(Link to AcmlmWiki) Offline: thank ||bass
Register | Login
Views: 13,040,846
 Main | Memberlist | Active users | Calendar | Chat | Online users
Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album 		04-28-24 09:06 PM
0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate.
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Atheism versus Religion New poll | | Thread closed
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread
User Post
MathOnNapkins

1100

In SPC700 HELL


 





Since: 11-18-05

Last post: 6279 days
Last view: 6278 days
Posted on 10-20-06 02:28 AM Link
I resent the implication that I am somehow not practicing "free thought" just because I belong to an established religion. Do you presume that I have been blindly indoctrinated into my religion, rather than rationally accepting it?

Poor choice of words, sorry for offending you. I've always been a free thinker, even while I was interested and involved in Catholicism. If it suits you to believe in God, so be it.

Being unsatisfied with faith, or being unsatisfied with the perception of being somehow subjugated by the church, which has recently (and not-so-recently) become somehow demonized and painted, at times, as a corrupt and power-hungry force?

That was not the implication. Any institution or beauracracy is going to have some degree of corruption, but that was not what shook my faith. Faith makes me uneasy because my mind requires some kind of evidence that things are moving along, and some kind of evidence of the way things were. If you think back to how scientifically advanced the people of Jesus' time were, you start to wonder if 1. gullibility is a factor, and 2. if exaggeration is a factor. Also consider that many aspects of Jesus' life and death are similar, almost identical to, certain popular cults of the time in the same region. Was the desire to convert by appeasement and telling a yarn there? In these modern times you hear that everyone has an agenda. Who's to think that people had scruples back then? It's been 2000 years and nothing has happened.

Going further, though, why would your dissatisfaction with faith not lead to simple agnosticism? I know I keep saying this over and over, but I repeatedly find myself wondering.

It did. And by your definition I would still be agnostic. You seem to think that Atheist = "BAD" and Agnostic = "... okay bad but at least they're not an ATHEIST." I know you are repeating yourself but I already explained my view that agnostics are essentially the same as atheists. Also, your notion of Atheist is probably not proper, and also probably pretty narrow. Many atheists are going to conclude that something created the universe, but not the personal Judeo-Christian God. Atheists do not readily agree on many things, which is why I'm surprised you're trying to attack viewpoints atheists supposedly share.

(edited by MathOnNapkins on 10-20-06 01:52 AM)
JDavis

Nintendo Fanboy Local Mod
Affected by 'The Golden Power' +








Since: 11-17-05
From: Ada, OK, USA

Last post: 6292 days
Last view: 6280 days
Skype
Posted on 10-20-06 02:38 AM Link
I think you have a skewed view of agnosticism, MathOnNapkins.

Agnostics are not, as Steve Colbert put it "atheists without balls."

Atheism cannot prove deities do not exist any more than theism can prove that they do. It is still a matter of faith. Faith of non-existence, but faith none the less.

There's a reason why a large number of agnostics are scientists. We are fact-based thinkers. Since neither position is provable, we hold neither to be any truer than the other. It is an entirely neutral position.

This is why Jomb is NOT agnostic. He believes that deities do not exist. He is willing to admit he is wrong if so proven, but his position is not neutral. If anything, he is a weak atheist... or, as Colbert might say, "an atheist without balls."

If deities exist, they are infinitely capable of hiding their existence to us, making it seem that they do not, and that seems to be their current position. They won't prove that they exist, for proof denies faith, and without faith they are nothing. So, until they slip up and create a babel fish, we'll never know for sure.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6291 days
Last view: 6279 days
Posted on 10-20-06 02:47 AM Link
Originally posted by Arwon
It's a metaphor which implies essential ownership of everything, the centrality of man in the whole scheme of creation.
Well, when you begin talking about metaphors and other sorts of figurative language in the Bible, you must understand (and I'm sure you do) that Scripture is interpreted in such varying ways that you really cannot pin it down to your one interpretation. But, in this case, I can't imagine that humans rule over the Earth with such power that we have "ownership of everything," at least to some point - natural disasters and the various terrors of weather, for example, will always affect humanity, at least into the forseeable future.

Originally posted by Arwon
It's observable that we've managed to put ourselves in a position where this planet cannot survive without us (if we all die tomorrow, nuclear reactors and nerve gas factories and other chemical production processes will probably destroy everything) but so what? Why is that special? For me, the key point is how badly we appear to be fucking up our assumed dominion. As I say, we shit where we eat and we're in the process of throughly mangling our only biosphere. We cannot escape the consequences of the fact that we're the same as everything else... the planet dies, we go with it. That ain't dominion. At best it's our hubris and idiocy and our isolated consciousness making distinctions between "us" and "everything else" made manifest and concrete.
We have dominion over living creatures, since we are God's chosen species (if you want to look at it that way, if it helps - or, we are evolution's chosen species). I would never claim absolute dominion over the Earth, though, as I explained above. But you state that "we" are really screwing up the planet; would that general "we" only include religious people? I feel like you imply that religious people play a major, or even a majority, role in defiling the planet. And I would have trouble agreeing with that.

