First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Atheism is wrong, Theism is also wrong
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 9/29/14

crazykl45 wrote:


excalion wrote:

I disagree and offer up this quote instead.

"Men of broader intellect know that there is no sharp distinction betwixt the real and the unreal; that all things appear as they do only by virtue of the delicate individual physical and mental media through which we are made conscious of them; but the prosaic materialism of the majority condemns as madness the flashes of super-sight which penetrate the common veil of obvious empiricism."

My answer to your question regarding justification is that there is no achievable level of justification available to us for absolute belief. All knowledge is a distillation of probabilities, but at the heart of it all, the probabilistic nature has not changed.

There is a distinction between atheism, theism and agnosticism. Whereas atheism and theism contains mostly absolute beliefs, agnosticism contains mostly the beliefs as described my you. While I agree that beliefs may exist without either absolute justification or faith, I must insist that absolute belief must require either absolute justification or faith.

That's what theism and atheism is, absolute belief. So in the absence of absolute justification, I must insist that they manifest themselves by faith.

But at the end of the day, let me ask you this. What do you have if you can no longer have faith in your five senses? What justification do you have to believe the validity of you five senses?

See? Everyone needs some faith, sometimes they just don't realize it.

Yeah, you could pretty much substitute belief in for faith where you use it and get what I believe (if that makes sense). So that's juat a minor point.

I absolutely agree there's no way we can have absolute proof of anything, and that everyone ascribes to something that's unjustified. I think the morals and values we typically hold are some of the best examples. What's good, what's bad, why's it wrong to hurt others, etc. There's not a lot we can provide here. The "good" is something that might be just as intangible as a god and almost as hard to pin down with a definition. Yet people make moral claims freely and treat them as though they're objective in some way. Why? And perhaps more importantly, does it matter if we can't precisely pin down what the "good" is before we consider how we should conduct themselves in society?


Please refer to my original post, the section where I talk about the relationship between faith and scrutiny.

How should we conduct ourselves in society?
65319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Atlanta, GA
Offline
Posted 9/29/14 , edited 9/29/14
Hell if I know half the time how we should conduct ourselves in society. I just try to do my best and recognize that there are other people out there who want to be treated as I would want treated.

I think the point about morality and ethics though is just to provide another example here of where we might operate with incomplete knowledge or ill-defined concepts.

I should also say, I wouldn't assume continuous scrutiny of a belief would necessarily get you an answer in any arena. There's a few famous examples of proofs of incompleteness in math, and one of the first questions you're always taught to ask is whether answers exist or not. in real life, when the answers don't exist, what do you do? I think most people just pack it up and move along. That's probably a very different conclusion than what you were making here, but people come to different conclusions I guess, even with the same set of facts and ideas in front of them.
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 9/29/14

crazykl45 wrote:

Hell if I know half the time how we should conduct ourselves in society. I just try to do my best and recognize that there are other people out there who want to be treated as I would want treated.

I think the point about morality and ethics though is just to provide another example here. There's place where we accept the subjectivity and imperfection of what we call knowledge and just move on.


Ah the golden rule. Let me demonstrate the value of scrutiny. You know the golden but do you know the diamond rule? The diamond rule is, treat other as they would like to be treated, not as you would like to be treated.
65319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Atlanta, GA
Offline
Posted 9/29/14 , edited 9/29/14
Meh, that's a lot of effort. Especially considering in practice the golden rule typically means "those with gold make the rules."

Edit:
I guess if there's one thing I'd claim here, it's that people don't have to have absolute knowledge and certainty of anything to continue operating as normal. And I feel it's not always necessary to have that absolute knowledge either.
11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/29/14 , edited 9/29/14

excalion wrote:

If you can't even understand the concept, what right do you have to say whether it exists or not?

The difference between people who instinctively react to the unknown by denying its existance and those who withhold judgement is a matter of perspective on the ratio of the known vs. The unknown. Let me assure you, that ratio is severely lopsided, and not in favor of the side where we can deny the existance of all things unknown to us.


The right would be I'm allowed to generate my own epistemology. My epistemology is such that things which aren't defined, that are words which do not refer or map to anything that can boil down to objective reality, do not exist. If I never define what I mean by the word "lastarama" then it doesn't exist in any form but a collection of syllables. The concept is ill-defined.

