I have converted to Christianity

[Logic]

I have Asperger's syndrome and I don't think Logic even has a mental illness or degenerative health condition.

Whether or not you "think" I have a mental illness is irrelevant. The reality is as follows: I have been diagnosed with psychotic depression and severe OCD.

[Hovik]

I'm sorry, but how exactly did existentialism lead to theism? That doesn't make a single bit of sense.

Provide your definition of "existentialism", then I will explain my position.

Existentialism is a philosophy that, in its contemporary form, was developed by such philosophers as Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoire.

The more pertinent issue at hand is how you are defining existentialism because contemporary existentialism is essentially the antithesis of theism for all practical purposes.

[Logic]

You still shouldn't rely on emotion for when it comes to figuring out what's real or not. Emotions do nothing.

And if what you said was true (and I don't think it is) how does that make religion the better method for explaining things?

You didn't answer the question. Why Christianity and not the other thousands of religion?

Why do you believe in god? Also, why the Christian god?

In my view, emotions are basis of subjective consciousness, so I think it is unfair to say that "emotions do nothing".

At which point did I say "religion" is better than science at explaining things? The scientific method, for which I have an incredibly vast amount of respect, is exceptional at explaining certain things, such as how gravity works, for example. I think certain religious philosophies are superior to science at explaining the subjective experience of unconditional love. As I have stated on numerous occasions, explaining love as a chemical reaction is valid, but it lacks depth; it does not explain the value, meaning or the profound nature of love.

Why Christianity? Because it feels right and true at this very moment; this might change tomorrow, but for the time being, it feels right. And before you say "you cannot rely on feelings", read about the importance of personal experience in the philosophical movement of existentialism. This link is a good starting point: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/

[Angrboda]

See troll. See troll post. Post, troll, post!




I get that same exact feeling from Xanax. For someone with a genius level IQ, you seem remarkably incapable of intelligent thought.

[Annik]

In my view, emotions are basis of subjective consciousness, so I think it is unfair to say that "emotions do nothing".

At which point did I say "religion" is better than science at explaining things? The scientific method, for which I have an incredibly vast amount of respect, is exceptional at explaining certain things, such as how gravity works, for example. I think certain religious philosophies are superior to science at explaining the subjective experience of unconditional love. As I have stated on numerous, explaining love as a chemical reaction is valid, but it lacks depth; it does not explain the value, meaning or the profound nature of love.

Why Christianity? Because it feels right and true at this very moment; this might change tomorrow, but for the time being, it feels right. And before you say "you cannot rely on feelings", read about the importance of personal experience in the philosophical movement of existentialism. This link is a good starting point: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/

Existence precedes Essence. Christianity is the exact opposite of that.

[Logic]

I get that same exact feeling from Xanax. For someone with a genius level IQ, you seem remarkably incapable of intelligent thought.

You get what feeling from Xanax? Another meaningless sweeping statement from an inept, discourteous and narcissistic moron.

[Ace Otana]

In my view, emotions are basis of subjective consciousness, so I think it is unfair to say that "emotions do nothing".

Nothing when it comes to ascertaining what is true and what is not. When it comes to fact finding, it's completely useless.
You can't tell what is real and what is just your imagination. What is reality and what is fiction. It's useless.

I think certain religious philosophies are superior to science at explaining the subjective experience of unconditional love. As I have stated on numerous, explaining love as a chemical reaction is valid, but it lacks depth; it does not explain the value, meaning or the profound nature of love.

So you just want more than 'love is just a chemical reaction'. You don't have to turn to religion to find a sense of meaning in love you silly. The fact that those feelings arise most powerful with a certain person is on it's own meaningful. Don't need to believe in an all knowing, all powerful universe making god to do it. That's just silly.

Why Christianity? Because it feels right and true at this very moment; this might change tomorrow, but for the time being, it feels right.

So you believe in sin? You believe Jesus died for our sins? You believe Jesus resurrected in three days? You've accepted Jesus as your saviour?
You actually believe in all this? Why?

[Hovik]

I like the part where you call yourself existentialist, yet you defy the very foundational aspect of existentialism by being Christian. Christians believe that God has a plan, or essentially that essence precedes our existence.

Existentialism's foundational premise is that existence comes first, then subjectivity -> self-defined essence. How can you claim self-actualization while simultaneously subjecting yourself to a belief system that calls for the opposite of self-actualization?

It sounds to me like you've read a basic article on existentialism, took the parts you thought were interesting and ignored everything important.

[Paul the Human]

It sounds to me like you've read a basic article on existentialism, took the parts you thought were interesting and ignored everything important.

That's how they do, Hovik. That's how they do.

[genkaus]

That's my point exactly! The law of non-contradiction was spawned by Aristotle approximately 2300 years ago. Why does everybody assume that this law applies to absolutely everything in existence? It clearly does not; contradictions exist all over the place, most impressively in field of quantum mechanics.

We still accept it because without it no proof, evidence or knowledge is possible. Even saying that the law of non-contradiction is inapplicable assumes that there can be only two cases -applicability and non-applicability - that it has to be one or the other, but not both.
And apparent contradictions in quantum mechanics are not actual contradictions.