First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Thoughts on Atheism?
RookyP 
595 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 10/15/14
What is your religion and ethnic background?
I'm Filipino and I do not have a religion despite my Catholic upbringing.

Are you tolerant of other religions/non-religions?
I'm fine with religious people as long as people keep their religion to themselves. I don't want religion to affect my life, government, or education.

Do you condemn atheists?
No. I don't have a reason to.

Do atheists have lower standards of morals?
No. You do not need to follow a religion to be moral. In fact, I believe atheists have a more secure moral foundation than theists.

An atheist becomes a good person because he/she either knows it's in his/her best interest to be a good person or simply wants to be a good person, while a theist becomes a good person primarily because his/her scripture tells him/her to be.

Would you knowingly associate with atheists?
Yes. Besides maybe some stigma, I don't see any good reason to distance myself from other atheists.

Should a public official/representative (E.g. president, senator, judge, etc.) announce their faith as a prerequisite for their position?
No. Faith shouldn't even be a factor in these positions, so I don't think anyone in these positions should have to announce their faith.

Is atheism a threat to society?
No.

Are any of your family members atheists?
A few, but most of my family members are Catholic Christians.

Would you allow your child to be in a relationship/marry an atheist?
Yes.

Why do you think people are atheists?
Because religion isn't convincing. It's unwise to believe in something without solid reasoning or evidence.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/15/14

Hayagriva wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


Hayagriva
I don't expect us to know everything, in fact I explicitly stated as such. I said we can observe at least partially many systems, and that because they are so complex and arrange themselves into patterns that we can directly observe and apply them as modes to other systems, that it cannot be random. Because it isn't. Don't make pointless assumptions about such a methodology simply because you've never tried it.

I would appreciate if people never, ever stoop to a level intellectually low enough to assume that because a deity (which is wholly irrelevant to my point) cannot be proven, that any and all order in the universe must be random simply because they cannot be bothered to look. That's far worse than me giving you a handout and a step up of natural agnosticism. Don't forget, religions are antiquated systems of examining or trying to explain reality pre-science. But some philosophies hold up just fine regardless of how many discoveries we make.

Go read some Taoism. Stop assuming that we can either never know anything, OR that we know enough to not bother looking and drawing parallels of reality. That's really all I have to say, and you and I have gone far enough off the original topic as it is.



Why can it not be random? What is it that makes you so absolutely, 100% sure of that? Is it just because you can't concieve of it happening randomly? Because that's not a good enough reason.
The rest of the scientific community doesn't seem to share your opinion, so why you're so proud of your methodology, I fail to see, lest you give further explanation. And while you're at it, why not submit a scientific paper up for peer review?

You seem to believe that design is the default position of any rational mind. It's not. Aside from inability to concieve otherwise, there is no reason to believe in a designer. At least as far as I've seen.
And are you saying that the nature of reality is a matter of philosophy?

Why would I read up on religion? Philosophy and religion is irrelevant when it comes to explaining reality. Only science -- that which can be backed up with evidence matters.
Sure, there COULD be a designer, but I have absolutely no reason to believe in it. As such, I see no point in even considering it until I see indication for it. Especially since a designer of the universe would require even more complexity than the thing the designer created. And then what? Where did that designer come from? Are there just an infinite amount of more powerful designers beyond the next designer?


Why does it have to be random? What makes you so absolutely, 100% sure of that?

Technically it's just your word against mine. But I already considered and studied both possibilities. You haven't. Those are the facts.

Taoism isn't a religion. It's a philosophy backed up by science. You would know that if you bothered.

Yeah, we're pretty much done here. If you're not going to do any of the legwork at all, we'll have to agree to disagree.


Nothing. I believe I already said so. However, I do find it more likely that is a product of natural occurances rather than that of the mind of some sentient cosmic superbeing for which I have no reason to believe actually exists.

And yet you've still failed to provide a single compelling argument in favor of your case beyond "I can't concieve of it, therefore it must be design".
So much for all that studying...

Then enlighten me. Because I don't have time to dive into it by myself due to having a bazillion things on my to-do-list.

You know, you could at least TRY to tackle the last part of my comment rather than copping out...
Posted 10/15/14

Syndicaidramon wrote:


Hayagriva wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


Hayagriva
I don't expect us to know everything, in fact I explicitly stated as such. I said we can observe at least partially many systems, and that because they are so complex and arrange themselves into patterns that we can directly observe and apply them as modes to other systems, that it cannot be random. Because it isn't. Don't make pointless assumptions about such a methodology simply because you've never tried it.

I would appreciate if people never, ever stoop to a level intellectually low enough to assume that because a deity (which is wholly irrelevant to my point) cannot be proven, that any and all order in the universe must be random simply because they cannot be bothered to look. That's far worse than me giving you a handout and a step up of natural agnosticism. Don't forget, religions are antiquated systems of examining or trying to explain reality pre-science. But some philosophies hold up just fine regardless of how many discoveries we make.