Originally posted by Arwon
Fundamentally: the fact that dominion is the reality at present doesn't mean it's because of God or special destiny. Moreover, we don't really have dominion, we ain't that special. We all were stardust, we all end up worm food. The fact that we've happened upon some consciousness and reasoning abilities in the interim doesn't necessarily imply that we have any great cosmic significance. At most we have the "there's nothing better elsewhere and there's no reason to hasten oblivion" impetus to try to make things better and more livable.
I can't really respond to this, because it's the equivalent of my statement that all of the above stems from some Supreme Being. That is, it's subjective, with no proof in either direction beyond the subjective perception of the viewer.

Originally posted by Arwon
Confucianism? Hell, most Chinese belief systems in general? And hey, moving forward in time, there's a billion atheists in China that tell me you're actually somewhat wrong on that score. Or don't Chinese people have souls? (Sorry, South Park joke). I'm not convinced that just because most tribes looked up at the sun and decided it was a god at some point, and just because Abrahamic religions spread to millions of people through their well-organised power-structures and the fact that their adherents continue to dominate worldwide cultural discourse, that this is sufficient reason to think that there's some external reason most cultures have had gods.

The notion of deities has always served an anthropoligical function. It's been a stand-in for the unknowable and a comfort during tragedies... sort of a god-of-the-gaps conception. Hence the worship of the sun in so many societies--the sun is important after all. You still see it in the theistic appeals to the edge of our knowledge and undersanding and perception--people say "we don't know this this and this, therefore God". Although I will grant there's a competing conception of god-of-the-process (God is everything in animistic and karmic conceptions or in the modern rational west--God is the hand manipulating chaos theory, God set the mathematics of the universe, etc) the God-of-the-Gaps remains dominant, at least in the west.

The mere fact that there's so many competing, contradictory conceptions of them (ever have a theological conversation with a fundamentalist Hindu?) tells me that there's probably no external reason for it, it's just part of who we are to build such things. If anything, there is DISUNITY, not UNITY, in humankind's perceptions of matters of theism... if there WAS an external impetus creating these beliefs, chances are they'd all agree on things beyond common sense survival strategies such as the "do unto others" rule and "be nice damn you".
Wow, I seem to have made a big mistake in mentioning that religion has been so prevalent in past societies, and it's been turned into a major point of contention. It was intended as a trivial side-point to facilitate a greater issue...you'd best ignore it, I think.

Originally posted by Arwon
Why is the absence of faith considered an act of faith in itself only when it comes to god? Why is faith in something that has been so clearly constructed the default position? If you replace "God" with ANYTHING else, be it Ghosts, Faeries, Aliens, a huge government conspiracy, suddenly faith stops being the default position and people run the risk of being locked up if they espous their views. AND, even then, if their coneption of God is held by too few people or is too wacky, they might get grabbed by anti-cult deprogrammers anyway.
First, how is it "so clearly constructed"? Anything that you say is obviously fabricated, I can say is obviously the work of God. It's a stalemate.

Second, all of your examples (ghosts, faeries, etc) would be more easily understood as a "default," or at least as defensible beliefs, if they were as encompassing and overarching as deism. A ghost or a faerie is a single entity, while a religious worldview takes into account the innumerable things that happen, that are seen, that are experienced, every day of our lives and every day of history and prehistory. In every moment of my life I see God, and I can draw an argument to explain that perception; likewise, you see God in none of those moments, and you can draw that same argument.

I feel like I worded that very poorly...I dunno, it's getting kind of late .

Originally posted by Arwon
Why don't I believe in God? Same reason I don't believe in Zeus or Shiva. It never really occured to me to do so and no-one got me at a young and vulnerable age and put the ideas in my head.
As I remarked to MathOnNapkins, it's insulting that you paint all believers as simple mindless drones who have become what they are because they have been brainwashed as children. A great number of people don't retain the doctrines that are fed to them as youths; the common quip is that Catholic schools are breeding grounds for atheists, while, conversely, there is any number of stories about saints and other people who lived a formerly godless life but experienced a conversion.

Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
Poor choice of words, sorry for offending you. I've always been a free thinker, even while I was interested and involved in Catholicism. If it suits you to believe in God, so be it.
No apology needed.
Arwon

Bazu


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Last post: 6280 days
Last view: 6280 days
Posted on 10-20-06 03:11 AM Link
I feel like you imply that religious people play a major, or even a majority, role in defiling the planet. And I would have trouble agreeing with that.


Didn't I just talk about Marxist materialism and the Aral Sea? People are largely scum whether they're religious or not. The shortsightedness, self-interest, self-centredness and limited perceptions of humankind (design flaws?) is what dooms us, not the fact that we think God or History tells us to take dominion over the environment.

A great number of people don't retain the doctrines that are fed to them as youths; the common quip is that Catholic schools are breeding grounds for atheists, while, conversely, there is any number of stories about saints and other people who lived a formerly godless life but experienced a conversion.


This is all true. But a child raised in a theocentric environment is more likely to remain theistic in the future. You'd be far less likely to believe what you do if you grew up in Prague, which is in a contry where 85% of people have no religion and if you were raised in Sri Lanka chances are you'd be talking about enlightenment and Nirvana and so forth.

