|
On May 28 2011 01:49 Tony Campolo wrote:Show nested quote +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).
Yeah, you are perfectly right. The thing is still that you say it is unlikely / impossible that something did it. Agnosticism argues, that it is just as unlikely that nothing did.
and to the guy who read the wikipedia stuff and said was 'agnotic atheist', no I consider myself a strong agnostic:
The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."
|
On May 28 2011 01:53 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:47 Olinim wrote: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:
[quote]
"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.
Yeah, that's basically what I said... didn't mean just the christian god. Is it not true that you don't hold a belief in a deity?
|
On May 28 2011 01:31 Olinim 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. 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.
He thinks that when someone refuses to answer "yes/no" question he actually found a third answer. He fails basic logic.
|
On May 28 2011 01:51 howerpower wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:49 Cyba wrote: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.
If i raised him as bad as that i think he's better off without me in his life tbh 
|
On May 28 2011 01:54 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:53 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 01:47 Olinim wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Yeah, that's basically what I said... didn't mean just the christian god. Is it not true that you don't hold a belief in a deity?
Interesting double-negative question there, but, out of curiosity, why does it matter what I think? Shouldn't it be more important to you what you think?
|
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. 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.
Wow... for the love of god, don't ever have children! The kid stands up for what be believes in(And what is legally right) and just because its not the 'norm' or it breaks 'tradition' you would join in shunning and basically trying to ruin your childs life? WTF?
|
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. Faith isn't synonymous with a deity. You can have faith in many things outside of them.
Why are you mixing science into it, atheism says nothing about science. It says nothing about explanations to anything. It is lack of faith in deities. Learn what the term means before trying to draw some conclusions.
|
On May 28 2011 01:56 Cyba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:51 howerpower wrote:On May 28 2011 01:49 Cyba wrote: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. If i raised him as bad as that i think he's better off without me in his life tbh
You're a very good troll, actually making me want to punch you in the face.
|
On May 28 2011 01:54 Jayjay54 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:49 Tony Campolo wrote: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). Yeah, you are perfectly right. The thing is still that you say it is unlikely / impossible that something did it. Agnosticism argues, that it is just as unlikely that nothing did. and to the guy who read the wikipedia stuff and said was 'agnotic atheist', no I consider myself a strong agnostic: Show nested quote +The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."
I don't care what you consider yourself, if you don't hold a belief in a deity you're an atheist. Those aren't mutually exclusive. For example. I can't KNOW if Jimi Hendrix was murdered, but it is my BELIEF that he wasn't. You can claim it is impossible to KNOW that god exists, but believe he doesn't.
|
On May 28 2011 01:49 Cyba wrote:
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.
The point of arguing is because some people ARE wrong.
Some people believe right and wrong dont exist and that everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Ok, what if my opinion is that black people are inferior to white people and they should work for me for no pay gainig no money or respect?
Would you say that im right? What would you tell the person that stands up to me and tells me what I think is illegal and wrong?
Would you say "What's the point in arguing about who's wrong or who's how wrong."?
My point is. It matters.
Ideas have strength. And its situations like Fowlers that allow ideas to gain more strength. Many times throught history a lot of harm has been done, people have been burned as witches, tortured as heretics, and killed as traitors all in the name of ideas. And that is why this discussions are important.
|
United States7483 Posts
The prayer is illegal and unconstitutional. Regardless of what the people in the school want, they can't do it, and to behave this way towards a student who is following his own beliefs AND is the only one of them following the law is just plain disgusting.
|
On May 28 2011 01:57 mcc 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. Faith isn't synonymous with a deity. You can have faith in many things outside of them. Why are you mixing science into it, atheism says nothing about science. It says nothing about explanations to anything. It is lack of faith in deities. Learn what the term means before trying to draw some conclusions.
I don't think it works like that. If you don't believe in deities, you must have concocted some other reasoning for that belief, in order to avoid the inevitable brain hemorrhage and crushing despair when your mind wanders into explaining your own self-existence. It's a psychology thing.
|
On May 28 2011 01:57 Necro)Phagist( wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:49 Cyba wrote: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. Wow... for the love of god, don't ever have children! The kid stands up for what be believes in(And what is legally right) and just because its not the 'norm' or it breaks 'tradition' you would join in shunning and basically trying to ruin your childs life? WTF?
Debatable. For example, see genderless child thread - the parents there are trying to break from the tradition of gender roles and trying to be genderqueer (look that term up on Wiki if you haven't had bitch feminist friends preach to you about it). They may be 'liberal' and 'progressive', but at the end of the day sometimes (very rarely) it's better to stick with tradition and conform to society. But that's a whole other discussion.
|
Not on religion that's why everybody has the right to their religion or so they say.
Ppls beliefs are irelevant, i don't give a shit if somebody thinks romanians are the lesser humans on the planet, only thing that matters is if they do something about it. At which point it will matter. Doing something includes debating it, and trying to fuck up some tradition the majority of people in a school are looking forward to, and ruining some kids life for beeing an asshole that one time.
|
I couldn't finish reading this because the article is so biased in the beginning. I'm agnostic but holy shit atheists are just as bad as the people attacking this person. I liked the part where the counselor brought up that no other atheist/agnostic/other religious person has had a problem with it then the person writing the article brought up, "he's getting attacked for what he believed in." No, he's getting attacked because there is a time and place for everything and that was neither the time nor place.