Go read some Taoism. Stop assuming that we can either never know anything, OR that we know enough to not bother looking and drawing parallels of reality. That's really all I have to say, and you and I have gone far enough off the original topic as it is.



Why can it not be random? What is it that makes you so absolutely, 100% sure of that? Is it just because you can't concieve of it happening randomly? Because that's not a good enough reason.
The rest of the scientific community doesn't seem to share your opinion, so why you're so proud of your methodology, I fail to see, lest you give further explanation. And while you're at it, why not submit a scientific paper up for peer review?

You seem to believe that design is the default position of any rational mind. It's not. Aside from inability to concieve otherwise, there is no reason to believe in a designer. At least as far as I've seen.
And are you saying that the nature of reality is a matter of philosophy?

Why would I read up on religion? Philosophy and religion is irrelevant when it comes to explaining reality. Only science -- that which can be backed up with evidence matters.
Sure, there COULD be a designer, but I have absolutely no reason to believe in it. As such, I see no point in even considering it until I see indication for it. Especially since a designer of the universe would require even more complexity than the thing the designer created. And then what? Where did that designer come from? Are there just an infinite amount of more powerful designers beyond the next designer?


Why does it have to be random? What makes you so absolutely, 100% sure of that?

Technically it's just your word against mine. But I already considered and studied both possibilities. You haven't. Those are the facts.

Taoism isn't a religion. It's a philosophy backed up by science. You would know that if you bothered.

Yeah, we're pretty much done here. If you're not going to do any of the legwork at all, we'll have to agree to disagree.


Nothing. I believe I already said so. However, I do find it more likely that is a product of natural occurances rather than that of the mind of some sentient cosmic superbeing for which I have no reason to believe actually exists.

And yet you've still failed to provide a single compelling argument in favor of your case beyond "I can't concieve of it, therefore it must be design".
So much for all that studying...

Then enlighten me. Because I don't have time to dive into it by myself due to having a bazillion things on my to-do-list.

You know, you could at least TRY to tackle the last part of my comment rather than copping out...


Most religious people and theologians know that, unlike agnosticism(which is a sound doctrine imo), athiesm is a belief that God does not exist. The easiest question to ask is "How do you know God does not exist?"(you don't, you believe he doesn't, that belief base makes it a religion), followed by, "How do you know we are meant to/are supposed to/are capable of knowing things we don't know and are not supposed to?" The belief is that free will is a gift from God, and with free will we can choose whatever path we want to take in life, but whether we believe it or not doesn't change the reality God is real, and so is the devil. For all you know/don't know. I find these topics tiring, nothing ever comes from them or is proven, one way or another. Belief is a choice, so is following(or not) what you presently believe in.

731 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Denver
Offline
Posted 10/16/14

Syndicaidramon wrote:


Hayagriva wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


Hayagriva
I don't expect us to know everything, in fact I explicitly stated as such. I said we can observe at least partially many systems, and that because they are so complex and arrange themselves into patterns that we can directly observe and apply them as modes to other systems, that it cannot be random. Because it isn't. Don't make pointless assumptions about such a methodology simply because you've never tried it.

I would appreciate if people never, ever stoop to a level intellectually low enough to assume that because a deity (which is wholly irrelevant to my point) cannot be proven, that any and all order in the universe must be random simply because they cannot be bothered to look. That's far worse than me giving you a handout and a step up of natural agnosticism. Don't forget, religions are antiquated systems of examining or trying to explain reality pre-science. But some philosophies hold up just fine regardless of how many discoveries we make.

Go read some Taoism. Stop assuming that we can either never know anything, OR that we know enough to not bother looking and drawing parallels of reality. That's really all I have to say, and you and I have gone far enough off the original topic as it is.



Why can it not be random? What is it that makes you so absolutely, 100% sure of that? Is it just because you can't concieve of it happening randomly? Because that's not a good enough reason.
The rest of the scientific community doesn't seem to share your opinion, so why you're so proud of your methodology, I fail to see, lest you give further explanation. And while you're at it, why not submit a scientific paper up for peer review?

You seem to believe that design is the default position of any rational mind. It's not. Aside from inability to concieve otherwise, there is no reason to believe in a designer. At least as far as I've seen.
And are you saying that the nature of reality is a matter of philosophy?

Why would I read up on religion? Philosophy and religion is irrelevant when it comes to explaining reality. Only science -- that which can be backed up with evidence matters.
Sure, there COULD be a designer, but I have absolutely no reason to believe in it. As such, I see no point in even considering it until I see indication for it. Especially since a designer of the universe would require even more complexity than the thing the designer created. And then what? Where did that designer come from? Are there just an infinite amount of more powerful designers beyond the next designer?


Why does it have to be random? What makes you so absolutely, 100% sure of that?

