This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Why Your Religion?
Return to board index
Post by
Skreeran
"Do what you will, but harm none" is a philosophy, and I can understand philosophy.
Believing in a mother Goddess and magic and things of that nature is something entirely different, and I don't understand how any adult person can decide to beleive in it without anything to back it up.
Not saying
you're
hurting anyone (although religion in general has hurt many, many people), but I simply do not understand the reasoning there at all.
And unfortunately, the only real answer there I can think of is Faith heh.And see above for what I've said about blind faith, heh.
Post by
Adamsm
"Do what you will, but harm none" is a philosophy, and I can understand philosophy.
Believing in a mother Goddess and magic and things of that nature is something entirely different, and I don't understand how any adult person can decide to beleive in it without anything to back it up.
Not saying
you're
hurting anyone (although religion in general has hurt many, many people), but I simply do not understand the reasoning there at all.
And unfortunately, the only real answer there I can think of is Faith heh.And see above for what I've said about blind faith, heh.
Heh, I know; which is pretty much where the argument's come to a screeching halt... or descend into a screaming hissy fit of "Oh yeah!" "Yeah!" "Oh yeah!" "Yeah!" "Oh yeah!" "Yeah!" and so on and so forth.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Correct definition
Then you'll be happy to accept that "Atheism is commonly described as the position that
there are no deities
", not that you can't prove that there are deities or not. Your original point is incorrect then.
Nope. You're a Christian. Do you believe the exact same thing as the Westboro baptist Church? Nope, then you're not a Christian. Herp de derp
Of course not all atheists believe the same thing. Nobody believes the same thing as everyone else.
Wrong. Christians all believe in the same God. True atheists (or 'strong atheists', as Skreeran and I will now call them) believe in the same lack of a God.
Bull$%^&. I'll question anything I please. Typical theist demanding we question nothing and blindly accept.
I didn't say that you can't question it. I said that theists have no obligation to justify their belief to you when you have no beliefs.
Also wrong. Most people in America are Christians, and they're doing terrible things to their education system (see: Texas board of education). It's very important that we question the beliefs of anyone who sees the end of the world as a good thing.
Strawman. Most people in Australia are not Christians, and they're still butchering the education system. The difference is that
you believe
that the things being done to the education system is terrible. Key point - you have a strong belief, so it's within your moral rights to question it. If you didn't give two hoots about the education system, then it's not your place to question,
especially when you don't have a better answer
.
Note - evolution is not 'a better answer' relative to theists, because evolution is 100% compatible with the existence of a God.
No, Agnosts are people who aren't sure whether God exists. The a- prefix means negative, and Gnostic means gnowing. Agnostics don't know.
Wrong again. If you want to look at the roots of agnostics (and not the bastardised versions you see now), it's about not knowing God. Not knowing whether God exists, but simply not knowing. The thing about religion is that it tells you all that you need to know about their deity, but agnostics are ones who don't believe the mainstream religion that "God is about this and this and that". They don't know God, what he stands for. But they believe that he exists.
Post by
TheTempest
It is one thing i have learned in life that may be worthy of sharing considering the theme of this thread it would be: Everyone and everything can provide you with an answer no matter what your question might be. No matter what reasons that person uses to argue for his answer, it utlimatly depends on if one would accept that answer. Because the "arguement" used by a person to explain why his answers is as it is, is just as made up by themselves as the reason you would have to reject that answer is made up by yourself....
Personally im a christian, newly converted due to some unexpected and personal experiences. I have come to realize that christianity is not what people often refer it to be, that i still can think for myself even though i believe in certain guidelines. Ive seen a much more complex and greater picture than i could imagine. Used to be an atheist though. But seriousl dont think this is something i could express enough with the lack of flexibility that i would otherwise have i could have a pracital conversation with one who is interested in debating such things. ;)
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
If you think that's the same God as yours, you must also admit that your God is bigoted.
Um... no?
LDS and Catholics believe in the same God, but their view is drastically different than ours. Does that mean that we have to believe the same thing as them?
No.
