EPTobviously its far more illogical, because the leap of faith involved is far greater. im just saying that most people who consider themselves atheists are more likely agnostic, strictly speaking, because the thought processes that lead to 'atheism' often reject any leap of faith.
tasteless vs jahovas wittness - Page 3
| Blogs > MyLostTemple |
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
obviously its far more illogical, because the leap of faith involved is far greater. im just saying that most people who consider themselves atheists are more likely agnostic, strictly speaking, because the thought processes that lead to 'atheism' often reject any leap of faith. | ||
|
Snare
Trinidad/Tobago129 Posts
| ||
|
Bosu
United States3247 Posts
| ||
|
minus_human
4784 Posts
On January 30 2009 22:29 Snare wrote: Tasteless just lost a fan =] Why the hell is that? What does ANYTHING of his work, which is, presumably the reason most people who don't know him like him, have to do with his religious belief? OMG I hate that type of rationalization SO MUCH yeah fuck tasteless, he's a dirty non believer, who cares if he's the most funny English starcraft caster alive? | ||
|
ZZangDreamjOy
Canada959 Posts
Atheist's are just as bad as mormons, jehovah's witnesses, etc. Your just the other extreme of the religious spectrum. You still push YOUR beliefs (That there is no god, no afterlife etc) on others. I just wonder, why even bother? Who cares if there's a god or not, or if one religion is right or if a million are wrong. It doesn't effect our day to day life. We will all figure out the truth on our deathbed. | ||
|
TheFlashyOne
Canada450 Posts
To me, being Atheist is simply wrong and these people (obviously) can not back up their claim that they have a 100% certainty that God does not exist. I think these people we're simply fed up with religions and since they did not have any other direction, they ended up here without thinking about it too much. Agnostics are not as rigid. They believe that it's impossible to prove or disprove God's existence. At first glance, these wise words seems logical, modest and easy to adopt. I carefully considered being agnostic but i concluded that it still wasn't logical enough. Believing in God is the only logical option. I can easily imagine something to be eternal, but its inconceivable to imagine a process that has no beginning. Science made considerable advancements in our understanding of the birth of the Universe but we will never able to know what was the sparking element that set all the events in motion. God. It's impossible to argue against it. Life and death, molecules integration, oxygen, air travel, computers, vegetation and animals etc... The world is too complex and well synchronized to have just 'happened' without divine intervention. However, it's really important to make a distinction. I do not mean God in its traditional form; an Old man dressed in white with irreproachable ethics and almighty power, granting or denying salvation. I simply mean that the sparking element HAD to be from an intelligent and superior force somewhere. I will only be an agnostic in my description of that 'God' since yes, it's impossible to know how God looks like or behaves. I won't even speculate about whether God is inherently good or evil. | ||
|
minus_human
4784 Posts
On January 30 2009 22:57 TheFlashyOne wrote: Using the historical mega-fiasco of most religions (perhaps excepting only Hinduism and Buddhism) and highlighting how detrimental they have been to human life is not the right argument to validate or promote atheism. Granted, religions are mankind's greatest paradox. Designed to instill ethics, yet resulting in more dividing and more casualties. However, that's not what we are talking about. We're debating whether God exists. To me, being Atheist is simply wrong and these people (obviously) can not back up their claim that they have a 100% certainty that God does not exist. I think these people we're simply fed up with religions and since they did not have any other direction, they ended up here without thinking about it too much. Agnostics are not as rigid. They believe that it's impossible to prove or disprove God's existence. At first glance, these wise words seems logical, modest and easy to adopt. I carefully considered being agnostic but i concluded that it still wasn't logical enough. Believing in God is the only logical option. I can easily imagine something to be eternal, but its inconceivable to imagine a process that has no beginning. Science made considerable advancements in our understanding of the birth of the Universe but we will never able to know what was the sparking element that set all the events in motion. God. It's impossible to argue against it. Life and death, molecules integration, oxygen, air travel, computers, vegetation and animals etc... The world is too complex and well synchronized to