Technically it's just your word against mine. But I already considered and studied both possibilities. You haven't. Those are the facts.

Taoism isn't a religion. It's a philosophy backed up by science. You would know that if you bothered.

Yeah, we're pretty much done here. If you're not going to do any of the legwork at all, we'll have to agree to disagree.


Nothing. I believe I already said so. However, I do find it more likely that is a product of natural occurances rather than that of the mind of some sentient cosmic superbeing for which I have no reason to believe actually exists.

And yet you've still failed to provide a single compelling argument in favor of your case beyond "I can't concieve of it, therefore it must be design".
So much for all that studying...

Then enlighten me. Because I don't have time to dive into it by myself due to having a bazillion things on my to-do-list.

You know, you could at least TRY to tackle the last part of my comment rather than copping out...


I don't think we're really talking about the same thing. I'm not, and never was stating the case for a cosmic being. It's your own dualistic limitations that are giving you problems. I was simply stating that natural occurrences as you put it produce systems so complex and integrated they aren't accidents.

You never understood the case I was making, or I wasn't clear enough. If I restructure it, we can understand enough about certain systems to be fairly certain that they reliably extend into phenomena we haven't run across yet. I was also stating the FACT that science alone does not have the monopoly on such approaches or theories.

You could at least TRY to tackle my suggestion rather than just copping out. If you don't have time to dive into it yourself, then you're out of luck. I don't have time to summarize 19 years of study just because you like everything handed to you. I pointed you in a direction. Get off your ass and do your own work.

731 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Denver
Offline
Posted 10/16/14

Kaolinite wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


Hayagriva wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


Hayagriva
I don't expect us to know everything, in fact I explicitly stated as such. I said we can observe at least partially many systems, and that because they are so complex and arrange themselves into patterns that we can directly observe and apply them as modes to other systems, that it cannot be random. Because it isn't. Don't make pointless assumptions about such a methodology simply because you've never tried it.

I would appreciate if people never, ever stoop to a level intellectually low enough to assume that because a deity (which is wholly irrelevant to my point) cannot be proven, that any and all order in the universe must be random simply because they cannot be bothered to look. That's far worse than me giving you a handout and a step up of natural agnosticism. Don't forget, religions are antiquated systems of examining or trying to explain reality pre-science. But some philosophies hold up just fine regardless of how many discoveries we make.

Go read some Taoism. Stop assuming that we can either never know anything, OR that we know enough to not bother looking and drawing parallels of reality. That's really all I have to say, and you and I have gone far enough off the original topic as it is.



Why can it not be random? What is it that makes you so absolutely, 100% sure of that? Is it just because you can't concieve of it happening randomly? Because that's not a good enough reason.
The rest of the scientific community doesn't seem to share your opinion, so why you're so proud of your methodology, I fail to see, lest you give further explanation. And while you're at it, why not submit a scientific paper up for peer review?

You seem to believe that design is the default position of any rational mind. It's not. Aside from inability to concieve otherwise, there is no reason to believe in a designer. At least as far as I've seen.
And are you saying that the nature of reality is a matter of philosophy?

Why would I read up on religion? Philosophy and religion is irrelevant when it comes to explaining reality. Only science -- that which can be backed up with evidence matters.
Sure, there COULD be a designer, but I have absolutely no reason to believe in it. As such, I see no point in even considering it until I see indication for it. Especially since a designer of the universe would require even more complexity than the thing the designer created. And then what? Where did that designer come from? Are there just an infinite amount of more powerful designers beyond the next designer?


Why does it have to be random? What makes you so absolutely, 100% sure of that?

Technically it's just your word against mine. But I already considered and studied both possibilities. You haven't. Those are the facts.

Taoism isn't a religion. It's a philosophy backed up by science. You would know that if you bothered.

Yeah, we're pretty much done here. If you're not going to do any of the legwork at all, we'll have to agree to disagree.


Nothing. I believe I already said so. However, I do find it more likely that is a product of natural occurances rather than that of the mind of some sentient cosmic superbeing for which I have no reason to believe actually exists.

And yet you've still failed to provide a single compelling argument in favor of your case beyond "I can't concieve of it, therefore it must be design".
So much for all that studying...

Then enlighten me. Because I don't have time to dive into it by myself due to having a bazillion things on my to-do-list.

You know, you could at least TRY to tackle the last part of my comment rather than copping out...


Most religious people and theologians know that, unlike agnosticism(which is a sound doctrine imo), athiesm is a belief that God does not exist. The easiest question to ask is "How do you know God does not exist?"(you don't, you believe he doesn't, that belief base makes it a religion), followed by, "How do you know we are meant to/are supposed to/are capable of knowing things we don't know and are not supposed to?" The belief is that free will is a gift from God, and with free will we can choose whatever path we want to take in life, but whether we believe it or not doesn't change the reality God is real, and so is the devil. For all you know/don't know. I find these topics tiring, nothing ever comes from them or is proven, one way or another. Belief is a choice, so is following(or not) what you presently believe in.



