|
On May 28 2011 02:05 mcc 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. 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.
Bonus post: I can easily say that you claim that everything was created without any higher dentity, which to me, is proofworthy as well.
|
On May 28 2011 02:06 Jayjay54 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:58 Olinim wrote: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.
You have the same faulty logic in the whole thread, apparently unable to comprehend the difference between the words "know" and "believe" There is nothing more I can say at this point.
|
On May 28 2011 02:06 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +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
Sweeping Generalization because it's true. Funny how that works.
Objecting because he was willing to cause problems for a lot of people. Causing problems for the whole is definitely in the wrong in my views.
|
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?
Qft
It's not a clear violation they'll get away scot free, it's just a stupid detail he found, the law can be enforced in many ways i'm 99.9% sure a prayer at a school is not something they'd deem ileegal, specially since i'm also 99.9% sure he wasn't forced into participating.
|
On May 28 2011 02:05 Bibdy wrote:
It's a pretty big leap from "speaks out to defend the first amendment" to "political assassination dupe-ee", don't you think?
What I'm saying is, the kid got a lucky break for getting his college fees paid for by atheists who raised that money for him. Otherwise what he did was stupid because he was shooting himself in the foot. If I knew that by speaking up I would be disowned by my parents who feed, cloth and house me, and be attacked by the community, I would be an idiot to speak up. I'd rather shut up, take some conformist shit up the ass and carry on with my life. To risk my own survival based on 'principle' would be stupid.
|
On May 28 2011 02:05 mcc 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. 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.
Well, my opinion is that every mind has to, otherwise it can't function. Even if people don't want to admit it to themselves, others, or their subconscious even lets them.
I think some people just want to resist the labels of atheist or theist, because they come attached to bad stereotypes. The ostracized atheist, or the bible-bashing lunatic theist. Pretty little labels that avoid having to deal with any grey-area, or moderates.
|
On May 28 2011 02:11 Cyba wrote:Show nested quote +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? Qft It's not a clear violation they'll get away scot free, it's just a stupid detail he found, the law can be enforced in many ways i'm 99.9% sure a prayer at a school is not something they'd deem ileegal, specially since i'm also 99.9% sure he wasn't forced into participating.
You would be wrong then because cases like this have already gone to court years ago and went in his side's favor. Not even an arguable point... it's 100% illegal.
|
This is such a touchy situation... I am myself a Christian and this makes us look like complete morons.. So much judgment going on.. Yeah the kid acted irrational and was nieve but in my personal opinion everyone was out of line. The teacher should never do something like that based on their religious beliefs..
|
Its not like he got his full tuition paid. College is expensive he still lost a lot for what he did and he shouldn't have (not just financial support either).
|
On May 28 2011 02:10 KoKoRo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 02:06 Olinim wrote: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 Sweeping Generalization because it's true. Funny how that works. Objecting because he was willing to cause problems for a lot of people. Causing problems for the whole is definitely in the wrong in my views.
So majority automatically equals = just authority? Someone should go back and time and tell those black slaves to stop inconveniencing those majority white folk. The school was in the wrong, the quantity of them is completely irrelevant.
|
On May 28 2011 02:11 Tony Campolo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 02:05 Bibdy wrote:
It's a pretty big leap from "speaks out to defend the first amendment" to "political assassination dupe-ee", don't you think?
What I'm saying is, the kid got a lucky break for getting his college fees paid for by atheists who raised that money for him. Otherwise what he did was stupid because he was shooting himself in the foot. If I knew that by speaking up I would be disowned by my parents who feed, cloth and house me, and be attacked by the community, I would be an idiot to speak up. I'd rather shut up, take some conformist shit up the ass and carry on with my life. To risk my own survival based on 'principle' would be stupid.
Claiming he was shooting himself in the foot means he knew it would turn out this way. From what I've read, he did it in private with the school.
|
Reading this thread has made me disgusted with the population of TL and made me almost want to not post here anymore. I would never have guessed there are so many people here with the attitude of "fall in line and do what the majority says, and if you have a problem with that then you're an asshole punk kid".
It is AGAINST THE LAW to have a school sponsored prayer at graduation. It is a violation of the US Constitution for a government-run school to endorse religion.
It's illegal for a reason, which is that people should not be forced to be a part of a prayer for a religion that is not their own. Some posters here have basically said "it was short, so it wasn't that bad" and "it was a Christian prayer, not anything weird or crazy, so it's ok". Sorry, but that doesn't make it acceptable at all.
You are not allowed to think this graduation prayer is acceptable unless you also think it would be OK for the graduation to have a 20 minute "prayer" by a fundamentalist Muslim who preaches that Islam will take over the world and nonbelievers will be wiped off the face of the Earth.
Also - "it's what the majority wanted" is the dumbest crap I've ever heard. In some parts of the US, what the majority wants would include all black people being segregated from the white people, and for there to be no legal penalty for beating up a homosexual.