If people want to talk about god existing, it'd help if they could explain whatever the hell they mean by the word 'god'. Philosophers have struggled to render that word coherent.

I'm fine to say 'things exist which aren't known to us right now', but I'm not sure I use the words 'things exist' in the same way you do. I am not sure what your epistemological grounding is. If you mean 'the supernatural exists', then I haven't heard a coherent explanation for what the word 'supernatural' means.

Edit: " How should we conduct ourselves in society?"

Oh, and since this constantly seems thrown into religious debates for no apparent reason, I figure I'd throw in my two cents. I can't speak for sociopaths, but for the vast majority of humanity, I'd say "empathy" is a pretty good standard to apply. For sociopaths I'd just recommend or hope that they follow the law and try not to screw over too many people as they worship Ayn Rand.
soufen 
6668 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Irvine, California
Offline
Posted 9/29/14 , edited 9/29/14
I have never understood why people post things like this. It usually just ends up stirring up a bunch of emotional arguments and ends with a well I'm right you're wrong fight.

My outlook on life is a simple one why slander some ones beliefs if it makes them happy and a better person
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 9/29/14 , edited 9/29/14

SilvaZoldyck wrote:

The right would be I'm allowed to generate my own epistemology. My epistemology is such that things which aren't defined, that are words which do not refer or map to anything that can boil down to objective reality, do not exist. If I never define what I mean by the word "lastarama" then it doesn't exist in any form but a collection of syllables. The concept is ill-defined.

If people want to talk about god existing, it'd help if they could explain whatever the hell they mean by the word 'god'. Philosophers have struggled to render that word coherent.

I'm fine to say 'things exist which aren't known to us right now', but I'm not sure I use the words 'things exist' in the same way you do. I am not sure what your epistemological grounding is. If you mean 'the supernatural exists', then I haven't heard a coherent explanation for what the word 'supernatural' means.


Think about it this way. Some mental process caused you to type the word "lastarama". That process is uniquely bound to the word, else why type "lastarama" why not "slajupub" or some other variant? Random noise is not really random, it only seems random because we have yet to see the pattern. So in essence, yes, however poorly defined the idea of "lastarama" is in your mind when you created it, whatever that idea pertains to, may exist; the universe is large enough and strange enough like that. Simply because you do not define it to others does not mean you did not define it to yourself, and just because you did not consciously define it to yourself, does not mean you did not subconsciously define it to yourself.

So if a vague concept of "lastarama" may indeed exist, and God is a bit less vague than "lastarama", God may also exist. We are, however, getting a bit off topic.

So for the sake of the thread, let me answer you with my intended definition of "God".

God: exactly as the various religious texts in the world describe him. If Christianity, then some old guy who watches over us and is omnipotent.

So here's my challenge to you, prove definitively that something who looks exactly like this guy who watches over us and is omnipotent does not exist.



PS: my epistemological view is there is no known objective reality, you cannot obtain objectivism from a process that is inherently subjective(observation).

PSS: lol @ epidemiological, dat auto-correct
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 9/29/14

soufen wrote:

I have never understood why people post things like this. It usually just ends up stirring up a bunch of emotional arguments and ends with a well I'm right you're wrong fight.

My outlook on life is a simple one why slander some ones beliefs if it makes them happy and a better person


Because your definition of "happy and a better person" is different from my definition of "happy and a better person". If ideas don't clash and we all just live in our own fantasy lala land where we believe everything we believe is right, how do you expect the world to progress?

If we sugarcoat all the bullshit we have bottled up inside and never say anything contradictory for fear of hurting someone's feelings, how do you expect the world to progress?

I'll tell you why I posted this, because I had an idea in my head and I didn't know if it was worth something or if it was crap. So I post it somewhere for other people to scrutinize and whether we agree or disagree, I will have gotten something out of the exchange of ideas. Because you know, that's why forums were created, to exchange ideas. If we put a limit on what ideas are "appropriate" to be exchanged, we might as well put a limit on free thought itself.
soufen 
6668 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Irvine, California
Offline
Posted 9/29/14

excalion wrote:


soufen wrote:

I have never understood why people post things like this. It usually just ends up stirring up a bunch of emotional arguments and ends with a well I'm right you're wrong fight.