That was what the whole Protestant movement was about. They believed in the same God, but believed He was different than the Church made him out to be and the whole Church was corrupt.
Invalid argument.
I think anyone that lies deliberately to children are wrong.
Where do they lie?
Post by
TheMediator
Note - evolution is not 'a better answer' relative to theists, because evolution is 100% compatible with the existence of a God.
If teaching evolution is 100% compatible, meaning you have no opposition to it, then we agree that teaching evolution is ok. However, since it is iffy whether or not teaching the Bible in school is good for students, it is safest not to teach the Bible (similar to the argument that those who oppose abortion put forward, do what is "safest" if there is a controversy about something).
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
I've heard of multiple people saying this and I don't see how my life, or any other Atheist's life, differs from that of a religious person's.
A lot of atheist don't seem to have the peace of mind religious people do who have perfect faith in their religion.
Although I have no studies or anything to back this up. This has just been my observation and it is probably different for you.
Post by
Adamsm
@Adamsm: Forgive me if I missed your post, but I had asked what Atheists are missing out on in life with respect to not believing in any dieties. I don't think you answered it yet, and I really am wondering what it is, because I'm an Atheist and I can't think of anything. I'm not trying to get defensive, it's just an honest question.
I've heard of multiple people saying this and I don't see how my life, or any other Atheist's life, differs from that of a religious person's. At most, I see it as an ignorant and unwarranted claim.
I can't claim to know; I just remember how I felt before I found what I believe in; to me, it felt like something I had been missing all my life just suddenly fit, like it was that last puzzle piece missing out of my soul. I know not everyone feels the same, but that's just how I feel.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
I've heard of multiple people saying this and I don't see how my life, or any other Atheist's life, differs from that of a religious person's.
A lot of atheist don't seem to have the peace of mind religious people do who have perfect faith in their religion.
Although I have no studies or anything to back this up. This has just been my observation and it is probably different for you.My peace of mind honestly has nothing to do with my disbelief in gods, honestly. I'm not a particular happy person, but that's because a) or people, I don't like people very much, and b) I'm naturally a pessimist, I wasn't happy even when I was a christian.
@Squish
: As I have said before, I have no belief in god. I don't believe that there is one at all, and I don't think there is a reasonable possibility that there is one. Not because I have faith that there is one, but because of the opposite, I have no faith. I have absolutely no reason to believe that there is one. I observe that the universe is working just fine, self-sufficient without any apparent deity. I observe people fighting over which myth is true. I observe natural, godless means of our origins that are supported by evidence. I observe hypocrisy in various belief systems, and clashing between religion and scientific results. I observe a lack of miraculous events that are commonplace in many religious texts.
Through my observations, I have come to the conclusion that people imagine "god." I don't need to prove that he exists, because a) one cannot prove that
anything
does not exist, and b) you are the one with a belief, not me. I will happily explain why I do not believe in a deity, but I do not need to prove that anything doesn't exist, because it is not possible. I can only show that something (in this case, god) is unlikely to exist, and I do this by pointing out the lack of evidence for it. You cannot point to my "lack of evidence for there not being a god," because being unable to prove that something doesn't exist does not mean that it does. If I challenge you to prove that I cannot fly to the moon of my own power, you will not be able to. But that does not mean that I can. The burden of proof is on me, not the skeptic.
You say that I don't care, and that I cannot ask for proof if I have no belief either way. I say that this is stupid. If I say that I will win the lottery tomorrow, you might not believe that I will, but neither believe that I won't, and still ask me to explain my beliefs.
Let's say that all your neighbors believe that they will win the lottery, not tomorrow, but at a vague time in the next fifty years. Let's say that they frequently talk about it, and make plans based on their future fortune. Let's say that they talk down to you because they're going to win a lot of money in a few years and you aren't. It gets annoying, and you end up starting to question their surety of winning the lottery when the odds of such a thing are incredibly unlikely. "I just know it... I believe that I will, so I will." they answer. You aren't satisfied with that answer. Believing in something doesn't make it true. "Prove that I won't!" they argue, when you question them further. "Maybe you will, but you probably won't," you answer. "Well then if you can't prove that I won't, I don't have to explain why I will."