The best part about people like him is they don't know they're arguing against their own position the entire time. While I could give him theoretical proof that events are NOT random (which any mathematician could also do), he could never give me proof that all events ARE random (which is disprovable). The difference between us is I look for modes of reality, while he would rather feel superior through lazy anarchy.

I kind of figured when I answered the original post that it would raise the hackles of people like him. I blame myself really.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/16/14

Kaolinite
Most religious people and theologians know that, unlike agnosticism(which is a sound doctrine imo), athiesm is a belief that God does not exist.


Nope. Atheism is the lack of a belief in God. I acknowledge that there could be a God. I find it unlikely, seeing as I've seen no indication for his existence or NEED for his existence, in addition to also having seen the hypocricy and scientific failings of the world's religions -- but I acknowledge that I could be wrong regardless.
Despite that, I am still an atheist. Atheism is not a claim of 100% certainty that "God does not exist, period". Sure, there ARE atheists who say that, but it's not an inherent trait of atheism.



Kaolinite
The easiest question to ask is "How do you know God does not exist?"(you don't, you believe he doesn't, that belief base makes it a religion).


No it doesn't. No more than believing that unicorns doesn't exist is a religion.



Kaolinite
followed by, "How do you know we are meant to/are supposed to/are capable of knowing things we don't know and are not supposed to?"


What things would those be? And what do you mean by "not supposed to"?



Kaolinite
The belief is that free will is a gift from God, and with free will we can choose whatever path we want to take in life,


And thus, you are simplifying the complex study of human psychology into a concept presented as being universal. As if all people have the same psychological condition.
Well, that's not the case. And it's pretty safe to say that in large part, what "path" we take in life is far more dictated by genetic disposition, upbringing and environment rather than concious decisions of "okay, now I want to be a person whose psyche works like THIS".



Kaolinite
but whether we believe it or not doesn't change the reality God is real, and so is the devil. For all you know/don't know.


Sure. It COULD be the case. But I see no reason for it being the case. No more than it being the case of the norse gods. And I don't believe in them. So why should I believe in the abrahamic god?



Kaolinite
I find these topics tiring, nothing ever comes from them or is proven, one way or another. Belief is a choice, so is following(or not) what you presently believe in.


Wrong. Belief is NOT a choice. Not for anyone above the leverl of intellectual simpleton anyway.
See, for me and many others, I have an actual standard of evidence that needs to be met before I will believe in something. If that standard isn't met, then I won't believe in it. That's not a concious decision on my part -- it's the way my brain works.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/16/14 , edited 10/16/14

Hayagriva
I don't think we're really talking about the same thing. I'm not, and never was stating the case for a cosmic being. It's your own dualistic limitations that are giving you problems. I was simply stating that natural occurrences as you put it produce systems so complex and integrated they aren't accidents.



Alright then. But by saying "design", you're kind of indicating a concious agent to it all... So what exactly is it that you're saying?



Hayagriva
You never understood the case I was making, or I wasn't clear enough. If I restructure it, we can understand enough about certain systems to be fairly certain that they reliably extend into phenomena we haven't run across yet. I was also stating the FACT that science alone does not have the monopoly on such approaches or theories.



Okay. But how will you vindicate such theories without science?



Hayagriva
You could at least TRY to tackle my suggestion rather than just copping out. If you don't have time to dive into it yourself, then you're out of luck. I don't have time to summarize 19 years of study just because you like everything handed to you. I pointed you in a direction. Get off your ass and do your own work.


Maybe I would've if I had actually had time. But being a studen while also working on honing various artistic skills, among even more things, I simply don't have time.
Sorry.



Hayagriva
The best part about people like him is they don't know they're arguing against their own position the entire time. While I could give him theoretical proof that events are NOT random (which any mathematician could also do), he could never give me proof that all events ARE random (which is disprovable).


Again, I never, EVER, claimed that the universe HAS to be random. I said I find it all being a matter of purely natural occurances more likely than the existence of a concious agent that "designed" it.
That is all.



Hayagriva
The difference between us is I look for modes of reality, while he would rather feel superior through lazy anarchy.
I kind of figured when I answered the original post that it would raise the hackles of people like him. I blame myself really.


Now who's feeling superior? Look at you. You're basking in your own percieved intellectual superiority like nothing I've ever seen before.
Try not being a hypocrite.

Besides, I didn't state anything in certainty. I only asked you for justification for your claims. Which you never gave.
Again, try not being a hypocrite.
Posted 10/16/14 , edited 10/16/14
What is your religion and ethnic background?
Asian-Caucasian. Intrinsic apatheist (I honestly don't care), extrinsic agnostic atheist (for the sake of discussion), recreational theist (I enjoy deluding myself once in awhile, unfortunately my ability to believe anything on the moment is gradually diminishing as I age).

