|
On May 28 2011 01:37 Jayjay54 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:31 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 01:29 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 01:20 Tony Campolo wrote:On May 28 2011 01:19 Jayjay54 wrote:
No they are not. Maybe from your point of view. I just don't rule Zeus out. Nor do I say that I believe in him. I just don't know. I don't get what your point is. You kind of support what I'm saying. Zeus and God are just words for a higher entity. Both with strange habits. So yeah, maybe Thor's the way to go. WE DON'T FREAKIN know. and again: You can refuse to answer a yes or no question even if the answers rule each other out. And that's a third position. You don't have to chose sides. Just because you think higher entities, afterlife and all that jazz is highly unlikely, it does not mean everybody has to think the same. Same applies to religion. To deal with the dilemma you just don't answer. If you ask somebody a question and he doesn't answer, how would you describe his points of view to somebody else other than "he didn't say". Right, you can't even though it was a yes or no question. Atheism is not the position that we DO KNOW don't you freakin get it? Jesus crow. But you DO rule higher entities out. Show nested quote + Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Sounds to me, that you seems to know something I don't. Or at least believe something. Even though you say that there has yet to be a prove, I say it is as questionable what has to be proved as what exist and what not. I refuse to say "I believe in god" and I also refuse to say "I deny god's existence". I obviously got a different opinion then you have. You might want to argue. But why argue with "I don't know"
Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]
That's a pretty important one you left out there.
Do you believe in God? If your answer is not "yes" then you are an atheist.
|
On May 28 2011 01:38 Tony Campolo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:35 Bibdy wrote:
It's a little more complicated than that. Atheism is the belief there are no deities. Ergo, that means they believe that everything in the universe can be explained by science, math, whatever. But, we haven't discovered it all, yet. So, where does that belief stem from? Faith.
Faith isn't synonymous with a deity. You can have faith in many things outside of them. The part I have bolded is a load of crap, science does not claim that everything can be explained. It is possible that some things cannot be explained, whether yet or ever. It obviously suits your argument to claim that science claims to be able to answer all the questions.
Well if not a deity, then what else is there? If an all-powerful being didn't create life, and it wasn't a statistical inevitability based on the laws of physics this particular universe was born with, what's left?
|
On May 28 2011 01:35 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 00:54 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 00:51 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 00:44 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 00:40 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 00:26 Olinim wrote:On May 27 2011 23:25 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:28 krbz wrote:On May 27 2011 15:19 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:15 atheistaphobe wrote:
[quote]
Social Sciences prove again and again that devout Christians live a healthier life and that prayer has an effect.
Atheism is nothing. It cannot be proved.
. What about atheism have to be proved. I actually really don't get that :S Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god. Theism is the "belief" that their is a god. They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly. Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. ^aka - The logical choice. Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism. But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist. Unless you can show me proof for either. Guess that makes me agnostic. "Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities" actually, it is a third position. agnoticism does not judge the likeliness of a god nor refuses god or other higher instances. they just say that they don't know. did u ever see a poll? the answers are usually "Yes", "No" and "I don't know" (or similar). I consider myself an agnostic. and not an atheist. Meaning of Life and Life itself is pretty hard to explain. Where does everything come from? Why am I here? etc. All question not answered by scientist. Even the Big Bang does not explain why everything is as it is. Why particles behave as they do. Gravitrons, Higgs Bosons or whatever. Where do the rules come from? And if you can point that out, I'll probably answer with and why is that and you would have the next task. So whenever somebody asks me about all this I just say I don't freakin know, how can I? and this position is absolutely distinct from there can't be a god. Cause there can be one. or two. or we're just an experiment. or this is a pretty cool video game of the future and you wake up when u die. And if they ask me what I think is the most possible solution is, I'll answer with " I DON'T FREAKIN KNOW" and get me a beer 'I don't know" Isn't a position, you either hold a belief or you have an absence of one, whether you refuse to acknowledge this is irrelevant. Atheism doesn't claim to know either, it's merely "I have an absence of a belief in God, but it is not certain that one does not exist" You sound to me like an agnostic atheist. You obviously have a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism, what with the quote"there can not be a God", that's not what it is. "distinct from the position there can't be a god" Like I've repeated several times, not atheism. Of course its a position. It's just not a belief, stemmed from faith. It is, in effect, the absence of faith. So, does that mean that atheists are a step above agnostics in the eyes of religion, because they also believe in something without evidence? This is pure nonsense. It's like saying it requires faith to not believe in the easter bunny. By your logic, every belief ever requires faith. Theists make the claim that there is a God, therefore the burden of proof lies on them. Therefore the neutral position is an atheistic one, and thus doesn't require faith. It's a little more complicated than that. Atheism is the belief there are no deities. Ergo, that means they believe that everything in the universe can be explained by science, math, whatever. But, we haven't discovered it all, yet. So, where does that belief stem from? Faith.