At any rate, you asked why I don't and that's why. I was raised in an utterly agnostic though nominally Catholic household, and thus I basically defaulted through my own experiences towards the fairly nihilistic views I'm now espousing. I would repeat, though that atheism isn't really a central feature of my worldview any more than "not being Hindu" or "not believing in Mercantilism" is... it was never an active choice to disbelieve since I never believed in the first place. As I said, if one believes that there is essentially no ultimate truth, no final meaning in life, if one looks at everything in terms of cultural contexts and a limited sort of relativism... then it kind of follows that God, as a prime example of a cultural truth and a constructed ultimate meaning, is irrelevant and likely to be nonsense. It's not "proof against God" per se, lack of God (or Shiva) isn't central to it, but merely a consequence.

Do you understand what I mean by "constructed" by the way? It's kind of a slippery po-mo term, unfortunately, but it's the most succinct way to express that religious beliefs are cultural meanings that continue to be shaped and changed and perpatuated by social and cultural forces. This would be true whether God existed or not.
MathOnNapkins

1100

In SPC700 HELL


 





Since: 11-18-05

Last post: 6279 days
Last view: 6278 days
Posted on 10-20-06 03:30 AM Link
Originally posted by JDavis
I think you have a skewed view of agnosticism, MathOnNapkins.


Perhaps, but let me lay it out just so I'm not misinterpreted. Agnosticism doesn't seem to be well defined in the intellectual world at large, so it would be easy for me or anybody else to unintentionally skew it.

Atheist: A person who is skeptical of the notion of a personal God or other deities that interact with humanity. This person views the personal God, such as the Judeo-Christian one, as a human construction, but is not opposed to postulations of higher beings being involved in the creation of the universe.

Agnostic: A person who cannot make up their mind about the existence of personal God/gods. This could be for any number of reasons, such as a lack of evidence, a lack of time to do some reading to explore the matter, or simple skepticism.

Theist: Believes there is a personal God or gods out there that watches over us and has an active role in humanity's fate. This God or collection of gods is responsible for the creation and fate of the universe.

What I was trying to say about the term "agnostic" is that for some people who are atheists at heart, it can be convenient to label one's self an "agnostic" instead as people generally don't bother you as much or try to convert you as much. I was at work the other day and one of the guys who works for me is a devout, born-again Christian. We got on the subject of religion and it came up that one of the girls I work with is an atheist. She's 16. Myself, I said I was an agnostic b/c I wasn't in the mood for a huge debate. Predictably, he goes for the atheist and asks her gobs and gobs of questions about faith and pretty much close to all we've discussed here. And then after a bit of discussion, he concluded, "you're not an atheist, you're agnostic." Now I like this guy, but I'm a bit irritated that he would presume to make up someone else's mind for them. Golly gee, I'm an agnostic... thanks for telling me. Put quite simply, the atheist that theists have constructed does not exist. Atheists do not profess to know that God does not exist any more than theists profess to know that God does exist. Any real atheist you meet would probably instantly be labeled agnostic.
Glyphodon



 





Since: 11-18-05

Last post: 6320 days
Last view: 6300 days
Posted on 10-20-06 03:53 AM Link
Pascal's Wager is hilarious. My hell is scarier than your hell; believe in MY religion.

If you don't do nice things my God will bite you. If He stands on his back paws I give him a Goddy treat.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6291 days
Last view: 6279 days
Posted on 10-20-06 04:57 AM Link
Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
That was not the implication. Any institution or beauracracy is going to have some degree of corruption, but that was not what shook my faith. Faith makes me uneasy because my mind requires some kind of evidence that things are moving along, and some kind of evidence of the way things were. If you think back to how scientifically advanced the people of Jesus' time were, you start to wonder if 1. gullibility is a factor, and 2. if exaggeration is a factor. Also consider that many aspects of Jesus' life and death are similar, almost identical to, certain popular cults of the time in the same region. Was the desire to convert by appeasement and telling a yarn there? In these modern times you hear that everyone has an agenda. Who's to think that people had scruples back then? It's been 2000 years and nothing has happened.
If "nothing has happened" means that God has never made Himself present, then I would strongly contest what you say. Because, like I've mentioned, I experience Him every day, and so do millions of other people. You just have to take plenty of "mundane" experiences and understand that they have greater meaning. Is that just me deluding myself? Well, it absolutely sounds like it. But, as I've said more than once, that's what faith is about.

If "nothing has happened" means that Jesus simply hasn't returned, though, I'd wonder what would make you think that the Second Coming should come at any point in our lifetime. Tons of people have been absolutely certain that the world would end during their lives; even just in the years immediate following Jesus' crucifixion, people were selling all their belongings because they were certain that the end was near. The truth persists, though: we have no way of knowing, and the simple fact that it hasn't happened yet proves nothing.

Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
It did. And by your definition I would still be agnostic. You seem to think that Atheist = "BAD" and Agnostic = "... okay bad but at least they're not an ATHEIST."
You're putting words in my mouth. I never called either of them "bad" - especially because "bad" can be so broadly defined - but simply take greater issue with, and see more flaws in, atheism.

Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
I know you are repeating yourself but I already explained my view that agnostics are essentially the same as atheists. Also, your notion of Atheist is probably not proper, and also probably pretty narrow. Many atheists are going to conclude that something created the universe, but not the personal Judeo-Christian God. Atheists do not readily agree on many things, which is why I'm surprised you're trying to attack viewpoints atheists supposedly share.
Just to clarify, an atheist is somebody who absolutely does not believe in a supernatural higher power, no matter what form (Christian God, Ancient Greek pantheon, unnamed supernatural being(s), etc) that power takes. An agnostic neither inherently believes nor inherently disbelieves in such a higher power; simply, he recognizes that the human mind and the human experience cannot draw such a conclusion, at least not at present.