Are you tolerant of other religions/non-religions?
Seeing drones controlled by baseless dogma makes me think they're dangerous. It makes it difficult to converse with them without looking down on them. That said, it's not like I go out of my way to convert them, as I learned in middle school that it's impossible to convert an unwilling theist after losing almost all of my friends (at the time) during an active attempt. When a Jehovah's Witness did a door knock over a year ago, I had a peaceful conversation with him for a good couple of hours allowing him to make his best attempt to convert me. We made good friends, though I'm not sure if my other friend appreciated it as it was when I was at his house while he was out. Apparently he made weekly visits for the next couple of months asking how he could contact me.

Overall, I'm fine with the idea of religion itself. I simply look down on people who are incapable of using their brains, regardless of religion.

Do you condemn atheists?
No.

Do atheists have lower standards of morals?
Depends on the perspective, obviously.

Would you knowingly associate with atheists?
Yes.

Should a public official/representative (E.g. president, senator, judge, etc.) announce their faith as a prerequisite for their position?
I would prefer someone who is not brainwashed.

Is atheism a threat to society?
Possibly. I think a society is safer when everyone believes in the same set of morals. An ideal society would be one where either all believe in a single (benevolent) religion, or a secular society free of religion.

Are any of your family members atheists?
Yes, but I never really cared. I only discovered last month that my father is an atheist. I'm not sure about my relatives though. My aunt is a devoted Christian, but I don't think anyone else is particularly that religious.

Would you allow your child to be in a relationship/marry an atheist?
It's completely up to him/her.

Why do you think people are atheists?
Because that's their natural state of being.

Additional thoughts/comments regarding atheists?
As much as I support atheism, I can't help but once in awhile notice atheists that seem to be as dumb as theists. These are the ones that make a declarative statement that no gods can possibly exist, without being capable of establishing their argument at all.
Posted 10/16/14 , edited 10/16/14

Syndicaidramon wrote:


Kaolinite
Most religious people and theologians know that, unlike agnosticism(which is a sound doctrine imo), athiesm is a belief that God does not exist.


SyndicaidramonNope. Atheism is the lack of a belief in God. I acknowledge that there could be a God. I find it unlikely, seeing as I've seen no indication for his existence or NEED for his existence, in addition to also having seen the hypocricy and scientific failings of the world's religions -- but I acknowledge that I could be wrong regardless.
Despite that, I am still an atheist. Atheism is not a claim of 100% certainty that "God does not exist, period". Sure, there ARE atheists who say that, but it's not an inherent trait of atheism.


A lack of belief in God my friend is the same as having a belief that God does not exist, its just a convenient wordplay to excuse calling yourself an an Athiest . And to acknowledge that God could exist by definition would make you an Agnostic. You are an Agnostic, BTW.


Kaolinite
The easiest question to ask is "How do you know God does not exist?"(you don't, you believe he doesn't, that belief base makes it a religion).

SyndicaidramonNo it doesn't. No more than believing that unicorns doesn't exist is a religion.


For all you know unicorns might exist, you haven't proven they haven't, eh?


Kaolinite
followed by, "How do you know we are meant to/are supposed to/are capable of knowing things we don't know and are not supposed to?"



SyndicaidramonWhat things would those be? And what do you mean by "not supposed to"?


There are things we are not supposed to know and just accept, like why Earth, why the Milky Way, why so much evil is allowed to continue, the meaning of life, what happens after death (facts not theories-that which noone no matter their wisdom knows)



Kaolinite
The belief is that free will is a gift from God, and with free will we can choose whatever path we want to take in life,



SyndicaidramonAnd thus, you are simplifying the complex study of human psychology into a concept presented as being universal. As if all people have the same psychological condition.
Well, that's not the case. And it's pretty safe to say that in large part, what "path" we take in life is far more dictated by genetic disposition, upbringing and environment rather than concious decisions of "okay, now I want to be a person whose psyche works like THIS".


Lets agree to disagree. So things are simple, and can be simplified and free will is one of those. Psychology of all things is far from being an exact science, and from Sigmund Freud's Psychoanalysis to the modern day deinstitutionalisation and stigma from its application its still full of holes , and hardly from the dark ages. Even someone with a veil thrown over them and made to believe they have no hope of having a better life can escape the dark times and be stronger for it. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger." Everyone has a choice whether to accept despair and live miserably/kill themself or rise above it and make the best with what they got and go from there. If you got off your high horse and stop condescending like you're some sort of omniscient god you'd appreciate others' perspectives.


Kaolinite
but whether we believe it or not doesn't change the reality God is real, and so is the devil. For all you know/don't know.



SyndicaidramonSure. It COULD be the case. But I see no reason for it being the case. No more than it being the case of the norse gods. And I don't believe in them. So why should I believe in the abrahamic god?


