Theistic Inclinations

[Edwardo Piet]

[previously in response to Neo] Dude what I want and what I believe is irrelevant to the truth of the matter.

Furthermore, to follow this post up, if you believe that God knows what your future actions will be then it would be rational to conclude that you're a slave to fate too.

[Amarok]

Only someone like Neo could take the idea of freedom as a state of condemnation

[Edwardo Piet]

Only someone like Neo could take the idea of freedom as a state of condemnation

No... he was quoting the famous Existentialist Philosopher Jean Paul Sartre:

Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.

My bold.

[Amarok]

Only someone like Neo could take the idea of freedom as a state of condemnation

No... he was quoting the famous Existentialist Philosopher Jean Paul Sartre:

Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.

My bold.

I said he takes the idea seriously not that he thought up the idea (I don't think he's even that smart)

But really I agree it's just a way to get his Absentee/Abusive cosmic sky daddy of the hook

[Cyberman]

Only someone like Neo could take the idea of freedom as a state of condemnation

No... he was quoting the famous Existentialist Philosopher Jean Paul Sartre:

Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.

My bold.

Only up to the point at which Sartre becomes inconvenient. Then it's time for the bus.

[Edwardo Piet]

Indeed.

I think Sartre was full of shite anyways.

[Neo-Scholastic]

[previously in response to Neo] Dude what I want and what I believe is irrelevant to the truth of the matter.

Furthermore, to follow this post up, if you believe that God knows what your future actions will be then it would be rational to conclude that you're a slave to fate too.

That depends on one's theory of time (presentism, eternalism, or something else). I haven't taken a firm position, one way or the other. In the meantime, I will continue to live and believe that things are as they seem, i.e. that my decisions are real choices.

---

.. he was quoting the famous Existentialist Philosopher Jean Paul Sartre...

Only up to the point at which Sartre becomes inconvenient. Then it's time for the bus.

Fair enough. Sartre had a profound impact on me early in my study of philosophy and I've retained many of his views. I still consider myself an epitimological existentialist although I have shifted to a kind of metaphysical essentialism.

[Aroura]

What does "take full advantage of living as an unbeliever" even mean?  

Put it into context, Aroura. Firstly, it was theoretical as I was trying to see things through Neo's perspective. Also, I've said multiple times, that I think most atheists aren't atheist by choice. Most don't believe because they genuinely don't think it's true, and that's it. That's what I think, and I've made that clear on multiple occasions. I do think there probably are some people out there who don't believe simply because they don't really wanna be bothered with the guilt or responsibility or whatever that comes with it, and my theoretical scenario was in reference to them, if anything. Maybe they would otherwise feel guilty about doing things like sleeping around, using recreational drugs, partying heavily, etc etc, but feel no guilt so long as there isn't a higher power telling them not to. Again, I think people like that don't represent the majority of unbelievers, but I'm saying there could theoretically be people like that, and I can see why Neo would be concerned about pushing people like that further into it. If you are not like that, which I doubt you are, then don't be offended... it didn't apply to you.       

I'm sorry but you've written totally condensing posts, speaking as though theists are stupid and childish, and saying you're disgusted by people who teach faith to their kids (which is my mom and dad and hopefully me one day if I'm lucky enough to have a child).... yet get so offended so quickly at things we write. You're allowed to have those opinions. I just think it's inconsistent that you can dish it but not take any yourself.

I can accept legitimate criticism.  But you yourself just admitted this wasn't legitimate criticism. 

Whoever you were directing that comment about "take full advantage of living as an unbeliever" at, was not clear in the original post it was in.  Not that I agree with your clarification that some people don't believe so they can avoid guilt either, but I thank you for accepting that at least most people aren't like that.

I've said repeatedly I do NOT think theists are stupid, and that I think it is harmful to call them that.  However you are right that I have stated I think it's childish.  I include myself as an adult in that assessment, as I think I was behaving childishly when I was a believer.  I do not think thiests are stupid.  Period.  
I am disgusted that people teach children to accept things on faith alone, because it leads to all sorts of disastrous thinking about other things.  If it was just accepting God, I'd be fine, but it also lets in things like denying Global Climate Change, which will literally kill billions of people.  Am I not to be disgusted by something that will kill people?

Let me clarify again. I'm not upset by the belief in God in and of itself, I'm horrified at how it creates people who are unable to accept facts if those facts butts against the god belief, and how that chain reacts into the destruction of other life on this planet, and the denial of that destruction.

Yeah.  Call me a big meany.  Living through the Largest Extinction Event Since the Cretaceous, all the while religiously affiliated people deny it, or are unconcerned about it can cause that.  When everyone has their head in the sand while destruction is not only eminent but happening right around you is frustrating, to say the least.

[Edwardo Piet]

Furthermore, to follow this post up, if you believe that God knows what your future actions will be then it would be rational to conclude that you're a slave to fate too.

That depends on one's theory of time (presentism, eternalism, or something else

No it doesn't. That's not relevant. If God knows the future and the future is what will happen... whether the future only comes into existence when it becomes present or whether it already exists isn't relevant.

Not making up your mind on a theory of time isn't a way to refute the fact that if God knows what you will do then you can't do differently.

@Cyberman

You're good with words and terms... what do you think we should call the act of avoiding refuting a logical argument by using the excuse of simply not bothering to think about a related subject even when that related subject isn't quite even relevant to the logical argument anyways?

[Neo-Scholastic]

One possible way of looking at it is this. If all of time is fully present to God then God doesn't know now what you will do in the future because he already knows it then. That means he is only aware of the choice you make exactly at the time you make it. It's kind of a mind bender, I know but it has a certain sense about it.