That said, if what those "atheists" conclude created the universe is some sort of supernatural force, then they are hardly atheists, and they probably are not even agnostic.

Originally posted by Arwon
Didn't I just talk about Marxist materialism and the Aral Sea? People are largely scum whether they're religious or not. The shortsightedness, self-interest, self-centredness and limited perceptions of humankind (design flaws?) is what dooms us, not the fact that we think God or History tells us to take dominion over the environment.
I don't know a thing about either Marxism or the Aral Sea, so you've lost me on both counts...

But, anyway, those limited perceptions of humanity are not flaws in the sense that they were unintentional, but perhaps in the sense that they prevent us from achieving perfection and from understanding how to properly care of our planet. Or, maybe we are supposed to suck the life out of our planet? Ya got me on this one, you'll have to ask God .

Originally posted by Arwon
This is all true. But a child raised in a theocentric environment is more likely to remain theistic in the future. You'd be far less likely to believe what you do if you grew up in Prague, which is in a contry where 85% of people have no religion and if you were raised in Sri Lanka chances are you'd be talking about enlightenment and Nirvana and so forth.
Sure, but, addressing people as individuals, it is irresponsible to label any particular person as a mere product of his upbringing. Human psychology is far too complex for such a simplification. And, of course, the "nature versus nurture" debate rages strong to this day, and it certainly applies to belief systems as much as it does to intelligence, personality traits, etc (maybe because something like personality can greatly affect belief systems).

Originally posted by Arwon
Do you understand what I mean by "constructed" by the way? It's kind of a slippery po-mo term, unfortunately, but it's the most succinct way to express that religious beliefs are cultural meanings that continue to be shaped and changed and perpatuated by social and cultural forces. This would be true whether God existed or not.
Certainly religion as an institution and as a belief system forms around the society that creates it, and changes as that society changes. The Old Testament presents a number of ethical and moral values, as well as punishments for crimes and that sort of thing, that are absolutely out of synch with what we would allow in the modern world. I would like to believe that the eternal truth, the seed at the center of religion, remains constant forever, though.

Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
Atheist: A person who is skeptical of the notion of a personal God or other deities that interact with humanity. This person views the personal God, such as the Judeo-Christian one, as a human construction, but is not opposed to postulations of higher beings being involved in the creation of the universe.
This definition is absolutely at odds with what I know and have heard.

Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
Agnostic: A person who cannot make up their mind about the existence of personal God/gods. This could be for any number of reasons, such as a lack of evidence, a lack of time to do some reading to explore the matter, or simple skepticism.
Likewise.

Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
What I was trying to say about the term "agnostic" is that for some people who are atheists at heart, it can be convenient to label one's self an "agnostic" instead as people generally don't bother you as much or try to convert you as much. I was at work the other day and one of the guys who works for me is a devout, born-again Christian. We got on the subject of religion and it came up that one of the girls I work with is an atheist. She's 16. Myself, I said I was an agnostic b/c I wasn't in the mood for a huge debate. Predictably, he goes for the atheist and asks her gobs and gobs of questions about faith and pretty much close to all we've discussed here. And then after a bit of discussion, he concluded, "you're not an atheist, you're agnostic." Now I like this guy, but I'm a bit irritated that he would presume to make up someone else's mind for them. Golly gee, I'm an agnostic... thanks for telling me.
Well, if the information she provided would declare her an agnostic, but she was going about calling herself an atheist, what's wrong with him calling her on it? That's not to say I endorse him being so overbearing about the whole deal but, admittedly, a 16-year-old girl probably isn't all too experienced and all too knowledgable concerning religion. And, of course, there's the fact that atheism appears "fashionable" around that age, at least in my experience. (That's not to say that all mature atheists are just conforming to fashion, so don't take it like that.)

Originally posted by Glyph Pheonix
Pascal's Wager is hilarious. My hell is scarier than your hell; believe in MY religion.

If you don't do nice things my God will bite you. If He stands on his back paws I give him a Goddy treat.
Instead of popping in and providing a brief, condescending comment that adds nothing to what we're discussing and doesn't even pertain to the current thread of conversation, read what's going on and be more thoughtful about it.
Glyphodon



 





Since: 11-18-05

Last post: 6320 days
Last view: 6300 days
Posted on 10-20-06 05:26 AM Link
You mean like a post about the fallacy in calling a nontestable belief an absolute truth and those who disbelieve arrogant for not giving it the same recognition as scientific fact or theory? No way. Where's the fun in that?

(edited by Glyph Phoenix on 10-20-06 04:26 AM)
(edited by Glyph Phoenix on 10-20-06 04:27 AM)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6291 days
Last view: 6279 days
Posted on 10-20-06 12:20 PM Link
Originally posted by Glyph Phoenix
You mean like a post about the fallacy in calling a nontestable belief an absolute truth and those who disbelieve arrogant for not giving it the same recognition as scientific fact or theory? No way. Where's the fun in that?
You write it off as if it's that simple. If it were that simple, we wouldn't have been spending hours discussing that exact topic.
JDavis

Nintendo Fanboy Local Mod
Affected by 'The Golden Power' +








Since: 11-17-05
From: Ada, OK, USA

Last post: 6292 days
Last view: 6280 days
Skype
Posted on 10-20-06 01:32 PM Link
Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
Agnostic: A person who cannot make up their mind about the existence of personal God/gods. This could be for any number of reasons, such as a lack of evidence, a lack of time to do some reading to explore the matter, or simple skepticism.