You are an Agnostic. You don't know. Don't politicise it. There are no factions. Take your beliefs and catagorise them with a list of boxes and check off your beliefs and then tell me you're not.



Kaolinite
I find these topics tiring, nothing ever comes from them or is proven, one way or another. Belief is a choice, so is following(or not) what you presently believe in.



SyndicaidramonWrong. Belief is NOT a choice. Not for anyone above the leverl of intellectual simpleton anyway.
See, for me and many others, I have an actual standard of evidence that needs to be met before I will believe in something. If that standard isn't met, then I won't believe in it. That's not a concious decision on my part -- it's the way my brain works.


Everything is a choice, for instance including your choice to be a heretic and to demand evidence from that you know nothing about. I hardly expect an omnipotent, omnipresent, onmiscient being to oblige your scrutiny and abandon his faithful to please your skepticiam . They say "The greatest deception the devil ever contrived was convincing the world he doesn't exist." Maybe you were, too, decieved. You have until your death to repent, son. Do it, or don't. Like us all, you had a choice. You will until your death, after that , you're fucked.
Posted 10/16/14 , edited 10/16/14
What is your religion and ethnic background?
I'm formerly christian, for the most part agnostic, and white.
Are you tolerant of other religions/non-religions?
Yes.
Do you condemn atheists?
Not for the most part, just those that thing they're smarter than everyone else.
Do atheists have lower standards of morals?
Not that I've seen, save when they ridicule believers.
Would you knowingly associate with atheists?
Yes, some.
Should a public official/representative (E.g. president, senator, judge, etc.) announce their faith as a prerequisite for their position?
No problem if they can do the job and not let their personal beliefs affect others
Is atheism a threat to society?
Not unless its oppressive and extreme.
Are any of your family members atheists?
Yes.
Would you allow your child to be in a relationship/marry an atheist?
Yes. Its up to them.
Why do you think people are atheists?
They may see it as the logical choice.
Additional thoughts/comments regarding atheists?
no
241 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Hoboville
Offline
Posted 10/16/14
Raised Christian, now I am more of a Deist. I don't have a problem with atheists, all I know is that during the one year I spent as an atheist, I could hardly sleep as I became obsessed with thinking through every possible variable and factor involving the possible existence, or non-existence of a god, and also wanting to start debates with everyone in sight.
731 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Denver
Offline
Posted 10/16/14

Syndicaidramon wrote:



Alright then. But by saying "design", you're kind of indicating a concious agent to it all... So what exactly is it that you're saying?



Okay. But how will you vindicate such theories without science?



Maybe I would've if I had actually had time. But being a studen while also working on honing various artistic skills, among even more things, I simply don't have time.
Sorry.



Again, I never, EVER, claimed that the universe HAS to be random. I said I find it all being a matter of purely natural occurances more likely than the existence of a concious agent that "designed" it.
That is all.



Now who's feeling superior? Look at you. You're basking in your own percieved intellectual superiority like nothing I've ever seen before.
Try not being a hypocrite.

Besides, I didn't state anything in certainty. I only asked you for justification for your claims. Which you never gave.
Again, try not being a hypocrite.



1. No, I'm not indicating that. I indicated that we can't know, because of the aforementioned reasons. That was what you seemed to have a problem with. I think the problem was that you cannot separate "order" from "divine being", while I am just fine with it. We can verify order in many ways, philosophical and scientific. Some are better than others, and some that work just as well are MUCH older than others.

2. Tell me something, do you believe science is unlimited? That it will (or god forbid, already can) verify everything? You know, they recently discovered evidence that the consciousness remains at least a little while after clinical death. But that's as far as it will go, do you know why?

Consciousness isn't something they can measure. They don't even know why it's there. They don't even know what it is. We SHOULD all be walking electrical and biochemical batteries, but we're not.

Why can't they measure it? Because science cannot, and never will create tools to test and measure what it doesn't believe to be there. That's its fundamental flaw, and is actually the only reason people still have any sort of faith vs. science debate. While science will be relatively certain of anything it finds out, it is plodding, usually slow, and frequently disjointed. It has limits.

Now a real scientifically-minded person is aware of those limitations and respectful of them. That's where a type of "agnosticism" comes in. But I've never seen it, not even once with the Google and Wikipedia generations. People like you make it take longer than it should.

3. Well then you're not going to know.

4. See #1.

5. I'm not the hypocritical one here, you are. "No, I'm too busy working in my mundane existence to try and understand anybody else's observations, or even fully understand my own. I will simply have FAITH that if it exists, science will tell me (or already has), or it must be bullshit."

6. My justification for your claims was to go do the work yourself. But since you treat science like a religion instead of a methodology of work like it is, you declined in the most arrogant and pretentious manner that you could, priding yourself on fake intelligence. Which isn't the first or the last time I've seen somebody do that, and so my response is volatile, terse, and uninformative just as wannabe scientists like you deserve. I was trying to let you save some face but that was "copping out."