My outlook on life is a simple one why slander some ones beliefs if it makes them happy and a better person


Because your definition of "happy and a better person" is different from my definition of "happy and a better person". If ideas don't clash and we all just live in our own fantasy lala land where we believe everything we believe is right, how do you expect the world to progress?

If we sugarcoat all the bullshit we have bottled up inside and never say anything contradictory for fear of hurting someone's feelings, how do you expect the world to progress?

I'll tell you why I posted this, because I had an idea in my head and I didn't know if it was worth something or if it was crap. So I post it somewhere for other people to scrutinize and whether we agree or disagree, I will have gotten something out of the exchange of ideas. Because you know, that's why forums were created, to exchange ideas. If we put a limit on what ideas are "appropriate" to be exchanged, we might as well put a limit on free thought itself.


You sir have just displayed the reason why there is so much hate and distrust between all religions and creeds. Pat yourself on the back you are narrow minded and scared of ideas other than your own. Even though they can not without a shadow of a doubt be proven
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 9/29/14 , edited 9/29/14

soufen wrote:


excalion wrote:

Because your definition of "happy and a better person" is different from my definition of "happy and a better person". If ideas don't clash and we all just live in our own fantasy lala land where we believe everything we believe is right, how do you expect the world to progress?

If we sugarcoat all the bullshit we have bottled up inside and never say anything contradictory for fear of hurting someone's feelings, how do you expect the world to progress?

I'll tell you why I posted this, because I had an idea in my head and I didn't know if it was worth something or if it was crap. So I post it somewhere for other people to scrutinize and whether we agree or disagree, I will have gotten something out of the exchange of ideas. Because you know, that's why forums were created, to exchange ideas. If we put a limit on what ideas are "appropriate" to be exchanged, we might as well put a limit on free thought itself.


You sir have just displayed the reason why there is so much hate and distrust between all religions and creeds. Pat yourself on the back you are narrow minded and scared of ideas other than your own. Even though they can not without a shadow of a doubt be proven


I'm sorry, I'm genuinely curious. Did you read my original post? Did you genuinely understand my original post? Do you realize the entire point of that post, and of this thread thus far, has been to illustrate that anything and everything is both possible AND fallible? Did you see that post where I openly admitted that I may be entirely wrong?

How in the seven hells do you make the leap from that, to being scared of ideas other than my own?


"It is the evil man, through whose eyes, color the world in darkness." I guess the same can be said about narrowminded people huh.
11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/30/14 , edited 9/30/14

excalion wrote:

Think about it this way. Some mental process caused you to type the word "lastarama". That process is uniquely bound to the word, else why type "lastarama" why not "slajupub" or some other variant?


Umm, any other variant is perfectly fine, so long as it's accepted that we share no common definition of the collection of syllables. The whole point is that such a phrase is arbitrary and meaningless. They're all sounds, if you said "saljupub lastarama" I'd understand that about as well as I'd understand if you wrote down some Cantonese. It doesn't fit the purpose of communication. (Actually it's more extreme. I have no definition for the syllables lastarama, unlike "cat". If someone wrote down cantonese and said "this is Cantonese" I would at minimum know that the person themselves have some understanding of some of the words they use)


Random noise is not really random


... Huh? I think this appears a misunderstanding of how the principle of least action allowed us to move to quantum physics. 'Random' noise is by definition 'random'. Now I suppose you mean to say 'well what we mean by 'random noise' isn't what we mean by the word 'random' but you didn't say that, and thus, didn't convey the information of what you meant to your reader.

You might as well be speaking another language if you do not communicate your ideas clearly. As far as my experience with physics is concerned, 'random' really is 'random'. I don't mean 'unpredictable in every way', but rather 'non-determanistic'. I can't predict which photon will pass through a 45 degree polarized lens, but I can predict that if I do it a large number of times, I'll get about 50%.

"Random" is one of those words that has a lot of different precise meanings that should be explained clearly or else people simply talk past each other.


it only seems random because we have yet to see the pattern.


Same with 'pattern'. I can NEVER predict if a photon will pass through a 45 degree polarized lens. Ever. Fundamentally. I can predict the *chance* it will. There is no pattern that lets me predict the action except in context of a larger system, it is random, but random patterns can be predictable in the long-term. So 'random' is both predictable and unpredictable, it depends on what context you are looking at and what you mean by those words.


