|
What do you believe? (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| SYSTEM-J |
| But antitheism necessarily involves a lack of belief in a deity, so by your definition it's just atheism as well. That's what happens when you simplify complex positions. |
|
|
| euphoria |
I don't beleive in anything that there isn't solid factual proof of.
My guess is...most people exaggerate, and also the fact that everytime someone tells someone something they go an put their own spin on it...
At one time there may have been a guy that can pull off some tricks or illusions. They called that person god because they were too unintelligent to figure out how he was doing what he was doing therefore labelling them miracles.
Religion is used as a scare tactic to keep people in order. It works on some people, and it's probably best that it does because if no one beleived the world we live in would prob be significantly worse. |
|
|
| Lomeli |
From personal experience (without the use of drugs*) I would say yes, there is a divine force that unites us all. Call it Nature, The Universe, Consciousness, Supreme Awareness, God, Buddha, Krishna, Allah. Whatever. It's there and will always be there. God is Nature itself, and Nature is perfect.
Everyone should be true to themselves.
Take care of your body.
Take care of your mind.
Take care of each other.
I also believe in logic and science, and that both "sides" can benefit from each other.
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holotropic_Breathwork |
|
|
| Lomeli |
| quote: | Originally posted by euphoria
and also the fact that everytime someone tells someone something they go an put their own spin on it...
|
Maybe because it's a personal matter? There is no "right" thing to believe in or "right" way to live.
You just in live. |
|
|
| Theresa |
I am an Agnostic... I know that I don't know and I am ok with that.
I will admit that it would be nice to think that there was something that has the capability to watch over us, or that there is something beyond death to look forward to, which is why I understand the desire for many people to continue believing in it. It's a nice belief (for the most part).
At the end of the day I figure that the most important thing for me is to be the best person that I can be for the short time that I have the chance to do so. If there is a deity and they are as merciful as they are described, I can only hope that the deity would see my efforts to lead a good life and not 'convict' me.
If not, well at least the time I had was well spent. |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
My one credo:
"If this were a more perfect world, we'd all be known as the Flimpsons." |
|
|
| DjWhooCares |
| i believe that liras last thread was so full of fail |
|
|
| couch-potato |
| quote: | Originally posted by DjWhooCares
i believe that liras last thread was so full of fail |
At least he acknowledged his fail, unlike you. |
|
|
| DjWhooCares |
| quote: | Originally posted by couch-potato
|
 |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine
No because if you make up on the spot it's inconsistent with the other . Religion is standardized that doesn't change, that's why it has a social function. |
lol. are you living in another galaxy? religion makes up all the time, through "interpretation" or just making up an entirely new belief system. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
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). |
I do not think it is so unreasonable to evolve a definition or explanation over time. I mean, how many new clothes has your king been dressed up in over the last 10,000 years?
The problem with traditional agnosticism is that it gives equal weighting to both sides of the argument, which imo doesn't make any sense. The negative stance is the natural and standard position, just as it is with any outlandish assertion lacking evidentiary support. Ive posted this before but perhaps system-J hasn’t seen it.
| quote: |
Philosophers such as Antony Flew,[33] Michael Martin,[25] and William L. Rowe[34] have contrasted strong (positive) atheism with weak (negative) atheism. Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a weak or a strong atheist.[35] The terms weak and strong are relatively recent, while the equivalent terms negative and positive atheism are of older origin, having been used (in slightly different ways) in the philosophical literature[33] and in Catholic apologetics[36] since at least 1813.[37][38] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as weak atheists.
While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails weak atheism,[25] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.[39] The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[40] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[41] and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[42] Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[43]
Consequently, some popular atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions by the probability assigned to the statement "God exists".[44] |
|
|
|
| floyd741 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
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. |
That may be so but I don't think it makes any sense to believe in a god when there is no evidence for it. It does make sense to me to believe in the scientific explanation as there is an amount of evidence for it.
Just because science can't disprove the existence of a god doesn't mean it makes any sense to believe in it. That's what I was trying to say at first when I said it makes no sense to believe due to the amount of scientific evidence. It's not that it disproves anything, it just makes more sense imo. |
|
|
|
|