have just 'happened' without divine intervention. However, it's really important to make a distinction. I do not mean God in its traditional form; an Old man dressed in white with irreproachable ethics and almighty power, granting or denying salvation. I simply mean that the sparking element HAD to be from an intelligent and superior force somewhere. I will only be an agnostic in my description of that 'God' since yes, it's impossible to know how God looks like or behaves. I won't even speculate about whether God is inherently good or evil. So basically you have a personal interpretation, which even though seems very logical, since there are no definite arguments, it may be logical only to you. So it's your personal choice of belief. Which makes it no different from being a traditional Christian or an intense atheist | ||
|
ZZangDreamjOy
Canada959 Posts
On January 30 2009 23:02 minus_human wrote: + Show Spoiler + On January 30 2009 22:57 TheFlashyOne wrote: Using the historical mega-fiasco of most religions (perhaps excepting only Hinduism and Buddhism) and highlighting how detrimental they have been to human life is not the right argument to validate or promote atheism. Granted, religions are mankind's greatest paradox. Designed to instill ethics, yet resulting in more dividing and more casualties. However, that's not what we are talking about. We're debating whether God exists. To me, being Atheist is simply wrong and these people (obviously) can not back up their claim that they have a 100% certainty that God does not exist. I think these people we're simply fed up with religions and since they did not have any other direction, they ended up here without thinking about it too much. Agnostics are not as rigid. They believe that it's impossible to prove or disprove God's existence. At first glance, these wise words seems logical, modest and easy to adopt. I carefully considered being agnostic but i concluded that it still wasn't logical enough. Believing in God is the only logical option. I can easily imagine something to be eternal, but its inconceivable to imagine a process that has no beginning. Science made considerable advancements in our understanding of the birth of the Universe but we will never able to know what was the sparking element that set all the events in motion. God. It's impossible to argue against it. Life and death, molecules integration, oxygen, air travel, computers, vegetation and animals etc... The world is too complex and well synchronized to have just 'happened' without divine intervention. However, it's really important to make a distinction. I do not mean God in its traditional form; an Old man dressed in white with irreproachable ethics and almighty power, granting or denying salvation. I simply mean that the sparking element HAD to be from an intelligent and superior force somewhere. I will only be an agnostic in my description of that 'God' since yes, it's impossible to know how God looks like or behaves. I won't even speculate about whether God is inherently good or evil. So basically you have a personal interpretation, which even though seems very logical, since there are no definite arguments, it may be logical only to you. So it's your personal choice of belief. Which makes it no different from being a traditional Christian or an intense atheist Actually, it make's him quite different, as he does not latch on to what others believe, and has his own belief system. | ||
|
minus_human
4784 Posts
On January 30 2009 23:05 ZZangDreamjOy wrote: Actually, it make's him quite different, as he does not latch on to what others believe, and has his own belief system. Even if it is, by definition, different since it's original, the fact that it is original does not make IT (the belief system) any more logical/true; it, possibly, only makes him different as a person. | ||
|
minus_human
4784 Posts
| ||
|
minus_human
4784 Posts
Also, I think we should stop, we're derailing Tasteless' blog without being of any help to him | ||
|
diehilde
Germany1596 Posts
On January 30 2009 22:57 TheFlashyOne wrote: Using the historical mega-fiasco of most religions (perhaps excepting only Hinduism and Buddhism) and highlighting how detrimental they have been to human life is not the right argument to validate or promote atheism. Granted, religions are mankind's greatest paradox. Designed to instill ethics, yet resulting in more dividing and more casualties. However, that's not what we are talking about. We're debating whether God exists. To me, being Atheist is simply wrong and these people (obviously) can not back up their claim that they have a 100% certainty that God does not exist. I think these people we're simply fed up with religions and since they did not have any other direction, they ended up here without thinking about it too much. Agnostics are not as rigid. They believe that it's impossible to prove or disprove God's existence. At