So in essence, yes, however poorly defined the idea of "lastarama" is in your mind when you created it, whatever that idea pertains to, may exist; the universe is large enough and strange enough like that. Simply because you do not define it to others does not mean you did not define it to yourself, and just because you did not consciously define it to yourself, does not mean you did not subconsciously define it to yourself.


I *DIDNT* define it myself. I have no definition yet, I wrote syllables and I don't care what process created the syllables because the process that creates syllables doesn't also define them. Consider the syllable "si". You could write it "see" or "sea". If I said the word 'sea' to someone who only speaks spanish, they would believe I was saying the word 'yes' and not 'sea'. (Hell, I might even point at the sea excitedly saying "sea sea!" and they might think I'm just looking at the water shouting "yes yes!")

I could define the syllables. "Lastarama refers to an empty coffee cup", and now because I assume, based on your apparent knowledge of English, that you and I share the same concept of an 'empty coffee cup' that "Lastarama" now can communicate to you information that I intended to communicate. We could do the same for slajupub, or any other sound or collection of letters but UNTIL we do that, no information can be exchanged.


So if a vague concept of "lastarama" may indeed exist, and God is a bit less vague than "lastarama", God may also exist. We are, however, getting a bit off topic.


Not until it is defined. If you have an idea for what a word means, and tell me what your idea is in words that I understand, with context I can understand, then you can illustrate to me that such a word is talking about something that 'exists'. Killua Zoldyeck 'exists' in context of Hunter x Hunter and I can illustrate the context of what those letters represent.

People who talk about "god" really don't seem to explain what is meant by the notion, and I'd very much like to know what it is they have 'faith' in since the word seems nebulous and meaningless.


So for the sake of the thread, let me answer you with my intended definition of "God".


THANK YOU.


God: exactly as the various religious texts in the world describe him. If Christianity, then some old guy who watches over us and is omnipotent.


But religious texts describe 'god' in many ways contradictory fashion. Hell, 'omnipotent' as a word itself is trivially contradictory if not better explained. What does 'omnipotent' mean? To be able to do all that is logically possible, thus 'if I can conceive of it, god can do it'? But the realm of things that are 'logically possible' involve many things that if one is possible, mutually excludes others, thus it is not logically possible to do all that is logically possible.

That makes 'omnipotent' feel contradictory, and I'm happy to say a logically contradictory idea is wrong on basic grounds.


So here's my challenge to you, prove definitively that something who looks exactly like this guy who watches over us and is omnipotent does not exist.


As stated, 'omnipotent' itself appears logically inconsistent.

"If A then !A"
"If I am a human then I am not a human".

"Prove you are a human given if you are a human then you are not a human".

.... It doesn't make sense, I don't understand what the word 'prove' means in such a context when we are talking about things we have already established as inherently contradictory. The 'prove' part usually involves 'prove things are logically contradictory', if you're trying to argue "logically contradictory things exist" then I have no idea what you mean by any of those words.


PS: my epistemological view is there is no known objective reality, you cannot obtain objectivism from a process that is inherently subjective(observation).


Which is all fine and dandy but so what? How does that render you different from a Pyrrhonian Skeptic? If you're a Pyrrhonian Skeptic fine, but that's kinda an outdated and boring epistemology that even you don't pragmatically live by. I'm pretty sure you recognize that you pragmatically live by a belief in an objective reality, why?

Edit: On randomness. 'Random' CAN be used in deterministic contexts as well. There is no general solution to the N body problem, Poincare proved that, yet the processes of evolution in then N-body problem are entirely deterministic. So the future state of the solar system will always be impossible for us to ever perfectly mathematically model and thus always appear 'random' by fundamental principles of the universe, while still ALSO being deterministic.
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 9/30/14 , edited 9/30/14

SilvaZoldyck wrote:
Umm, any other variant is perfectly fine, so long as it's accepted that we share no common definition of the collection of syllables. The whole point is that such a phrase is arbitrary and meaningless. They're all sounds, if you said "saljupub lastarama" I'd understand that about as well as I'd understand if you wrote down some Cantonese. It doesn't fit the purpose of communication. (Actually it's more extreme. I have no definition for the syllables lastarama, unlike "cat". If someone wrote down cantonese and said "this is Cantonese" I would at minimum know that the person themselves have some understanding of some of the words they use)


I contest that syllables have no inherent meaning. Many languages that did not evolve from each other share similar pronunciations for similar items or ideas. The word "mama" is one such case, many others exist. As such even a seemingly random collection of syllables may have meaning unknown to even the person uttering them, because they are not paying attention. Again, tangent, but since we're doing this might as well do it thoroughly.