If the majority wants to prayer, they ARE in the right. Because one kid doesn't like it he was willing to report the situation to the state/government and have the entire thing locked down. What's more fucked up? The fact that an atheist, a solo person, is allowed to do this? Or the fact that a majority gets away with any of this? Personally I don't like atheists. They're a bunch of stuck up pricks who do shove their values down other peoples throats just as much as any other religious group. The ass hole could've just kept his mouth shut during prayer and not pray. Every time my school stopped class for '9/11 prayer to the lost' I just used that time to sleep for a minute. My uncle hates, literally will cause physical harm to me when nobody is looking, because I am not religious. This shit is common. We all have differences and deal with things differently. The only, ONLY, ONNNLLLYYYY thing this article brings up that's of any controversy is his parents kicking him out and disowning him.
The parents were over reacting to what their son did. But disowning him is going too far.
|
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.
No the ultimate reasoning behind atheism is not to explain how the universe works. That would be science. Those are distinct concepts, yes most atheists also think that science is good idea, but that is it.
Also burden of proof is always on the side that claims positive, therefore theists.
|
This is just attention seeking from BOTH sides in my opinion here/
|
On May 28 2011 02:01 Tony Campolo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:57 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On May 28 2011 01:49 Cyba wrote: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. Wow... for the love of god, don't ever have children! The kid stands up for what be believes in(And what is legally right) and just because its not the 'norm' or it breaks 'tradition' you would join in shunning and basically trying to ruin your childs life? WTF? Debatable. For example, see genderless child thread - the parents there are trying to break from the tradition of gender roles and trying to be genderqueer (look that term up on Wiki if you haven't had bitch feminist friends preach to you about it). They may be 'liberal' and 'progressive', but at the end of the day sometimes (very rarely) it's better to stick with tradition and conform to society. But that's a whole other discussion.
It's a pretty big leap from "speaks out to defend the first amendment" to "political assassination dupe-ee", don't you think?
The parents are cowards and are looking after their own self-interest over that of their child's. Any other explanation is cognitive dissonance at work.
|
On May 28 2011 01:58 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:54 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 01:49 Tony Campolo wrote: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). Yeah, you are perfectly right. The thing is still that you say it is unlikely / impossible that something did it. Agnosticism argues, that it is just as unlikely that nothing did. and to the guy who read the wikipedia stuff and said was 'agnotic atheist', no I consider myself a strong agnostic: The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you." I don't care what you consider yourself, if you don't hold a belief in a deity you're an atheist. Those aren't mutually exclusive. For example. I can't KNOW if Jimi Hendrix was murdered, but it is my BELIEF that he wasn't. You can claim it is impossible to KNOW that god exists, but believe he doesn't.
This is my final post. Why the hell do I have to choose. And you are just implying that it just requires faith to believe in god. I say requires as much faith to deny higher entities. Even if this is not your point of view it's mine. So there are know to questions I can't answer. "Do you believe in god?" and "do you believe everything was randomly created?". I could add a million more. And I would refuse to answer any of the. You choose to believe that everything was not created by a higher entity. To me this is a believe. Maybe for you it's not.
I don't know wether there is a god. Even if you forced me to answer the "do you believe in god question" I could not. What is so hard to understand there?
btw: don't you think the existence of articles of agnoticism, associations and the mere fact that I don't want to be considered an atheist is enough to believe that this is an acutal point of view.
|
On May 28 2011 02:04 KoKoRo wrote:
I couldn't finish reading this because the article is so biased in the beginning. I'm agnostic but holy shit atheists are just as bad as the people attacking this person. I liked the part where the counselor brought up that no other atheist/agnostic/other religious person has had a problem with it then the person writing the article brought up, "he's getting attacked for what he believed in." No, he's getting attacked because there is a time and place for everything and that was neither the time nor place.
If the majority wants to prayer, they ARE in the right. Because one kid doesn't like it he was willing to report the situation to the state/government and have the entire thing locked down. What's more fucked up? The fact that an atheist, a solo person, is allowed to do this? Or the fact that a majority gets away with any of this? Personally I don't like atheists. They're a bunch of stuck up pricks who do shove their values down other peoples throats just as much as any other religious group. The ass hole could've just kept his mouth shut during prayer and not pray. Every time my school stopped class for '9/11 prayer to the lost' I just used that time to sleep for a minute. My uncle hates, literally will cause physical harm to me when nobody is looking, because I am not religious. This shit is common. We all have differences and deal with things differently. The only, ONLY, ONNNLLLYYYY thing this article brings up that's of any controversy is his parents kicking him out and disowning him.
The parents were over reacting to what their son did. But disowning him is going too far.
Sweeping generalization of an entire group of people? Check
Ad hominem? Check
Objection to a kid reporting a clear violation of the law and constitution? Check
Complete fail? Check
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