Where does your belief that you won't get bad luck if you walk under a ladder come from? Faith.
This is a nonsense theist argument designed to shift the burden of proof to the atheist, in an attempt to make it sound like they both are equally illogical. You could say basically everything requires "faith" since absolutely nothing can be 100 percent.
|
On May 28 2011 01:31 Tony Campolo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:29 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 01:20 Tony Campolo wrote:On May 28 2011 01:19 Jayjay54 wrote:
No they are not. Maybe from your point of view. I just don't rule Zeus out. Nor do I say that I believe in him. I just don't know. I don't get what your point is. You kind of support what I'm saying. My point is, a five year old kid can tell you that Zeus is just Greek fiction. Yet you seem to think that a fictional book like the Bible and its fictional main character somehow holds enough weight for you to say you don't know. I could write a book right now claiming that the God of the universe is a penis, and you'd have to say you didn't know if what I wrote could be real or not.
Wow, What a baaad post. Sorry. Of course bible didn't happen. And of course Zeus was not there (even though it would have been cool). And of course evolution has happened.
We're not talking about bible and greek mythology. We're talking about higher entities in general. Name does not matter. That is what atheist and agnoticism is about. I thought, we'd already agreed on that.
|
On May 27 2011 15:33 Emperor_Earth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 15:16 revy wrote:On May 27 2011 14:47 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 14:42 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 27 2011 14:39 Jibba wrote:On May 27 2011 14:36 mastergriggy wrote:
Maybe you can explain to me where in the bill of rights the school has to cancel the tradition because some guy opposes it? I mean god forbid it goes both ways. It's an unconstitutional tradition. Law is the basis of the nation state, not religion and not tradition. Actually tradition is a source of rights, but only where law and doctrine don't say anything, if I remember correctly. I find it hilarious though that these things can cause a ruckus in the U.S. In Sweden which is one of the least religious countries in the entire world everyone goes to church at the end of semester until they finish high school. Why? Because it's a tradition and no parent is really scared that listening to a priest for half an hour is gonna twist the minds of their children. It was always really boring though  The reason this is a big deal in America is because it has been a guiding principle since the start of the country. Many early settlers of America were people fleeing England to avoid religious prosecution for not following the church of England. Thus, when the bill of rights passed there was included a line that congress was not to pass a law setting up a state religion nor prevent the practice of a religion. In effect it is interpreted as though the state (public schools being an officer of the state) cannot lead prayer inside the class or during school events. The school cannot stop students from praying, and could for instance leave a moment of silence for people to pray, but it cannot lead the students in prayer. Had this incident occurred at a private school the kid wouldn't have a leg to stand on as a private school is not the state. I have always thought this to be a source of amusement because the general knowledge on this matter is quite often a misunderstood perspective. The original settlers (Puritans) of the Bay Area in 'Chusetts definitely left because of religious persecution. But they certainly weren't "forward-thinking" or "liberal". No, our founders' ancestors were the most mouth-foaming extreme-right conservatives you could imagine. Remember, England was considered the conservative stepchild of Europe at the time... and these Puritans were so extreme religiously and conservative lifestyle wise that the powers that be in England had enough of them... So they kicked them off to a new World and ... well... here we are. Greatest country EVAR!!@#
There's no doubt that the puritan's weren't liberal, but the original puritans didn't write the constitution. The founding fathers wrote it and I'm fairly certainly they included the establishment clause because of the many peoples who fled to america for freedom to practice religion. The puritans also weren't the only group to come to america for this reason.