... Huh? I think this appears a misunderstanding of how the principle of least action allowed us to move to quantum physics. 'Random' noise is by definition 'random'. Now I suppose you mean to say 'well what we mean by 'random noise' isn't what we mean by the word 'random' but you didn't say that, and thus, didn't convey the information of what you meant to your reader.

You might as well be speaking another language if you do not communicate your ideas clearly. As far as my experience with physics is concerned, 'random' really is 'random'. I don't mean 'unpredictable in every way', but rather 'non-determanistic'. I can't predict which photon will pass through a 45 degree polarized lens, but I can predict that if I do it a large number of times, I'll get about 50%.

"Random" is one of those words that has a lot of different precise meanings that should be explained clearly or else people simply talk past each other.

Same with 'pattern'. I can NEVER predict if a photon will pass through a 45 degree polarized lens. Ever. Fundamentally. I can predict the *chance* it will. There is no pattern that lets me predict the action except in context of a larger system, it is random, but random patterns can be predictable in the long-term. So 'random' is both predictable and unpredictable, it depends on what context you are looking at and what you mean by those words.


Jeez, let a fella take a little artistic liberty when writing would you? Though I get what you're saying about preciseness, so let me reiterate. I don't believe true randomness exists, where true randomness is defined as unpredictable in every way, including being non-deterministic. I believe all things must have certain rules they follow, and because we do not yet understand those rules, we chalk it up to randomness. This is not unlike how ancient civilizations chalked up many natural phenomenons they did not understand to supernatural beings. If for instance with your photon scenario, that the conclusion is we are unable to ever predict if a single photon will pass through a 45 degree polarized lens and that the limitation to our prediction resides in the fundamental nature of photon behavior. Perhaps we are wrong about how photons fundamentally behave.



I *DIDNT* define it myself. I have no definition yet, I wrote syllables and I don't care what process created the syllables because the process that creates syllables doesn't also define them. Consider the syllable "si". You could write it "see" or "sea". If I said the word 'sea' to someone who only speaks spanish, they would believe I was saying the word 'yes' and not 'sea'. (Hell, I might even point at the sea excitedly saying "sea sea!" and they might think I'm just looking at the water shouting "yes yes!")

I could define the syllables. "Lastarama refers to an empty coffee cup", and now because I assume, based on your apparent knowledge of English, that you and I share the same concept of an 'empty coffee cup' that "Lastarama" now can communicate to you information that I intended to communicate. We could do the same for slajupub, or any other sound or collection of letters but UNTIL we do that, no information can be exchanged.

Not until it is defined. If you have an idea for what a word means, and tell me what your idea is in words that I understand, with context I can understand, then you can illustrate to me that such a word is talking about something that 'exists'. Killua Zoldyeck 'exists' in context of Hunter x Hunter and I can illustrate the context of what those letters represent.


You're missing the point. I don't have to know what you mean by "lastarama" for it to exist. No information needs to be exchanged or communicated. No context needs to be established. The instant you wrote the word "lastarama" a thought was in your mind. In this case I would assume that thought had something to do with explaining to me something pertinent to this conversation. Anyhow, there is a possibility that whatever you had in your mind the instant you came up with the word "lastarama" is replicated in reality. For the sake of simplicity, let me put it this way. It is possible that your exact brain structure and neural synapses, as well as the signals being carried by them, essentially everything that was "you" and had something to do with the creation of the word "lastarama" in that instant, is replicated and now exists somewhere, where the word "lastarama" is continually and infinitely created over and over - Lastarama exists.



People who talk about "god" really don't seem to explain what is meant by the notion, and I'd very much like to know what it is they have 'faith' in since the word seems nebulous and meaningless.

