Thread: Soren Kierkegaard

If it is any consilation, I aplued you.

Mostly for making a choice without listening to how others will view you, and partly because (based on what I have heard of him) I respect him.

It's a long story worthy of another thread, but what I found out recently is that now, not only are Christians offended by me (still, even as a Christian), now the atheists think im an idiot.

I don't think your an idiot, just illogical.

Again this person is a normal christian, nothing more. I read the truth essay and it started off good then went into emotions being higher reasoning, which is false. He doesn't say anything unique, he only says rubbish like god is love e.t.c.

Again if he provide some decent evidence for god then I would listen, however not one piece of evidence. Although he is a good philosopher and proberly the smartest theologian person I have read.

Kierkegaard and his father shared a close bond. Kierkegaard learned to explore the realm of his imagination through a series of exercises and games they played together

Interesting I see if I can find more about the games he played.

It is not a rational decision, as it is transcending rationality in favour of something more uncanny, that is, faith. As such he thought that to have faith is at the same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt that God exists; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought, without which the faith would have no real substance. Doubt is an essential element of faith, an underpinning. In plain words, to believe or have faith that God exists, without ever having doubted God's existence or goodness, would not be a faith worth having. For example, it takes no faith to believe that a pencil or a table exists, when one is looking at it and touching it. In the same way, to believe or have faith in God is to know that one has no perceptual or any other access to God, and yet still has faith in God

Well, it looks like I have better faith then you keeper, as I don't believe in god and in kierkegaard own philosophy. Saying that Keeper you proberly believe in everything the bible says including the parts when god created man, which has no evidence, where you doubt here keeper. http://youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg well, keeper I think you should first watch this video and read Richard Dawkins book the god delusion. Your not a good example of what Soren Kierkegaard wanted a religious person to be like keeper, as you have little doubt.

Oh? How so? You don't even know me or my views, so how did you come to that assumption?

bitter? I hope not. For the record, Wendy, even his Critics said that he had a brilient mind, even when they didn't agree with him. Most of his critics exepted everything he said exept his religious views.

wendylove, proving the existence of God is not an important question. It doesn't matter to me anymore whether or not God exists.

Kierkegaard was no in the least bit a "normal Christian", he definitely had radical views during his time and attacked the established church constantly.

Faith in God is not subject to objective analysis like science, it is subjective, and yes, perhaps irrational. That's why Kierkegaard called it a "leap of faith". I would say, this is not necessarily a bad thing. There would be no faith if there was conclusive evidence of God. Faith implies doubt and uncertainty.

Being an "unwavering Christian" is a bit arrogant and naive. Any fool can believe in anything and be unwavering, but how many can truly doubt something but still come out as faithful? That is what Kierkegaard is talking about.

I do disagree with some of the things he has said specifically, but you learn from everyone, instead of being a typical arrogant neo-atheist and bowing down to the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett and screaming rationality every 5 seconds. We get it. There's no evidence for God.

Do I view atheists as lost puppies? Nope. Unfortunately many Christians will look at people will differing views as "lost", and I think that is loathsome. You should figure out whatever gives you meaning and purpose to life, and live it, wherever that path will take you.

You should figure out whatever gives you meaning and purpose to life, and live it, wherever that path will take you.

Yeah, the truth and this means looking at the evidence not belife or emotion. Kierkegaard was smart, however irrational.

You are assuming the nature of truth is scientific.

It is. You can have truth without evidence supporting it. Period.

Man, I love how people scream evidence and rationality every 5 seconds. Nice job being the open-minded atheist.

Going on blind faith, and stupidity isn't open-minded, it is close-minded, and stupid.

Here we go again.

No... This is ongoing. The truth DEMANDS evidence, thus logically ruling out gods as truth, there is no EVIDENCE. Case closed. xD

how do you define truth? And absolute truth?

Originally Posted by Keeper

how do you define truth? And absolute truth?

Truth - something that is correct
Absolute truth - Answer to every possible question, infinity I guess.

Truth- a correct statement
Absolute truth - Truth that is whole, thus answering an entire question without ringing new questions.


Differences = a truth can be out-of-context, and not define a whole answer
Absolute truth an NOT be out-of-context, and soves the whole question without any if, ands, or buts.