That has, sadly, come to be a common use of the term, but it is not true agnosticism. We've made up our minds perfectly well. Having observed that neither side of the arguement of existance/non-existance of deities (personal or otherwise) is any more provable than the other (for now, at least), we've taken the firm stance to accept neither position.

Furthermore, "strong" agnostics believe that the existance/non-existance of deities is inherently unknowable, where as "weak" agnostics believe that it IS knowable but that the evidence (or our ability to interpret it) is presently lacking.
Young Guru

Snifit








Since: 11-18-05
From: Notre Dame, IN

Last post: 6285 days
Last view: 6278 days
Posted on 10-20-06 02:44 PM Link
Let's just end this debate over what the definitions of Atheist/Agnostic/Theist are...

Atheist - A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Agnostic - A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Theist - One who believes in the existence of a god or gods.

And an exerpt from the Atheist page
Originally posted by www.dictionary.com on Atheism v Agnosticism
An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.

From what I gather from these definitions, an Atheist would be someone who, given the evidence presented to them, does not believe in a god but given a change in evidence leading to a strong proof of a god would accept that god. An Agnostic would be someone who does not think it is possible to make a judgement either way regarding the existance of a supreme being and even if evidence changed to make it highly plausible that there was a supreme being would still believe that there is no way to ascertain the nature of a god and would still not accept the new evidence.

Hope that clears up some of the issues about who/what is Atheist/Agnostic.
JDavis

Nintendo Fanboy Local Mod
Affected by 'The Golden Power' +








Since: 11-17-05
From: Ada, OK, USA

Last post: 6292 days
Last view: 6280 days
Skype
Posted on 10-20-06 07:53 PM Link
Originally posted by Young Guru
An Agnostic would be someone who does not think it is possible to make a judgement either way regarding the existance of a supreme being and even if evidence changed to make it highly plausible that there was a supreme being would still believe that there is no way to ascertain the nature of a god and would still not accept the new evidence.


A "strong" agnostic, yes. A "weak" agnostic would accept the evidence once it appeared.
Jomb

Deddorokku








Since: 12-03-05
From: purgatory

Last post: 6281 days
Last view: 6281 days
Posted on 10-20-06 08:57 PM Link
It does'nt really matter to me if some people consider me an agnostic, I still consider myself to be an Atheist, because based on the facts presented to me i cant believe in god. I'd have to put the likelyhood at less than 1% that god exists as put forth in any religion known to man, in my estimation. It's not a matter of faith, it's simply an exercise in rational thought. Rational thought is open to change if the evidence changes, that's all.


Silvershield -"Why doesn't it make it the will of God? I'm kind of just calling you out on this point for the sake of the argument but, honestly, if the Christian God exists as Christians say He does, would that random number not be His will?

Regardless, though, I'm not quite certain I see what point you're trying to make with this. "

My point was simply that unlikely things happening does'nt necessarily prove God exists because in many circumstances only unlikely things can happen. Chalking everything up as the intervention of god is kind of silly to me.

"It's all a matter of free will. Simple. Free will is among God's greatest gifts to humanity, if not the absolute greatest, and though God certainly "could" defy that principle of free will, He chooses not to. He gives you and I the free will to choose whatever system of beliefs that appeals to us, and He gives each of us the same signs and symbols in daily life; people interpret those experiences differently, and so end up on different life paths. You are understanding your own free will, your own free choice, as the cruel work of God. It is not. "

How do you know this? Why do you think that God gave us free will? Does'nt this directly contradict god being all-knowing? If god is truly all-knowing then he'd know every single choice each of us is going to make millions of years before we were born. This would make it his choice to intentionally create people who were going to hell. It might make a little more sense to me if god was not all-knowing or all-powerful.

"Even if you don't wish to believe in my Lord as a supernatural being, it is best that you understand that the His greatest teaching was that we as humans should treat one another kindly. It's that simple. I'm not some Bible-thumping fundamentalist who will tell you that you're going to Hell because you're not a Christian, but I will tell you that you are going to Hell if you are a bad person."

I dont understand this as the teaching of god, but i do agree with treating each other kindly. Does'nt religion itself sometimes drive a wedge between people and prevent this from happening though?

"And, so, I continue to question why any atheist would continue to be an atheist when no proof against a god exists"

circumstantial evidence against god exists, but its impossible to get direct evidence when the term god is defined very loosely. If i told you that the core of the earth is filled with chocolate, would you have to believe me because you cant prove me wrong conclusively? It does'nt work that way if we are to be rational beings. We have no way to currently dig to the center of the earth to find out with 100% certainty that it's not chocolate, so by your reasoning we should just have faith that there is chocolate down there somewhere. Or if I said out there somewhere in a distant solar system is a mirror planet to earth where we all have twins living and doing the exact same things we do here, there is no way to prove with 100% certainty that that is not so. To be rational you go with things that you can prove conclusively to be true, or have strong circumstantial evidence of.

