|
What do you believe? (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by floyd741
If we have reason to believe in a specific origin of our universe that contradicts another theory on its origin, one of those theories has to be incorrect. I spoke to a priest once who told me that he believes in evolution and the big bang but that he also believes that god did all of those things. There wasn't much I could do to argue with that since he believes what I believe but only with a different cause. Even so, I don't think that god did any of that because the concept of god is, imo, logically impossible. Then again, the conept of the big bang is pretty far-fetched too but there are reasons to believe it happened: proof that planets/stars/etc. are moving away from each other which implies that they must have all come from one point.
I hope I answered your question somewhere in there, lol. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine
No, you kinda just proved his point that they're not contradictory. |
Indeed, that is exactly what he did. If one is to believe that a divine force created the universe then it is reasonable to also assume that the observable evidence of said creation would appear as entirely natural, as the creation of the universe would be the creation of nature itself. The contention that divinity is logically impossible is simply incorrect. One could reasonably argue that divinity is logically implausable; however, impossible is not a logical conclusion on a question that cannot be tested. All of this said my point stands: science cannot be used to prove or disprove a position on god since god cannot be observed; therefore, any attempt to do so is folly. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
System, everyone is an agnostic..EVERYONE ON THE ING PLANET. Calling yourself an agnostic says nothing at all.
Theism = belief
Lack of belief = atheism.
You lack belief, so you're an agnostic atheist. Deal with it..lol |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
System, everyone is an agnostic..EVERYONE ON THE ING PLANET. Calling yourself an agnostic says nothing at all.
Theism = belief
Lack of belief = atheism.
You lack belief, so you're an agnostic atheist. Deal with it bitch..lol |
There are no shortage of people who claim to know God exists or that science disproves it. Plenty of people claim to have felt the touch of God, had out-of-body experiences and other moments of divine intervention that give them a certainty of belief. So no, not everyone on the ing planet is agnostic, you cretin.
There's also an important difference between stating "I don't think there's a God, but I can't say for sure" and "I have no idea if there's a God". But again: you're clearly incapable of thinking outside binary oppositions because you're a bit of a thicko. Deal with it, bitch. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
The whole point of agnosticism is that ultimate answers about reality and spirituality are unknown or unknowable. Therefore, if you're agnostic it's impossible to believe in a specific sky fairy with any definable attributes, because that information is ing unknown.
|
While I agree with you that agnosticism and atheism are not the same thing I do have to contend with your assertion that if one is agnostic it is impossible to believe in a specific god(s). It is entirely possible for one to both believe that god/ultimate reality is unknowable yet still believe that a specific god exists.
It seems to me the problem you and Capitalizt are entagled in has less to do with the definition of agnostic and more to do with the definition of atheist. He seems to believe atheism is a lack of belief whereas you seem to believe it is non-believe or perhaps an assertion that no deity exits. I'm not going to bother to wade into that one, as I've been down that road far too many times to be entertained by it anymore; however, that would seem to be the point of contention the two of you need to work out before your discussion goes anywhere. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
There are no shortage of people who claim to know God exists or that science disproves it. Plenty of people claim to have felt the touch of God, had out-of-body experiences and other moments of divine intervention that give them a certainty of belief. So no, not everyone on the ing planet is agnostic, you cretin. |
It's called delusion. Knowledge comes from evidence and reason. If you consider funny dreams and LSD trips means of acquiring valid knowledge, I feel sorry for you.
| quote: |
There's also an important difference between stating "I don't think there's a God, but I can't say for sure" and "I have no idea if there's a God". But again: you're clearly incapable of thinking outside binary oppositions because you're a bit of a thicko. Deal with it, bitch. |
Blah blah blah..You still need to grow some balls and say that you don't believe in unicorns. Come on man..you can do it! Don't be afraid. Man up to your a-unicornism. Don't out like you are doing with the sky fairy.