Frankly you treat your own method of approaching reality like shit. Why would I waste my time giving you mine? Consider yourself lucky I even pointed you in a direction. Go figure out for yourself why mathematicians and physicists still sometimes study 4000 year old Chinese texts.

Or don't. And acknowledge that you won't, and be respectful of the limitations of such. I think you want to be shown a nice little row of explanations about the universe that you probably already subscribe to, and you're not going to get it because reality itself isn't set up that way. Good luck with that approach.
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/16/14

Kaolinite
A lack of belief in God my friend is the same as having a belief that God does not exist, its just a convenient wordplay to excuse calling yourself an an Athiest . And to acknowledge that God could exist by definition would make you an Agnostic. You are an Agnostic, BTW.


No it isn't. I JUST explained to you the difference.
And no, because if I was agnostic, I wouldn't have any incling either way. Agnosticism is the state in which you're on the fence and could go both ways in terms of religious beliefs. I am no longer in that state. I have taken a clear stance away from religion, and I DO believe that all religion is bullshit. At least all the religions that I've come across. AND I find the existence of a God to be UNLIKELY (particularly the abrahamic god, which is really the only deity that has ever been relevant to me personally) and there is no evidence that suggests that there is one, BUT I acknowledge that I COULD be wrong.

So I have taken a stance on the issue. Which means I'm not an agnostic. But I'm still not making a positive, 100% certain statement.




Kaolinite
For all you know unicorns might exist, you haven't proven they haven't, eh? :lol:


Yeah. They could. But I have no reason to believe that they do. And until I do, I will regard them as nothing but creatures of fairytales. Just like I do with God.
And that wasn't even the point. The point is that regarding something as a piece of fiction, doesn't make it a religious stance regarding that thing.




Kaolinite
There are things we are not supposed to know and just accept, like why Earth, why the Milky Way, why so much evil is allowed to continue, the meaning of life, what happens after death (facts not theories-that which noone no matter their wisdom knows)


Why the Earth and Milky Way what?
Regarding the problem of evil... are you saying that we should disregard all contradictions in the bible?
And may I remind you that this argument only works if one is already a believer. I am not. So why are you even making this argument?




Kaolinite
Lets agree to disagree. So things are simple, and can be simplified and free will is one of those.


No, it's not, and I will NOT agree to disagree on something so blatantly wrong. You do not get to treat human psychology as something that can be summed up with just one word.
This is one of the reason why religious fundamentalists annoy me so much (and one of the many reasons I stopped believing and left my religion). You disregard all knowledge, no matter how much evidence there is for it if it doesn't fit your preconcieved notions and worldview. So fucking arrogant and closed-minded.

One examle of that is the concept of free will. The way that christians try to represent the idea is absolutely ludicrous.
It completely disregards the fact that a person's actions, thoughts and opinions are primarily a product of their environment, mixed with the way that one's brain responds to certain types of stimuli, which is different from person to person. This is why people have different opinions and different ways of responding to things.

This is not a theory, but a well understood fact of reality. And you do not get to reject that simply because you'd prefer to believe that all people can held equally accountable for everything they do, because they are all the same, because free will.
That's not how reality works, sister.




Kaolinite
Everyone has a choice whether to accept despair and live miserably/kill themself or rise above it and make the best with what they got and go from there. If you got off your high horse and stop condescending like you're some sort of omniscient god you'd appreciate others' perspectives.


See, there you go again, acting as if all people are on equal psychological ground. They're not. Some people can't deal with despair. Not because they "choose" to, but because their brains are simply unable to. Because all brains work differently. That's why you wouldn't treat a person diagnosed with depression the same way as you would someone who is not when faced with the same scenario. Because people are hardwired differently, and that is something that needs to be accounted for.

This has nothing to do with sitting on a high horse or being condescending or thinking I'm omniscient. It's about being aware of the nature of reality, and not acting as if what is clearly wrong is correct.
You might as well accuse me for being arrogant by default when I also explain to creationists why THEY are wrong.

It has nothing to do with perspective on things. It has to do with FACTS.




Kaolinite
You are an Agnostic. You don't know. Don't politicise it. There are no factions. Take your beliefs and catagorise them with a list of boxes and check off your beliefs and then tell me you're not.


How am I politicizing things just because I acknowledge that I have no reason to believe in God?





Kaolinite
Everything is a choice, for instance including your choice to be a heretic and to demand evidence from that you know nothing about.


I can only be accountable for "choosing" to be a heretic if enough evidence for me to be intellectually satisfied has been put forth and I "know" the truth for a fact. If I have not encountered enough evidence for me to convinced, then that's not my fault. And I can't choose to believe in something that I have no reason to believe in. My brain doesn't work like that.