"In every moment of my life I see God"

One question - What does he look like? Beard or no beard? white robes? Halo?

"As I remarked to MathOnNapkins, it's insulting that you paint all believers as simple mindless drones who have become what they are because they have been brainwashed as children."

No to be intentionally insulting, but there is some truth to people being products of their upbringing. If there was one correct religion, would'nt people naturally develop into it based on the facts of nature? What we have is people born into Christian areas of the world almost always becoming christian, people born into muslim areas of the world almost always following islam, people born in hindu areas almost always turn out hindu, etc. the logical explanation for this is that people are very srongly influenced by their upbringing, in a sort of brainwashing (strong word though, but the basic idea seems to apply)

"You just have to take plenty of "mundane" experiences and understand that they have greater meaning."

Why would you assume they are anything other than mundane or chance occurances?

anyone- Why is it that god supposedly gives us free will so we can choose freely to worship and have faith in him? How does that make sense? Why does god care if we have faith in him or not? How does he benefit from this? Other than having a low self-esteem, i cant imagine a situation where a supposedly higher being would want a flock of lesser being going around praising and worshipping him. explain this to me, its yet another thing i consider circumstantial evidence against there being a god (as put forth in the bible).
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6291 days
Last view: 6279 days
Posted on 10-20-06 10:38 PM Link
Originally posted by Jomb
It does'nt really matter to me if some people consider me an agnostic, I still consider myself to be an Atheist, because based on the facts presented to me i cant believe in god. I'd have to put the likelyhood at less than 1% that god exists as put forth in any religion known to man, in my estimation. It's not a matter of faith, it's simply an exercise in rational thought. Rational thought is open to change if the evidence changes, that's all.
I'm not trying to label you for the sake of being malicious, but because your own description of your beliefs does not necessarily match the label you are giving to yourself. It would be like me denying that Jesus is the Son of God, but then calling myself a Christian; the two are not compatible. I argue that you more closely match agnosticism because, while atheism requires absolute denial of God and theism requires absolute acceptance of God, agnosticism essentially covers the entire middle ground. You continue to profess that 1% uncertainty, and that smallest hesitation makes you an agnostic in my book. Don't take it the wrong way, I'm just defining you according to how I understand the term.

Originally posted by Jomb
My point was simply that unlikely things happening does'nt necessarily prove God exists because in many circumstances only unlikely things can happen. Chalking everything up as the intervention of god is kind of silly to me.
You're absolutely right - when every possibly outcome of a specific scenario is unlikely, and then the actual outcome turns out to be one of those unlikely options (because it has to be), nothing at all is proven. Even in a case where a very likely option appears alongside a very unlikely option, the choice of the latter proves nothing at all. Coincidences are very real, and very common, and very un-special .

Originally posted by Jomb
How do you know this? Why do you think that God gave us free will? Does'nt this directly contradict god being all-knowing? If god is truly all-knowing then he'd know every single choice each of us is going to make millions of years before we were born. This would make it his choice to intentionally create people who were going to hell. It might make a little more sense to me if god was not all-knowing or all-powerful.
I "know it" as it is a cornerstone tenet of my faith, but I don't "know it" in the sense that I could prove it objectively.

And, I don't think that human free will and God's omniscience are mutually exclusive, but it involves a great deal of juggling with the concept of time and space and predestination and all that erudite stuff. I've explained it to myself in a very convoluted, roundabout way, but, to simplify, just because God knows what we will do in a given situation doesn't mean that He made us do it. Imagine that He is so infinitely familiar with each and every one of us humans that He could flawlessly predict our behavior even millenia before we were born; that doesn't mean that He caused us to behave in whatever way we do, but that He "saw it coming" just based on His knowledge of our individual personalities, etc.

Or, justify it to yourself in whatever way makes the most sense to you. Heh heh.

Originally posted by Jomb
I dont understand this as the teaching of god, but i do agree with treating each other kindly. Does'nt religion itself sometimes drive a wedge between people and prevent this from happening though?
You subscribe to the widespread belief that religion historically causes more harm than good. Corrupt people, misinterpretation of Scripture according to a specific agenda, and similar things all cause harm, but devotion to the essential tenets of most any religion causes absolutely no harm at all. You're saying that, since people have used religion as a pretense through which to do evil, religion is itself bad; that is a fallacy, as far as I can see.

Originally posted by Jomb
circumstantial evidence against god exists, but its impossible to get direct evidence when the term god is defined very loosely. If i told you that the core of the earth is filled with chocolate, would you have to believe me because you cant prove me wrong conclusively? It does'nt work that way if we are to be rational beings. We have no way to currently dig to the center of the earth to find out with 100% certainty that it's not chocolate, so by your reasoning we should just have faith that there is chocolate down there somewhere. Or if I said out there somewhere in a distant solar system is a mirror planet to earth where we all have twins living and doing the exact same things we do here, there is no way to prove with 100% certainty that that is not so. To be rational you go with things that you can prove conclusively to be true, or have strong circumstantial evidence of.
I don't think God is defined loosely at all. He is a supernatural being who is responsible for the world as we know it; different religions will tack different additions onto that basic idea, or will qualify it differently, but that's the base of it.