|
On May 28 2011 01:37 Jayjay54 wrote:But you DO rule higher entities out. Show nested quote + Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Sounds to me, that you seems to know something I don't. Or at least believe something. Even though you say that there has yet to be a prove, I say it is as questionable what has to be proved as what exist and what not. I refuse to say "I believe in god" and I also refuse to say "I deny god's existence". I obviously got a different opinion then you have. You might want to argue. But why argue with "I don't know"
EDIT - post no longer relevant in light of your recent post above this.
|
On May 28 2011 01:39 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:38 Tony Campolo wrote:On May 28 2011 01:35 Bibdy wrote:
It's a little more complicated than that. Atheism is the belief there are no deities. Ergo, that means they believe that everything in the universe can be explained by science, math, whatever. But, we haven't discovered it all, yet. So, where does that belief stem from? Faith.
Faith isn't synonymous with a deity. You can have faith in many things outside of them. The part I have bolded is a load of crap, science does not claim that everything can be explained. It is possible that some things cannot be explained, whether yet or ever. It obviously suits your argument to claim that science claims to be able to answer all the questions. Well if not a deity, then what else is there? If an all-powerful being didn't create life, and it wasn't a statistical inevitability based on the laws of physics this particular universe was born with, what's left?
Don't know. But just because I don't know what the explanation is, doesn't mean the answer automatically defaults to: "Because God created it."
You could show an airplane to someone in Africa who's never seen a plane before and ask them to explain it. They might try to explain it by saying it's the wind Gods and that the plane is a giant bird that is a God of Birds. Obviously we know that that's bullshit and that the reason for it's flight is because it's a machine created by man through physics and aerodynamics and shit. But the point is, just because you don't know the answer to something, doesn't mean that God must be the explanation if there is no other explanation you can think of. Obviously you wouldn't rule God out completely, but you wouldn't rule God out just as you wouldn't rule out a giant penis being responsible for the creation of the world - both theories (God and a giant penis) are equally valid as they are both equally fictional theories that hold no weight.
|
On May 28 2011 01:39 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:35 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 00:54 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 00:51 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 00:44 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 00:40 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 00:26 Olinim wrote:On May 27 2011 23:25 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:28 krbz wrote:On May 27 2011 15:19 Popss wrote:
[quote]
What about atheism have to be proved.
I actually really don't get that :S Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god. Theism is the "belief" that their is a god. They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly. Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. ^aka - The logical choice. Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism. But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist. Unless you can show me proof for either. Guess that makes me agnostic. "Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities" actually, it is a third position. agnoticism does not judge the likeliness of a god nor refuses god or other higher instances. they just say that they don't know. did u ever see a poll? the answers are usually "Yes", "No" and "I don't know" (or similar). I consider myself an agnostic. and not an atheist. Meaning of Life and Life itself is pretty hard to explain. Where does everything come from? Why am I here? etc. All question not answered by scientist. Even the Big Bang does not explain why everything is as it is. Why particles behave as they do. Gravitrons, Higgs Bosons or whatever. Where do the rules come from? And if you can point that out, I'll probably answer with and why is that and you would have the next task. So whenever somebody asks me about all this I just say I don't freakin know, how can I? and this position is absolutely distinct from there can't be a god. Cause there can be one. or two. or we're just an experiment. or this is a pretty cool video game of the future and you wake up when u die. And if they ask me what I think is the most possible solution is, I'll answer with " I DON'T FREAKIN KNOW" and get me a beer 'I don't know" Isn't a position, you either hold a belief or you have an absence of one, whether you refuse to acknowledge this is irrelevant. Atheism doesn't claim to know either, it's merely "I have an absence of a belief in God, but it is not certain that one does not exist" You sound to me like an agnostic atheist. You obviously have a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism, what with the quote"there can not be a God", that's not what it is. "distinct from the position there can't be a god" Like I've repeated several times, not atheism. Of course its a position. It's just not a belief, stemmed from faith. It is, in effect, the absence of faith. So, does that mean that atheists are a step above agnostics in the eyes of religion, because they also believe in something without evidence? This is pure nonsense. It's like saying it requires faith to not believe in the easter bunny. By your logic, every belief ever requires faith. Theists make the claim that there is a God, therefore the burden of proof lies on them. Therefore the neutral position is an atheistic one, and thus doesn't require faith. It's a little more complicated than that. Atheism is the belief there are no deities. Ergo, that means they believe that everything in the universe can be explained by science, math, whatever. But, we haven't discovered it all, yet. So, where does that belief stem from? Faith. Where does your belief that you won't get bad luck if you walk under a ladder come from? Faith. This is a nonsense theist argument designed to shift the burden of proof to the atheist, in an attempt to make it sound like they both are equally illogical. You could say basically everything requires "faith" since absolutely nothing can be 100 percent.