Also, what exactly do you mean by "know nothing about"?



Kaolinite
I hardly expect an omnipotent, omnipresent, onmiscient being to oblige your scrutiny and abandon his faithful to please your skepticiam.


Disagree. According to what christians wants me to believe, God loves me, and wants me to love him in return. According to christians, God loves us all like his own children and wants us all to be saved.

Now let me ask you, if you had a child who was engaging in highly destructive activities, because she/he didn't know any better, would you not do anything in your power to make them understand that what they were doing is dangerous, so that they would stop?
I know I would. And if I would, then why wouldn't God? After all, he is supposed to be omnibenevolent. Of infinite love. Yet are you saying that he is more apathetic to his "children" than I would be of mine? Am I MORE loving than God?

Revealing himself and making sure that I know the truth 100% should not be a difficult task for the being who created the entire universe. It should be a piece of non-effort. Thus, if he still chooses not to do so, despite knowning that that means that I will not be saved, then the only conclution that can be drawn from that is that he is apathetic. Which means he's NOT omnibenevolent.



Kaolinite
They say "The greatest deception the devil ever contrived was convincing the world he doesn't exist." Maybe you were, too, decieved. You have until your death to repent, son. Do it, or don't. Like us all, you had a choice. You will until your death, after that , you're fucked.


Why would I repent when I don't believe? Do you seriously not understand why that doesn't work? It would be like me telling you to repent to Vishnu or Zeus. You have no reason to, because you don't believe in them. Same thing here.

If I am presented of something that convinces me that God actually exists and that he is the one and true lord -- THEN I will repent. Because then I have a reason to actually do so. Because then I would believe in his existence.
But until that happens, you might as well be telling me to pray to Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny. It makes no difference in terms of how plausible I find it that it will do any good...
2044 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 10/16/14 , edited 10/16/14

Syndicaidramon wrote:


Kaolinite
A lack of belief in God my friend is the same as having a belief that God does not exist], its just a convenient wordplay to excuse calling yourself an an Athiest . And to acknowledge that God could exist by definition would make you an Agnostic. You are an Agnostic, BTW.


No it isn't. I JUST explained to you the difference.
And no, because if I was agnostic, I wouldn't have any incling either way. Agnosticism is the state in which you're on the fence and could go both ways in terms of religious beliefs. I am no longer in that state. I have taken a clear stance away from religion, and I DO believe that all religion is bullshit. At least all the religions that I've come across. AND I find the existence of a God to be UNLIKELY (particularly the abrahamic god, which is really the only deity that has ever been relevant to me personally) and there is no evidence that suggests that there is one, BUT I acknowledge that I COULD be wrong.

So I have taken a stance on the issue. Which means I'm not an agnostic. But I'm still not making a positive, 100% certain statement.




Correct me if i'm wrong.

But isn't agnosticism not when you are "on the fence". But more like when you believe that there is no way to know if a god/deity exist? unlike atheism who clearly say "God does not exist" and theism who say "There is a god/there are several gods". Agnostics say that there is simply no way to actually find out?
3910 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 10/16/14

xeneria wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


Kaolinite
A lack of belief in God my friend is the same as having a belief that God does not exist], its just a convenient wordplay to excuse calling yourself an an Athiest . And to acknowledge that God could exist by definition would make you an Agnostic. You are an Agnostic, BTW.


No it isn't. I JUST explained to you the difference.
And no, because if I was agnostic, I wouldn't have any incling either way. Agnosticism is the state in which you're on the fence and could go both ways in terms of religious beliefs. I am no longer in that state. I have taken a clear stance away from religion, and I DO believe that all religion is bullshit. At least all the religions that I've come across. AND I find the existence of a God to be UNLIKELY (particularly the abrahamic god, which is really the only deity that has ever been relevant to me personally) and there is no evidence that suggests that there is one, BUT I acknowledge that I COULD be wrong.

So I have taken a stance on the issue. Which means I'm not an agnostic. But I'm still not making a positive, 100% certain statement.




Correct me if i'm wrong.

But isn't agnosticism not when you are "on the fence". But more like when you believe that there is no way to know if a god/deity exist? unlike atheism who clearly say "God does not exist" and theism who say "There is a god/there are several gods". Agnostics say that there is simply no way to actually find out?


The difference between atheism and agnosticism is, in my experience, the attitude and "conclution". Agnostics tend to lend equal credence to both options, where as atheists are more sceptical and have the attitude of "if there's no evidence to support it, then I have no reason to believe it exists. As such, I will regard it as a fairytale".
Which basicly means that agnostics are just what I like to call "uncommited atheists".

Atheism does, as I have explained, not say "God does not exist, period". There ARE atheists who DO say that, but that's not an inherent property of atheism.
Just like how being anti-theist is not an inherent property of atheism either, as there are atheists who are opponents of religion (anti-theists), and atheists who don't bother with it at all.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.