But religious texts describe 'god' in many ways contradictory fashion. Hell, 'omnipotent' as a word itself is trivially contradictory if not better explained. What does 'omnipotent' mean? To be able to do all that is logically possible, thus 'if I can conceive of it, god can do it'? But the realm of things that are 'logically possible' involve many things that if one is possible, mutually excludes others, thus it is not logically possible to do all that is logically possible.

That makes 'omnipotent' feel contradictory, and I'm happy to say a logically contradictory idea is wrong on basic grounds.


For the sake of convenience, let's just say that every single god, deity or religious figure and being exists somewhere in some dimension currently unbeknownst to us. Let's actually take it a step further and say that even the gods and deities that have not even been conceived of also reside in some dimension unbeknownst to us. Highly improbable given our current understanding of reality? Of course. Impossible? I don't think so.

A logically contradictory idea is wrong on logical grounds. You equivocated logic and basic. Omnipotence means if you can conceive of it, god can do it, and if you cannot conceive of it, god can do it too. You can conceive of logical possibilities that seems contradictory with each other or mutually exclusive, but god can do them all. Yet you cannot conceive of how he can do them, but god can. Omnipotence is never contradictory, because by definition it means no limitations. Logic is a limitation and therefore does not apply.



As stated, 'omnipotent' itself appears logically inconsistent.

"If A then !A"
"If I am a human then I am not a human".

"Prove you are a human given if you are a human then you are not a human".

.... It doesn't make sense, I don't understand what the word 'prove' means in such a context when we are talking about things we have already established as inherently contradictory. The 'prove' part usually involves 'prove things are logically contradictory', if you're trying to argue "logically contradictory things exist" then I have no idea what you mean by any of those words.


I'm trying to argue that it is possible for logically contradictory things to exist. As for whether they do or not, hell if I know.



Which is all fine and dandy but so what? How does that render you different from a Pyrrhonian Skeptic? If you're a Pyrrhonian Skeptic fine, but that's kinda an outdated and boring epistemology that even you don't pragmatically live by. I'm pretty sure you recognize that you pragmatically live by a belief in an objective reality, why?


As indicated by my first post, although I don't believe in a knowable objective reality, I do believe in a knowable subjective reality that is both probabilistic and causal where certain things I do can reliably bring me happiness and fulfillment. In the absence of a better alternative, I do what I can with what I know. However it is never forgotten that this all may just be an illusion.


Edit: On randomness. 'Random' CAN be used in deterministic contexts as well. There is no general solution to the N body problem, Poincare proved that, yet the processes of evolution in then N-body problem are entirely deterministic. So the future state of the solar system will always be impossible for us to ever perfectly mathematically model and thus always appear 'random' by fundamental principles of the universe, while still ALSO being deterministic.


Again, perhaps our current understanding of the fundamental principles of the universe is wrong. We've been wrong before, what makes people think what we know now is much closer to the truth than when we worshiped the sun and moon gods? Because we can now better predict the outcome of certain events? Yeah sure, I'll give you that. But for all the things we cannot yet predict, we are still just as foreign to the way they operate as our ancestors.
14748 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / ON, Canada
Offline
Posted 9/30/14
So having a belief is wrong? I'm sorry, but I don't think you get to be the judge of that, but nobody can really change what you believe either. I think you'd be better off just being neutral with people instead of engaging in this sort of counter-intuitive stuff.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 9/30/14

excalion wrote:

1. You cannot prove God doesn't exist definitively. Atheists believe God definitely doesn't exist. You're believing on faith, because you can't prove it.


Wrong. Atheism is an absence of belief, or the belief that God probably don't exists. So you're wrong on that one. Sure, some atheists say God definitely doesn't exist, but that's not atheism defined. Atheism defined is merely the lack of belief in God.
Posted 9/30/14


Although I'm guilty of it, we shouldn't coerce our beliefs upon others. We have to keep an open mind. I probably know what you're thinking now. This sounds like Agnosticism. But as of present, I feel there is a prime mover behind the cosmos. But at the same time, I can accept that not everyone will agree with that, and free will gives everyone a choice to believe what they want. This should be appreciated and respected. Faith can't in its purest form operate without free will. I believe in philosophy individual rationality would be that equivalent.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.