first glance, these wise words seems logical, modest and easy to adopt. I carefully considered being agnostic but i concluded that it still wasn't logical enough. Believing in God is the only logical option. I can easily imagine something to be eternal, but its inconceivable to imagine a process that has no beginning. Science made considerable advancements in our understanding of the birth of the Universe but we will never able to know what was the sparking element that set all the events in motion. God. It's impossible to argue against it. Life and death, molecules integration, oxygen, air travel, computers, vegetation and animals etc... The world is too complex and well synchronized to have just 'happened' without divine intervention. However, it's really important to make a distinction. I do not mean God in its traditional form; an Old man dressed in white with irreproachable ethics and almighty power, granting or denying salvation. I simply mean that the sparking element HAD to be from an intelligent and superior force somewhere. I will only be an agnostic in my description of that 'God' since yes, it's impossible to know how God looks like or behaves. I won't even speculate about whether God is inherently good or evil. dude ur analogy is a) old and b) weak and proves nothing, let alone logically proving the existance of god. David Hume wrote a book called "Dialogues concerning natural religion" where you can find your exact argument in the mouth of Cleanthes, claiming the natural order of the universe proves the existence of an intelligent designer. Hume goes on and disproves that logic convinvingly through the character of Philo. You should read Humes book so you dont have to use outdated and disproved arguments from 200 years ago anymore... edit: also his belief is by no means original as others said... probably already proven by showing his exact opinion already is in a 200 year old book, but just to make it clear again, his belief is that of a classic deist, its nothing original. I suggest all of you read Humes book if you want some standard knowledge/education about the god question, Im sure it will help to differentiate your own standpoint a lot. | ||
|
tdotkrayz
United States136 Posts
Not to say that I don't respect him as a commentator anymore, but I don't respect him as a person the way I used to. | ||
|
minus_human
4784 Posts
| ||
|
iggyfisk
Sweden212 Posts
| ||
|
diehilde
Germany1596 Posts
While old as fuck, its still useful to put yourself in the argumentative/logically superior position against a theist. From there on it should be np to at least constitute that his religion has some serious logical flaws and since ur a rationalist, its impossible for you to believe in systems which base on logically flawed premises. This should get you rid of him. | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On January 30 2009 23:26 tdotkrayz wrote: I've lost a lot of respect for Tasteless... Not to say that I don't respect him as a commentator anymore, but I don't respect him as a person the way I used to. "i'd rather be hated for who i am than loved for who i am not" -kurt cobain | ||
MasterOfChaos
Germany2896 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comics/20070706.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comics/20070707.jpg) | ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
| ||
|
TheFlashyOne
Canada450 Posts
On January 30 2009 23:26 damenmofa wrote: dude ur analogy is a) old and b) weak and proves nothing, let alone logically proving the existance of god. David Hume wrote a book called "Dialogues concerning natural religion" where you can find your exact argument in the mouth of Cleanthes, claiming the natural order of the universe proves the existence of an intelligent designer. Hume goes on and disproves that logic convinvingly through the character of Philo. You should read Humes book so you dont have to use outdated and disproved arguments from 200 years ago anymore... edit: also his belief is by no means original as others said... probably already proven by showing his exact opinion already is in a 200 year old book, but just to make it clear again, his belief is that of a classic deist, its nothing original. I suggest all of you read Humes book if you want some standard knowledge/education about the god question, Im sure it will help to differentiate your own standpoint a lot. Well, A- it wasn't an analogy , B-My point wasn't weak and C- it does prove something. I didn't read Hume's book but i checked and he seems to argue against the Argument from design (my argument) but doesn't go as far as to deny the existence of god. That would simply make him an agnostic yet i'd be really curious to know what his arguments are about the impossibility of proving God's existence. Im not sure why the opinion of an 18th century scottish scholar should have preponderance over mine in this debate. | ||
| ||