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
He seems to believe atheism is a lack of belief whereas you seem to believe it is non-believe or perhaps an assertion that no deity exits. |
Exactly. Atheism does not mean making the assertion that "THERE IS NO GOD." Some atheists might make that assertion, but in my experience they are a minority. A statement of that kind is unscientific and just as irrational as claims that God absolutely does exist. Most atheists will simply tell you they have not found sufficient reasons to believe in a God, hence they lack belief. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
It's called delusion. Knowledge comes from evidence and reason. If you consider funny dreams and LSD trips means of acquiring valid knowledge, I feel sorry for you. |
I don't consider them valid, but that's beside the ing point. me, you're stupid. It's not about what you or I think of them, but what about the person who holds the belief thinks.
| quote: | | Blah blah blah..You still need to grow some balls and say that you don't believe in unicorns. Come on man..you can do it! Don't be afraid. Man up to your a-unicornism. Don't out like you are doing with the sky fairy. |
I don't believe in unicorns. I don't believe in God, Allah, Ra or any other predefined deity. I've already said that. I've never been afraid of saying that, as I've made clear multiple ing times only for you to completely ing ignore. I've said it in this thread, I'll say it again. Being afraid, ing out or running away is not the reason I call myself agnostic rather than atheist, you useless tard. Learn to read, learn to comprehend. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
While I agree with you that agnosticism and atheism are not the same thing I do have to contend with your assertion that if one is agnostic it is impossible to believe in a specific god(s). It is entirely possible for one to both believe that god/ultimate reality is unknowable yet still believe that a specific god exists. |
I would call that agnostic theism rather than pure agnosticism, because that line of thinking retains faith of some kind. If we're going to assume "atheism" simply means a lack of belief, pure agnosticism seems to become atheism by default. Which is redundant language as far as I'm concerned. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I don't believe in unicorns. I don't believe in God, Allah, Ra or any other predefined deity. I've already said that. I've never been afraid of saying that, as I've made clear multiple ing times |
With this statement you are officially shedding the pussified agnostic label forever whether you realize it or not. Bravo.
 |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
With this statement you are officially shedding the pussified agnostic label forever whether you realize it or not. Bravo.
|
By that logic I've never had it in this thread. Or ever. But thanks for utterly ignoring any amount of philosophical theory or positioning by making an entire term redundant under the false assumption that people who use it are being "pussies". I appreciate the input. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I would call that agnostic theism rather than pure agnosticism, because that line of thinking retains faith of some kind. |
I'm not sure I buy that one cannot be both, as agnosticism addresses knowledge; whereas, theism addresses belief. I suppose what I'm getting at is that acknowledgement that one does not know something does not preclude one from choosing to believe in same.
| quote: | | If we're going to assume "atheism" simply means a lack of belief, pure agnosticism seems to become atheism by default. Which is redundant language as far as I'm concerned. |
I agree with this, which is why I've always argued that atheism is the belief that there is no god. The early atheist movement would agree with this; however, when faced with the reality that asserting no god(s) exists is just as improvable as asserting that a god(s) exist contemporary atheists watered down their self-identification... essentially, most are agnostic but choose to retain the atheist moniker so that they can continue to mock the belief in the divine (which is more often then not a proxy battle for real and justifiable objections to specific religious bodies). |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I'm not sure I buy that one cannot be both, as agnosticism addresses knowledge; whereas, theism addresses belief. I suppose what I'm getting at is that acknowledgement that one does not know something does not preclude one from choosing to believe in same. |
It depends whether you consider "genre hybrids" to be seperate entities or an overlap in some theological venn diagram. You can either treat agnostic theism as a kind of agnosticism, or as something seperate. I treat it as seperate because one involves faith, the other doesn't.
| quote: | | essentially, most are agnostic but choose to retain the atheist moniker so that they can continue to mock the belief in the divine (which is more often then not a proxy battle for real and justifiable objections to specific religious bodies). |
I'd agree - for me, "atheism" is defined as much as anything by the position the person adopts in an argument about religion. Capitalizt's "you're either with us or against us" reductive approach just strengthens that implication that it's a conflict. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I'd agree - for me, "atheism" is defined as much as anything by the position the person adopts in an argument about religion. Capitalizt's "you're either with us or against us" reductive approach just strengthens that implication that it's a conflict. |
No, I don't think atheist indicates conflict. It isn't against anything. To be against the proposition of a God would mean to be anti-theist. Christopher Hitchens has adopted this term for himself and it seems to fit the "There is no God" crowd better than atheist.
theist - belief
atheist - lacking belief
antitheist - opposing/opposite belief
It's similar to moral, amoral, and immoral. The latter two share no similarity with the first word, but they still have very different meanings from each other. |
|
|
|
|