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
kattib
Cant believe I am getting into this again...
How is that an absurd position to take? What seperates what MyTie has just said, and those who believe that electrons exist, let alone the quantum theory? No one has ever visibly seen an electron. In essence, it holds about as much proof as any deity.
No, that is a strawman. Although an electron is not directly observable (as in we cant see it with our eyes) we can observe it's effects such as electricity and magnetism. The same cannot be said about god because there are no events which can accredited to God only.
Bad gorefiend BAD!
Post by
Squishalot
Note - evolution is not 'a better answer' relative to theists, because evolution is 100% compatible with the existence of a God.
If teaching evolution is 100% compatible, meaning you have no opposition to it, then we agree that teaching evolution is ok. However, since it is iffy whether or not teaching the Bible in school is good for students, it is safest not to teach the Bible (similar to the argument that those who oppose abortion put forward, do what is "safest" if there is a controversy about something).
I agree with teaching evolution. I generally disapprove of teaching the Creation story in schools, because it's based on faith, not on physical evidence. That, and by agreeing to teach a Bible version of events, you would then need to pander to all the different mainstream religions. However, I would qualify this statement by reminding that evolution is not evidence against a God, and shouldn't be taught as such. (Shouldn't be considered as such either, but let's face it, some Christians are extremely closed minded.)
You say that I don't care, and that I cannot ask for proof if I have no belief either way. I say that this is stupid. If I say that I will win the lottery tomorrow, you might not believe that I will, but neither believe that I won't, and still ask me to explain my beliefs.
I disagree with you there. If I believe that you won't win the lottery tomorrow (and true enough, I don't think you will), I'll be able to point out to you the miniscule odds of you actually winning, and query why you think you'll win. If I don't have an opinion one way or the other, why would I care enough to ask you to explain? And certainly, you wouldn't be under a moral obligation to try to justify it, if I'm not shoving evidence in front of you suggesting that you won't win.
"Prove that I won't!" they argue, when you question them further. "Maybe you will, but you probably won't," you answer. "Well then if you can't prove that I won't, I don't have to explain why I will."
The odds of winning the Powerball lottery in Australia are approximately 1 in 54 million. I can demonstrate why I think they won't win the lottery. I believe in the probabilities, and I'm willing to argue them. You can't demonstrate any kind of odds about the existance of a God, nor can you mount a case against their belief, you can only question why they believe, not provide
evidence
that their belief is misguided. Therein lies the difference.
In this respect, I fully agree with challenging Christians on specific parts of how Christianity operates - evidence that their belief in the Christian religion is misguided in some ways with reference to their own texts, as you have attempted to do with MyTie. I disagree with challenging their faith in a God, however, because there is no evidence you can provide to counter their view, and therefore, your challenge is hollow.
Have you seen the wind? Of course not, you observe the wind by it's effect. If you want to see an electron why not look at:
1. Lightning.
2. Aurora (e.g. the northern lights)
3. This video of an electron in motion
Now give me equal evidence for God. Oh wait.
I've raised it before, and Gorefiend's raised it now too. Find any evidence you like for the leading theories on quantum randomness that are accepted scientifically, for some absurd reason. The justiifcation for believing in quantum randomness is as strong as the justification for believing in God. I'll be waiting here.
Children should be taught observable truth, your beliefs are not observable nor proven. The education system should not pander to your stone age beliefs.
I think anyone that lies deliberately to children are wrong. If you don't believe that too, then I have no interest in talking to you.
I didn't know what you were on about with regards to the education system in Texas, but I'm assuming now that it's to do with teaching Creation in the classroom. It's still a strawman argument - it's got nothing to do with believing in a God or otherwise.
Anyway, on the topic of definitions, let me quote from my Brittanica Encyclopedia of World Religions:
Atheism, the critique and denial of belief in God. As such, it is the opposite of theism, which affirms the reality of God and seeks to demonstrate His existence. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a God or not;
for the atheist, the nonexistence of God is a certainty
.
