RE: Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position
March 5, 2020 at 9:17 am
(This post was last modified: March 5, 2020 at 9:19 am by R00tKiT.)
Clearly, no amount of philosophy/argumentation will settle even the simplest doubts one can have about the god question. People can disagree on any concept, any attribute, any premise. This, again, confirms my post : God - the intersting kind of god - either gave us the answers to all this mess in an existing scripture, or doesn't exist. Case closed. End of story.
If you find yourself needing to learn hundreds of shunks of philosophy because you want to "reach god", you're already in the wrong direction. How can a god hide answers to the most fundamental questions of existence in arcane philosophy books? If educated, sophisticated people can't agree on a damn definition of some attribute of god after dozens of pages of arguments, how can the layman reach a satisfying certainty about a caring god who will rescucitate him and make up for any injustice he encountered in this life? A just God is both just to the educated people and to the layman. His justness implies accessible answers to all people, regardless of how clever they are, of whether they can handle length sophisticated arguments/refutations or not. Therefore, God either exists in one popular form the laymen believe in, or doesn't exist.
The god that Spinoza reached through his philosophical quest - an impersonal God, decidedly doesn't exist. Or at the very least, doesn't want us to exist. And because we should only look for a god who wants us to exist, scripture is our last and only hope.
Why Spinoza's God is unintersting? Because you have to be fucking Spinoza to have "some certainty" about this God's existence, or be educated enough to read Spinoza's works and fully understand them. And since this clearly isn't the case for most people, we have to look for answers elsewhere, that is, scripture.
That's why I find it laughable when some atheists complain about how "simplistic" the Qur'an is, for example. What they miss is, the Qur'an should be simplistic and appealing to all people. That's the first characteristic of any good candidate book for the 'word of god' award.
If you find yourself needing to learn hundreds of shunks of philosophy because you want to "reach god", you're already in the wrong direction. How can a god hide answers to the most fundamental questions of existence in arcane philosophy books? If educated, sophisticated people can't agree on a damn definition of some attribute of god after dozens of pages of arguments, how can the layman reach a satisfying certainty about a caring god who will rescucitate him and make up for any injustice he encountered in this life? A just God is both just to the educated people and to the layman. His justness implies accessible answers to all people, regardless of how clever they are, of whether they can handle length sophisticated arguments/refutations or not. Therefore, God either exists in one popular form the laymen believe in, or doesn't exist.
The god that Spinoza reached through his philosophical quest - an impersonal God, decidedly doesn't exist. Or at the very least, doesn't want us to exist. And because we should only look for a god who wants us to exist, scripture is our last and only hope.
Why Spinoza's God is unintersting? Because you have to be fucking Spinoza to have "some certainty" about this God's existence, or be educated enough to read Spinoza's works and fully understand them. And since this clearly isn't the case for most people, we have to look for answers elsewhere, that is, scripture.
That's why I find it laughable when some atheists complain about how "simplistic" the Qur'an is, for example. What they miss is, the Qur'an should be simplistic and appealing to all people. That's the first characteristic of any good candidate book for the 'word of god' award.