Like I've said, I'm not asking anyone to believe in God based on what circumstantial evidence exists. I'll be the first to say - and I have been saying - that if you live a good life, you are doing plenty; I am well aware that it takes an extra bit of "something" for a person to believe in God, and maybe many people don't just have "it." I never said you have to believe me.

Originally posted by Jomb
One question - What does he look like? Beard or no beard? white robes? Halo?
I don't physically see Him. Are you not familiar with the infinitive "to see" as a metaphor?

Originally posted by Jomb
No to be intentionally insulting, but there is some truth to people being products of their upbringing. If there was one correct religion, would'nt people naturally develop into it based on the facts of nature? What we have is people born into Christian areas of the world almost always becoming christian, people born into muslim areas of the world almost always following islam, people born in hindu areas almost always turn out hindu, etc. the logical explanation for this is that people are very srongly influenced by their upbringing, in a sort of brainwashing (strong word though, but the basic idea seems to apply)
Absolutely you will see a greater concentration of a specific religious group in an area that has predominately followed that religion for generations. I won't deny for a second that the tendency is for people to be more inclined to that belief system that they are first exposed to. I only object to the implication that I am personally Christian because of my upbringing alone, because it directly includes the notion that I am irrational and brainwashed; I would generalize that same idea to other individuals, as well, in pointing out that there is no hard and fast rule that will determine what any specific person will be, because everyone comes to their ultimate faith (or lack thereof) in a different way.

Originally posted by Jomb
Why would you assume they are anything other than mundane or chance occurances?
Because I believe in God, and He created each of those happenings and each of those experiences. I have no sort of objective evidence, though, if that's what you're asking for.

Originally posted by Jomb
anyone- Why is it that god supposedly gives us free will so we can choose freely to worship and have faith in him? How does that make sense? Why does god care if we have faith in him or not? How does he benefit from this? Other than having a low self-esteem, i cant imagine a situation where a supposedly higher being would want a flock of lesser being going around praising and worshipping him. explain this to me, its yet another thing i consider circumstantial evidence against there being a god (as put forth in the bible).
I don't know how I would answer this sufficiently, except to say that God's ways and God's ideas are so far beyond the capacity of humanity as to appear totally illogical or incomprehensible. Like I've stated previously, that sounds absolutely like a cop-out, but that's what faith is about.

Edit for typos.

(edited by Silvershield on 10-20-06 11:56 PM)
Sinfjotle
Lordly? No, not quite.








Since: 11-17-05
From: Kansas

Last post: 6280 days
Last view: 6279 days
Posted on 10-21-06 02:24 AM Link
Originally posted by Silvershield
I argue that you more closely match agnosticism because, while atheism requires absolute denial of God and theism requires absolute acceptance of God, agnosticism essentially covers the entire middle ground.


Basically, you can't be Atheist or Christian unless you're narrowminded and closed to the idea that you may be wrong. That's what you're saying. There isn't a discussion about it, you're simply wrong. You interpet agnostism and atheism wrongly, and even when you're confronted by definitions, you refuse to admit you're wrong.

Atheism is simply the lack of faith in a god. The difference between agnostic and atheist is that agnostic believes something is out there while atheist do not. We aren't narrowminded or stupid though, if God were to confront us, physicall appear, prove he is God, we would accept the fact that we were wrong and there is a God.

Originally posted by Jomb
It does'nt really matter to me if some people consider me an agnostic, I still consider myself to be an Atheist, because based on the facts presented to me i cant believe in god. I'd have to put the likelyhood at less than 1% that god exists as put forth in any religion known to man, in my estimation. It's not a matter of faith, it's simply an exercise in rational thought. Rational thought is open to change if the evidence changes, that's all.


Roughly translates to: Hey, I don't believe God is a likely concept, in fact I would believe that no higher diety exists; however, I am willing to admit I don't know if that's actually right, but for now, with the evidence I have, there is no higher diety.

That is atheism, all you're doing is labeling him agnostic because in Christianity you're taught to have 100% faith, that there is an ultimate and that you can't be wrong. Christianity is a very narrow minded religion and it doesn't accept other possibilities. A wise person considers all options as a possibility, but only follows the one they are the most sure of.

(edited by Pvt. Prinny on 10-21-06 01:24 AM)
Glyphodon



 





Since: 11-18-05

Last post: 6320 days
Last view: 6300 days
Posted on 10-21-06 02:29 AM Link
Originally posted by Silvershield
You write it off as if it's that simple. If it were that simple, we wouldn't have been spending hours discussing that exact topic.

It is that simple, you have been spending hours discussing this topic, and that's why I find your side of the argument here so hilariously nonthreatening that I feel comfortable posting stupid stuff like that above.

(edited by Glyph Phoenix on 10-21-06 01:30 AM)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6291 days
Last view: 6279 days
Posted on 10-21-06 02:47 AM Link
Forgive my sloppy layout, I'm in the midst of a sort of overhaul. At least its legible for the moment, though .

Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
Basically, you can't be Atheist or Christian unless you're narrowminded and closed to the idea that you may be wrong. That's what you're saying. There isn't a discussion about it, you're simply wrong. You interpet agnostism and atheism wrongly, and even when you're confronted by definitions, you refuse to admit you're wrong.
I don't understand how I am misunderstanding the definition. Though I will usually hesitate to resort to a dictionary definition, it is appropriate in this case:

atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

How am I misrepresenting that idea? To disbelieve something is an absolute term - that is, you cannot "kind of" not believe, you either do or you don't - and Jomb said that he is not 100% certain that a god does not exist. Therefore, that definiton of atheism cannot apply to him. So I call him an agnostic. What am I getting wrong?

