true, wouldn't everyone have come to the same conclusion by now? Same world. None of us perceive everything around us- our brain filters out most of the information available to us. Part of this process is conscious, and part of it is not. But in any case, you have made a choice as to what kinds of information you are interested in perceiving and learning, and the way you understand the universe has been spun around that decision.

 

[us38]

If this were true, wouldn't everyone have come to the same conclusion by now? Same world.

Different criteria for persuasion, as well as different areas of the world.

None of us perceive everything around us- our brain filters out most of the information available to us.

True, but then one must ask if people's brains filter the same things.

Part of this process is conscious, and part of it is not.

None of it is. Again, I challenge you to believe that there's a unicorn in my house.

But in any case, you have made a choice as to what kinds of information you are interested in perceiving and learning, and the way you understand the universe has been spun around that decision.

Really? When did I make this choice? How do you know that I've made it?

 

[TheOutsider]

Different criteria for persuasion, as well as different areas of the world.
True, but then one must ask if people's brains filter the same things.
None of it is. Again, I challenge you to believe that there's a unicorn in my house.
Really? When did I make this choice? How do you know that I've made it?

Actually, he is correct. He is speaking of the Aneristic Illusion without knowing it.

Principia Discordia, P. 0049: With our concept making apparatus called "mind" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about- reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see "reality" differently. It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T True) reality is a level deeper that is the level of concept.

Sometimes we choose which grid to look through, sometimes it chooses us.

 

[daniel777]

basically all knowledge is esentially based on assumption......because of this, we use logic and reason and the law of non-contradiction to compare our assumptions with our other assumptions, ask questions, then question the assumptions of the questions, then question the questions that question the question's question, ect ect....and when and if u get an answer, question it also.

some people agharm cough co(atheists)gh then say "well then all truth must be relative(denying absolute/ultimate Truth)" but they forget to ask the question: why am i looking for Truth /philosophy in the first place?........(ntm the ridiculousness of the statement "all truth is relative".....) why do people seek so earnestly for meaning if it's non-existant?

ok nough of my rantings w/ the wii remote. if its choppy that's why.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

None of it is. Again, I challenge you to believe that there's a unicorn in my house.

Dude, there's a unicorn in your house? Hot damn, I don't suppose you could send me a picture?

 

[daniel777]

(if u friend has a good sense of humor lol) yes or no question for ur friend.

ask him if he believes in absolute truth. yes or no

this is where atheists become agnostic..."yes/no" or "maby" means the same "as i don't know."

the real q is : where is all that anger coming from?

more wii remoteness. if its choppy sorry.

 

[The Nihilist]

C. S. Lewis was an idiot. He hasn't the strength of intellect to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with him.

 

[us38]

Actually, he is correct. He is speaking of the Aneristic Illusion without knowing it.



Sometimes we choose which grid to look through, sometimes it chooses us.

I really don't know how you get that from that paragraph, or even that whole section. It says there are different grids, but says nothing of one choosing which to look through (and even if it did, the book's not necessarily right).

Dude, there's a unicorn in your house? Hot damn, I don't suppose you could send me a picture?

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

I'm thinking you perceived my joke in a fashion unintended by myself, nonetheless, I chuckled at it, so it's all good

Here's what I think, now I have two views on the matter of free will.

View 1: More of a religious view. If we have a soul, I would think such an entity would exist mostly disconnected from the experiences of the physical world, allowing it to make free decisions.

View 2: A common argument against free will is that we cannot make our own choices because we are made up of experiences, and it is those experiences that make up who we are and what decisions we will make, so therefore we cannot have free will. However, if we are those experiences, and those experiences are determining our choices, then it really is we who are making those decisions. Of course, view 2 is a rather weak view, but valid either way. Besides, I like to think I have free will anyways, even if I don't. It's one of those illusions that can't really hurt anyone, and I suppose I could be called a rebel...uh...rock on?

 

[TheOutsider]

I really don't know how you get that from that paragraph, or even that whole section. It says there are different grids, but says nothing of one choosing which to look through

I should have posted this, from the next page:

Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the ANERISTIC ILLUSION. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.

(and even if it did, the book's not necessarily right).

BLASPHEMY!!!

 

[elcapitan]

I'm thinking you perceived my joke in a fashion unintended by myself, nonetheless, I chuckled at it, so it's all good

Here's what I think, now I have two views on the matter of free will.

View 1: More of a religious view. If we have a soul, I would think such an entity would exist mostly disconnected from the experiences of the physical world, allowing it to make free decisions.

View 2: A common argument against free will is that we cannot make our own choices because we are made up of experiences, and it is those experiences that make up who we are and what decisions we will make, so therefore we cannot have free will. However, if we are those experiences, and those experiences are determining our choices, then it really is we who are making those decisions. Of course, view 2 is a rather weak view, but valid either way.

Or, as a variation of view 2, we cannot make our own choices because we are made up of chemicals (e.g. neurotransmitters), and it is those chemicals that make up who we are and what decisions we will make, so therefore we cannot have free will. However, if we are those chemicals, and those chemicals are determining our choices, then it really is we who are making those decisions.

Besides, I like to think I have free will anyways, even if I don't. It's one of those illusions that can't really hurt anyone, and I suppose I could be called a rebel...uh...rock on?

I'll agree to that