Did you want to keep arguing over the semantics? Either your definition of agnostics is wrong, or your definition of atheists is wrong. You can't have it both ways.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
I disagree with you there. If I believe that you won't win the lottery tomorrow (and true enough, I don't think you will), I'll be able to point out to you the miniscule odds of you actually winning, and query why you think you'll win. If I don't have an opinion one way or the other, why would I care enough to ask you to explain? And certainly, you wouldn't be under a moral obligation to try to justify it, if I'm not shoving evidence in front of you suggesting that you won't win.And I can show you how the evidence for god is about equal to the evidence of unicorns, and query why you think there is one.
I don't necessarily believe that you won't win the lottery tomorrow, but I think it remendously unlikely and it frusterates to see people making investments based on their surety of winning it.
The odds of winning the Powerball lottery in Australia are approximately 1 in 54 million. I can demonstrate why I think they won't win the lottery. I believe in the probabilities, and I'm willing to argue them. You can't demonstrate any kind of odds about the existance of a God, nor can you mount a case against their belief, you can only question why they believe, not provide evidence that their belief is misguided. Therein lies the difference.With no evidence, the existence of God is just as likely as any other hypothesis (see: unicorns) without any evidence to support it. It may be true, but the chances of it not are overwhelming. It doesn't help that the idea was formulated in the stone age, when people didn't understand what thunder or earthquakes were.
In this respect, I fully agree with challenging Christians on specific parts of how Christianity operates - evidence that their belief in the Christian religion is misguided in some ways with reference to their own texts, as you have attempted to do with MyTie. I disagree with challenging their faith in a God, however, because there is no evidence you can provide to counter their view, and therefore, your challenge is hollow.It is impossible to prove that anything does not exist. You don't seem to be able to grasp this concept. Prove to me, right now, that elves don't exist. If I believe in elves, and talk about how elves will lead me to the afterlife, and pray to the forest elves to help me pay my car payment, you have absolutely no way to prove that elves don't exist.
However, being unable to prove that elves do not exist do in no way affect their likelihood of existing. Their existinmg is stil tremndously improbable, and I think it rather foolish to believe in them.
Did you want to keep arguing over the semantics? Either your definition of agnostics is wrong, or your definition of atheists is wrong. You can't have it both ways.That's the thing though, atheists aren't aunited under one banner. Some believe that there is no god, some simply do not believe in god. All, however, believe that it is ridiculously unlikely that there is.
I don't consider myself and agnostic because I don't humour the notion that there is any reasonable chance of there being a god. No more than the existance of elves. Do I think that I can prove that God doesn't exist? No, of course not. Nor can I prove that magical elves don't exist. Or the Death Star. Or Superman. I can't prove that any of these things do not exist, but the likelihood of them existing is so small that I feel it foolish to give them any belief at all.
Edit:
I've raised it before, and Gorefiend's raised it now too. Find any evidence you like for the leading theories on quantum randomness that are accepted scientifically, for some absurd reason. The justiifcation for believing in quantum randomness is as strong as the justification for believing in God. I'll be waiting here.I'm not an expert on quantum physics, but as I understand it, no hypothesis is considered true until evidence can be pvided to support it, in accordance with the scientific method. Either a), quantum randomness is still a hypothesis anmong the scientific community, b), it's considered a full on theory,because evidence has been provided for it, or c), the scientific method has been abused, and I would remain just as skeptical of it as I am of god until evidence can be provided.
Post by
TheMediator
Theist: I LOVE JESUS
I lol'd
I don't consider myself and agnostic because I don't humour the notion that there is any reasonable chance of there being a god. No more than the existance of elves. Do I think that I can prove that God doesn't exist? No, of course not. Nor can I prove that magical elves don't exist. Or the Death Star. Or Superman. I can't prove that any of these things do not exist, but the likelihood of them existing is so small that I feel it foolish to give them any belief at all..
When you word it like that (and I agree with you) I guess it probably does make more sense to consider myself an atheist than an agnostic, simply because I don't much stock to the existence of God even though I can't prove there isn't one.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.