See, that's exactly what I mean. You compare believing in god with walking under a ladder thus judging the likeliness.
And from the agnoticism point of view, you just can't do that. Because, you can't even judge the likeliness due to lack of information. You just assume that the non existence of god is more likely that the existence. I don't share that view (look at my past posts, event horizon, origin of matter, borders of universe, meaning of life in gerenal).
At the same time the idea of god is just as questionable. I don't want to rate the likeliness. So I don't know where the burden of proof has to be. Thus, i can't answer the "Do you believe in god question" other with "I can't say"
|
On May 28 2011 01:39 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:35 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 00:54 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 00:51 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 00:44 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 00:40 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 00:26 Olinim wrote:On May 27 2011 23:25 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:28 krbz wrote:On May 27 2011 15:19 Popss wrote:
[quote]
What about atheism have to be proved.
I actually really don't get that :S Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god. Theism is the "belief" that their is a god. They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly. Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. ^aka - The logical choice. Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism. But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist. Unless you can show me proof for either. Guess that makes me agnostic. "Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities" actually, it is a third position. agnoticism does not judge the likeliness of a god nor refuses god or other higher instances. they just say that they don't know. did u ever see a poll? the answers are usually "Yes", "No" and "I don't know" (or similar). I consider myself an agnostic. and not an atheist. Meaning of Life and Life itself is pretty hard to explain. Where does everything come from? Why am I here? etc. All question not answered by scientist. Even the Big Bang does not explain why everything is as it is. Why particles behave as they do. Gravitrons, Higgs Bosons or whatever. Where do the rules come from? And if you can point that out, I'll probably answer with and why is that and you would have the next task. So whenever somebody asks me about all this I just say I don't freakin know, how can I? and this position is absolutely distinct from there can't be a god. Cause there can be one. or two. or we're just an experiment. or this is a pretty cool video game of the future and you wake up when u die. And if they ask me what I think is the most possible solution is, I'll answer with " I DON'T FREAKIN KNOW" and get me a beer 'I don't know" Isn't a position, you either hold a belief or you have an absence of one, whether you refuse to acknowledge this is irrelevant. Atheism doesn't claim to know either, it's merely "I have an absence of a belief in God, but it is not certain that one does not exist" You sound to me like an agnostic atheist. You obviously have a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism, what with the quote"there can not be a God", that's not what it is. "distinct from the position there can't be a god" Like I've repeated several times, not atheism. Of course its a position. It's just not a belief, stemmed from faith. It is, in effect, the absence of faith. So, does that mean that atheists are a step above agnostics in the eyes of religion, because they also believe in something without evidence? This is pure nonsense. It's like saying it requires faith to not believe in the easter bunny. By your logic, every belief ever requires faith. Theists make the claim that there is a God, therefore the burden of proof lies on them. Therefore the neutral position is an atheistic one, and thus doesn't require faith. It's a little more complicated than that. Atheism is the belief there are no deities. Ergo, that means they believe that everything in the universe can be explained by science, math, whatever. But, we haven't discovered it all, yet. So, where does that belief stem from? Faith. Where does your belief that you won't get bad luck if you walk under a ladder come from? Faith. This is a nonsense theist argument designed to shift the burden of proof to the atheist, in an attempt to make it sound like they both are equally illogical. You could say basically everything requires "faith" since absolutely nothing can be 100 percent.
No, Theism vs Atheism is still boiled down to a belief in a deity or not and the ultimate reasoning is to explain how the universe works. Life itself; if you don't think a deity did it, you BELIEVE something else did it. Why can't the burden of proof be on both sides of the line? This is where Agnosticism comes in.