Damon Fowler realized he was going to be forced to be a part of a religion that he does not believe in, recognized that this is clearly illegal and a violation of the Constitution, and took appropriate steps to address the situation. For this he was bullied and threatened, the illegal prayer took place anyway, and his parents kicked him out of their home.
If you think this is a punk kid who deserved it and should have known better, then YOU ARE A BAD PERSON. You are a big part of what's wrong with America. "Shut up and just go along with the majority" is an immoral relic of the past where you follow the strongest people or receive a beating, it is not how civilized people live in the 21st century.
|
On May 28 2011 02:00 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:57 mcc 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. 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.
No it is not. I did not believe in god (because I saw no proof) much sooner than I accepted/formulated any hypothesis about existence of universe/life,.... It is enough to require proof for positive statements to become an atheist. There are atheists that think science is bs.
|
On May 28 2011 02:14 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 02:10 KoKoRo wrote:On May 28 2011 02:06 Olinim wrote: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 Sweeping Generalization because it's true. Funny how that works. Objecting because he was willing to cause problems for a lot of people. Causing problems for the whole is definitely in the wrong in my views. So majority automatically equals = just authority? Someone should go back and time and tell those black slaves to stop inconveniencing those majority white folk. The school was in the wrong, the quantity of them is completely irrelevant.
Weren't plantation owners out numbered by the amount of slaves they owned? Just sayin.
|
On May 28 2011 02:17 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 02:00 Bibdy wrote:On May 28 2011 01:57 mcc 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. 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. No it is not. I did not believe in god (because I saw no proof) much sooner than I accepted/formulated any hypothesis about existence of universe/life,.... It is enough to require proof for positive statements to become an atheist. There are atheists that think science is bs.
I assume, if I asked, the burden of proof would be on you to provide evidence of these anti-science atheists?
|
On May 28 2011 02:18 KoKoRo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 02:14 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 02:10 KoKoRo wrote:On May 28 2011 02:06 Olinim wrote: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 Sweeping Generalization because it's true. Funny how that works. Objecting because he was willing to cause problems for a lot of people. Causing problems for the whole is definitely in the wrong in my views. So majority automatically equals = just authority? Someone should go back and time and tell those black slaves to stop inconveniencing those majority white folk. The school was in the wrong, the quantity of them is completely irrelevant. Weren't plantation owners out numbered by the amount of slaves they owned? Just sayin.
Black people didn't outnumber white people as a whole in the U.S but that isn't even the point anyway.
|
On May 28 2011 02:21 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 02:18 KoKoRo wrote:On May 28 2011 02:14 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 02:10 KoKoRo wrote:On May 28 2011 02:06 Olinim wrote: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 Sweeping Generalization because it's true. Funny how that works. Objecting because he was willing to cause problems for a lot of people. Causing problems for the whole is definitely in the wrong in my views. So majority automatically equals = just authority? Someone should go back and time and tell those black slaves to stop inconveniencing those majority white folk. The school was in the wrong, the quantity of them is completely irrelevant. Weren't plantation owners out numbered by the amount of slaves they owned? Just sayin. Black people didn't outnumber white people as a whole in the U.S but that isn't even the point anyway.
Your point is to try to back up your claims with bullshit. Got it.
|
On May 27 2011 13:43 travis wrote:
This is an example of a spot where a kid used poor decisionmaking due to a lack of wisdom. It's not always the best move to stand up and fight. Sometimes it's better to stand apart as an observer.
It's too bad he's in this situation, It would be nice if he could sue the school for having his information leaked and for this situation occuring.
P.S: It sucks that it had to become an atheist/religious issue. Durrr, atheism good, religion bad! Atheists helped him! Why can't it just be that good compassionate people helped him?
so... what rosa parks did was incorrect? just sit back and let the situation happen?
i believe what the kid did was admirable and correct, no matter what he thinks
|
On May 28 2011 02:08 Jayjay54 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 02:05 mcc 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. 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. Bonus post: I can easily say that you claim that everything was created without any higher dentity, which to me, is proofworthy as well.
Nope that is incorrect description of my position. I do not claim that anything was created. My claim is : Existence of the universe does/did not require any higher entity. This is not a positive claim, no matter how strangely you reword it. Positive claims are those that introduce new entities.
My claim does not do so.
|
On May 28 2011 02:18 KoKoRo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 02:14 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 02:10 KoKoRo wrote:On May 28 2011 02:06 Olinim wrote: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 Sweeping Generalization because it's true. Funny how that works. Objecting because he was willing to cause problems for a lot of people. Causing problems for the whole is definitely in the wrong in my views. So majority automatically equals = just authority? Someone should go back and time and tell those black slaves to stop inconveniencing those majority white folk. The school was in the wrong, the quantity of them is completely irrelevant. Weren't plantation owners out numbered by the amount of slaves they owned? Just sayin.
They got around that particular loophole, by not giving them the right to vote (or really any defense under the constitution at all) i.e. laws against them were put in place by people other than themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