Also, I didn't say that an atheist or a theist is necessarily narrowminded and closed to any alternatives. A Christian might be - after all, even if some sort of proof against God were presented, a Christian could still believe in God and just attribute it to faith without violating any of his professed beliefs - but an atheist typically attends only to concrete evidence and would hardly be unaccepting of proof. If proof for God were available, that atheist could certainly change his mind, because he does not rely on faith to frame his beliefs but only on hard, tangible reality. How do you think I am calling anybody closed-minded?

Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
Atheism is simply the lack of faith in a god. The difference between agnostic and atheist is that agnostic believes something is out there while atheist do not. We aren't narrowminded or stupid though, if God were to confront us, physicall appear, prove he is God, we would accept the fact that we were wrong and there is a God.
An agnostic does not believe that something is out there. You are wrong. An agnostic surrenders to the idea that, for any reason, the truth of the existence of God is unknowable; he does not outwardly believe in God (nor does he disbelieve).

Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
Roughly translates to: Hey, I don't believe God is a likely concept, in fact I would believe that no higher diety exists; however, I am willing to admit I don't know if that's actually right, but for now, with the evidence I have, there is no higher diety.
Your "rough translation" is atheism, his exact words are agnosticism. As long as he continues that expression of less-than-total certainty in God's nonexistance, he is an agnostic in my book. However, you are correct in saying that a person who simply follows evidence, and would willingly change sides if new evidence emerged, is an atheist.

Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
That is atheism, all you're doing is labeling him agnostic because in Christianity you're taught to have 100% faith, that there is an ultimate and that you can't be wrong. Christianity is a very narrow minded religion and it doesn't accept other possibilities. A wise person considers all options as a possibility, but only follows the one they are the most sure of.
Christianity is narrowminded how? Because a core belief is that our God is the Supreme and the Omnipotent? Maybe, I guess. But, honestly, what kind of religion is there that says "these are our beliefs, but we're only kinda passionate about them"?

Originally posted by Glyph Phoenix
It is that simple, you have been spending hours discussing this topic, and that's why I find it so hilarious that I feel comfortable posting stupid stuff like that above.
Thank you for providing such comprehensive support for your point.
JDavis

Nintendo Fanboy Local Mod
Affected by 'The Golden Power' +








Since: 11-17-05
From: Ada, OK, USA

Last post: 6292 days
Last view: 6280 days
Skype
Posted on 10-21-06 02:57 AM Link
Originally posted by Silvershield
I argue that you more closely match agnosticism because, while atheism requires absolute denial of God and theism requires absolute acceptance of God, agnosticism essentially covers the entire middle ground.


No. Agnosticism is NOT "everything besides 100% exist/0% not-exist or 0% exist/100% not-exist", Atheism is NOT JUST "0% exist/100% not-exist", and Theism is NOT JUST "100% exist/0% not-exist"

Agnosticism is where the two sides of the ratio roughly equal each other. 50/50. 45/55. 55/45. I think putting either side at 60 is stretching the limits of agnosticism a bit. They don't have to add up to 100%, either. 0%/0% would be prefectly applicable to a very "strong" agnostic.

When one side of the ratio is subtantially larger than the other, THAT'S theism or atheism. This is something you seem to be caught up on. NEITHER atheism NOR theism require "absolute acceptance of God"(/gods/deities). Certainly, various brands of theism require absolute acceptance, but theism in general does not. This is something alot of Christians (the real ones, anyway) seem to have trouble wrapping their heads around, since Christianity is one of those brands that do require it.

Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
The difference between agnostic and atheist is that agnostic believes something is out there while atheist do not.


No, that's the difference between theist and atheist. The difference between agnostic and atheist is that agnostics believe (or do not believe) in the existance and non-existance of deities at a roughly equal level (usually 0 or close to it), while atheists believe in the non-existance of deities much more than they believe in the existance of them.
emcee

Red Super Koopa


 





Since: 11-20-05

Last post: 6279 days
Last view: 6278 days
Posted on 10-21-06 03:15 AM Link
These religion threads are frustratingly repetitive. Not just from post to the next, but from one thread to the next. All you have to do it just mention religion in your first post and the thread will explode within days to a five page discussion, identical to every single other religion thread in this forum.
I suppose they aren't that much more pointless then the other threads in this forum, but atleast there's a (very) slight chance of convincing someone of your views in those. This is just silly.
JDavis

Nintendo Fanboy Local Mod
Affected by 'The Golden Power' +








Since: 11-17-05
From: Ada, OK, USA

Last post: 6292 days
Last view: 6280 days
Skype
Posted on 10-21-06 03:18 AM Link
That's exactly why I said "Normally I would stay out of this discussion entirely"
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Atheism versus Religion | Thread closed


ABII

Acmlmboard 1.92.999, 9/17/2006
©2000-2006 Acmlm, Emuz, Blades, Xkeeper

Page rendered in 0.174 seconds; used 531.37 kB (max 700.79 kB)