Also, you're misinterpreting me. I'm not a theist in any way, shape or form. I'm just sitting back and watching the hypocrisy fly backwards and forwards.
|
On May 28 2011 01:45 Jayjay54 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:39 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 01:35 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 00:54 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 00:51 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 00:44 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 00:40 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 00:26 Olinim wrote:On May 27 2011 23:25 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:28 krbz wrote:
[quote]
Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god.
Theism is the "belief" that their is a god.
They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly.
Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
^aka - The logical choice. Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism. But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist. Unless you can show me proof for either. Guess that makes me agnostic. "Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities" actually, it is a third position. agnoticism does not judge the likeliness of a god nor refuses god or other higher instances. they just say that they don't know. did u ever see a poll? the answers are usually "Yes", "No" and "I don't know" (or similar). I consider myself an agnostic. and not an atheist. Meaning of Life and Life itself is pretty hard to explain. Where does everything come from? Why am I here? etc. All question not answered by scientist. Even the Big Bang does not explain why everything is as it is. Why particles behave as they do. Gravitrons, Higgs Bosons or whatever. Where do the rules come from? And if you can point that out, I'll probably answer with and why is that and you would have the next task. So whenever somebody asks me about all this I just say I don't freakin know, how can I? and this position is absolutely distinct from there can't be a god. Cause there can be one. or two. or we're just an experiment. or this is a pretty cool video game of the future and you wake up when u die. And if they ask me what I think is the most possible solution is, I'll answer with " I DON'T FREAKIN KNOW" and get me a beer 'I don't know" Isn't a position, you either hold a belief or you have an absence of one, whether you refuse to acknowledge this is irrelevant. Atheism doesn't claim to know either, it's merely "I have an absence of a belief in God, but it is not certain that one does not exist" You sound to me like an agnostic atheist. You obviously have a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism, what with the quote"there can not be a God", that's not what it is. "distinct from the position there can't be a god" Like I've repeated several times, not atheism. Of course its a position. It's just not a belief, stemmed from faith. It is, in effect, the absence of faith. So, does that mean that atheists are a step above agnostics in the eyes of religion, because they also believe in something without evidence? This is pure nonsense. It's like saying it requires faith to not believe in the easter bunny. By your logic, every belief ever requires faith. Theists make the claim that there is a God, therefore the burden of proof lies on them. Therefore the neutral position is an atheistic one, and thus doesn't require faith. It's a little more complicated than that. Atheism is the belief there are no deities. Ergo, that means they believe that everything in the universe can be explained by science, math, whatever. But, we haven't discovered it all, yet. So, where does that belief stem from? Faith. Where does your belief that you won't get bad luck if you walk under a ladder come from? Faith. This is a nonsense theist argument designed to shift the burden of proof to the atheist, in an attempt to make it sound like they both are equally illogical. You could say basically everything requires "faith" since absolutely nothing can be 100 percent. See, that's exactly what I mean. You compare believing in god with walking under a ladder thus judging the likeliness. And from the agnoticism point of view, you just can't do that. Because, you can't even judge the likeliness due to lack of information. You just assume that the non existence of god is more likely that the existence. I don't share that view (look at my past posts, event horizon, origin of matter, borders of universe, meaning of life in gerenal). At the same time the idea of god is just as questionable. I don't want to rate the likeliness. So I don't know where the burden of proof has to be. Thus, i can't answer the "Do you believe in god question" other with "I can't say"
Then you are an agnostic atheist.
|
On May 28 2011 01:45 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:39 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 01:35 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 00:54 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 00:51 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 00:44 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 00:40 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 00:26 Olinim wrote:On May 27 2011 23:25 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:28 krbz wrote:
[quote]
Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god.
Theism is the "belief" that their is a god.
They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly.
Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
^aka - The logical choice. Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism. But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist. Unless you can show me proof for either. Guess that makes me agnostic. "Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities" actually, it is a third position. agnoticism does not judge the likeliness of a god nor refuses god or other higher instances. they just say that they don't know. did u ever see a poll? the answers are usually "Yes", "No" and "I don't know" (or similar). I consider myself an agnostic. and not an atheist. Meaning of Life and Life itself is pretty hard to explain. Where does everything come from? Why am I here? etc. All question not answered by scientist. Even the Big Bang does not explain why everything is as it is. Why particles behave as they do. Gravitrons, Higgs Bosons or whatever. Where do the rules come from? And if you can point that out, I'll probably answer with and why is that and you would have the next task. So whenever somebody asks me about all this I just say I don't freakin know, how can I? and this position is absolutely distinct from there can't be a god. Cause there can be one. or two. or we're just an experiment. or this is a pretty cool video game of the future and you wake up when u die. And if they ask me what I think is the most possible solution is, I'll answer with " I DON'T FREAKIN KNOW" and get me a beer 'I don't know" Isn't a position, you either hold a belief or you have an absence of one, whether you refuse to acknowledge this is irrelevant. Atheism doesn't claim to know either, it's merely "I have an absence of a belief in God, but it is not certain that one does not exist" You sound to me like an agnostic atheist. You obviously have a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism, what with the quote"there can not be a God", that's not what it is. "distinct from the position there can't be a god" Like I've repeated several times, not atheism. Of course its a position. It's just not a belief, stemmed from faith. It is, in effect, the absence of faith. So, does that mean that atheists are a step above agnostics in the eyes of religion, because they also believe in something without evidence? This is pure nonsense. It's like saying it requires faith to not believe in the easter bunny. By your logic, every belief ever requires faith. Theists make the claim that there is a God, therefore the burden of proof lies on them. Therefore the neutral position is an atheistic one, and thus doesn't require faith. It's a little more complicated than that. Atheism is the belief there are no deities. Ergo, that means they believe that everything in the universe can be explained by science, math, whatever. But, we haven't discovered it all, yet. So, where does that belief stem from? Faith. Where does your belief that you won't get bad luck if you walk under a ladder come from? Faith. This is a nonsense theist argument designed to shift the burden of proof to the atheist, in an attempt to make it sound like they both are equally illogical. You could say basically everything requires "faith" since absolutely nothing can be 100 percent. No, Theism vs Atheism is still boiled down to a belief in a deity or not and the ultimate reasoning is to explain how the universe works. Life itself; if you don't think a deity did it, you BELIEVE something else did it. Why can't the burden of proof be on both sides of the line? This is where Agnosticism comes in. Also, you're misinterpreting me. I'm not a theist in any way, shape or form. I'm just sitting back and watching the hypocrisy fly backwards and forwards.
If you don't hold a belief in God, then you are an atheist, sorry to break it to you man.
|
Why the fuck would anyone demean someone for believing, or lack thereof, of? He's a human, he can believe whatever he believes. If you're an ignorant asshole enough to think he's a worse person because of it, then I don't want to have anything to do with you.
|
Leave for 10 pages, original intent of the OP is completely gone.
Good job TL forumgoers.
|
Religious views aside, getting disowned by your parents when you need them the most is nothing short of horrible. His parents should be greatly ashamed to be on the negative part of this.
|
And that's why the attitude the kid and mob had is wrong.
What's the point in arguing about who's wrong or who's how wrong. It's these types of discussions that lead to people trying to shove each other's "religions" or lack of, down each others throats. Doesn't matter if the kid was an atheist and if the mobs were christians or not, all that matters is what happened.
|
On May 28 2011 01:45 Bibdy wrote:
No, Theism vs Atheism is still boiled down to a belief in a deity or not and the ultimate reasoning is to explain how the universe works. Life itself; if you don't think a deity did it, you BELIEVE something else did it. Why can't the burden of proof be on both sides of the line? This is where Agnosticism comes in.
Why do you need to BELIEVE something did it? What if nothing did it, and it was always there? The point is, we don't know. But that doesn't mean something must have done it.
African tribes believe in gods. Just because one African doesn't BELIEVE the river was cried out in tears by some giant goddess who had her heart broken, doesn't mean they they must BELIEVE that it was cried by someone or something else. They lack the intelligence to realise that rivers aren't cried but rather a result of rainfall etc.
Likewise just because atheists don't BELIEVE that a god created the world, doesn't mean that they must BELIEVE that it was created by something else. The answer could be something completely different, we may just not know yet (or may never know).
|
On May 28 2011 01:48 Treva wrote:
Religious views aside, getting disowned by your parents when you need them the most is nothing short of horrible. His parents should be greatly ashamed to be on the negative part of this.
He was far from positive too, i know i'd disown by dumbshit kid for making a fool of himself that way for one. If he managed to stir the pot that way in a highschool, that's the kind of kid somebody will manipulate to kill a politician.
|
On May 28 2011 01:49 Cyba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:48 Treva wrote:
Religious views aside, getting disowned by your parents when you need them the most is nothing short of horrible. His parents should be greatly ashamed to be on the negative part of this. He was far from positive too, i know i'd disown by dumbshit kid for making a fool of himself that way for one.
Please don't ever have kids, or else you are one and don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
|
never recognise that you are an atheist imo , you have only to lose for it
just say you believe and ppl might think you're stupid or so , but atleast you are not discriminated..
just my 2c
|
On May 28 2011 01:47 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:45 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 01:39 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 01:35 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 00:54 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 00:51 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 00:44 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 00:40 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 00:26 Olinim wrote:On May 27 2011 23:25 Popss wrote:
[quote]
Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism.
But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist.
Unless you can show me proof for either.
Guess that makes me agnostic. "Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities" actually, it is a third position. agnoticism does not judge the likeliness of a god nor refuses god or other higher instances. they just say that they don't know. did u ever see a poll? the answers are usually "Yes", "No" and "I don't know" (or similar). I consider myself an agnostic. and not an atheist. Meaning of Life and Life itself is pretty hard to explain. Where does everything come from? Why am I here? etc. All question not answered by scientist. Even the Big Bang does not explain why everything is as it is. Why particles behave as they do. Gravitrons, Higgs Bosons or whatever. Where do the rules come from? And if you can point that out, I'll probably answer with and why is that and you would have the next task. So whenever somebody asks me about all this I just say I don't freakin know, how can I? and this position is absolutely distinct from there can't be a god. Cause there can be one. or two. or we're just an experiment. or this is a pretty cool video game of the future and you wake up when u die. And if they ask me what I think is the most possible solution is, I'll answer with " I DON'T FREAKIN KNOW" and get me a beer 'I don't know" Isn't a position, you either hold a belief or you have an absence of one, whether you refuse to acknowledge this is irrelevant. Atheism doesn't claim to know either, it's merely "I have an absence of a belief in God, but it is not certain that one does not exist" You sound to me like an agnostic atheist. You obviously have a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism, what with the quote"there can not be a God", that's not what it is. "distinct from the position there can't be a god" Like I've repeated several times, not atheism. Of course its a position. It's just not a belief, stemmed from faith. It is, in effect, the absence of faith. So, does that mean that atheists are a step above agnostics in the eyes of religion, because they also believe in something without evidence? This is pure nonsense. It's like saying it requires faith to not believe in the easter bunny. By your logic, every belief ever requires faith. Theists make the claim that there is a God, therefore the burden of proof lies on them. Therefore the neutral position is an atheistic one, and thus doesn't require faith. It's a little more complicated than that. Atheism is the belief there are no deities. Ergo, that means they believe that everything in the universe can be explained by science, math, whatever. But, we haven't discovered it all, yet. So, where does that belief stem from? Faith. Where does your belief that you won't get bad luck if you walk under a ladder come from? Faith. This is a nonsense theist argument designed to shift the burden of proof to the atheist, in an attempt to make it sound like they both are equally illogical. You could say basically everything requires "faith" since absolutely nothing can be 100 percent. No, Theism vs Atheism is still boiled down to a belief in a deity or not and the ultimate reasoning is to explain how the universe works. Life itself; if you don't think a deity did it, you BELIEVE something else did it. Why can't the burden of proof be on both sides of the line? This is where Agnosticism comes in. Also, you're misinterpreting me. I'm not a theist in any way, shape or form. I'm just sitting back and watching the hypocrisy fly backwards and forwards. If you don't hold a belief in God, then you are an atheist, sorry to break it to you man.
No, if you don't believe in deities, you are an atheist. Who's to say one way or the other?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
