THX_1138 Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 What do Atheists "Believe" ?? Please let me know I have been an atheist for a while now never knew about this we believe in the number 42. long live Douglas!
triam Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 we believe in the number 42. long live Douglas! truer words hath never been spaken
CC1981 Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 atheism is not a belief in non existence... it is a practice of adhering to theories that are falsifiable, and have subsequently been vindicated. what you understand as "belief" is nothing but a collective circle jerk over rationality and a blind arrogance and ignorance of logic. I shall disagree with that. Adherence to theories that are falsifiable, in itself has its limitations : That is denying the scope of reality that is beyond our sensory perceptions. There is some extensive debate on this, particularly by Kant which are relevant. Rationality in itself has its limitations - i agree that rationalism has to have the overall emphasis on existence, but there definitely are extremes in rationalism too - which are dime-a-dozen in university circles (as you may/should know)- where rationalism is held as a 'God standard' and that in itself is beleif in the infallability of rationalism. Note: the term rationalism used here is as it relates to philisophy and scientific method. Colloqualy, rationalism is an unbounded term, as it implies reasoning but reasoning varies from person to person depending on viewpoint to viewpoint. This isnt an appeal to religiosity or assumed beleif - this is an appeal to openmindedness towards evolution of understanding - what we consider logic today in matters of unverifiable, can easily be seen as idiocy in the future by a different standard of logic. This is an appeal towards understanding and realizing the limitations of scientific process and logical rationale - without which, thought cannot progress beyond what is turning out to be increasingly, the deification of scientific process.
THX_1138 Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 I shall disagree with that. Adherence to theories that are falsifiable' date= in itself has its limitations : That is denying the scope of reality that is beyond our sensory perceptions. There is some extensive debate on this, particularly by Kant which are relevant. Rationality in itself has its limitations - i agree that rationalism has to have the overall emphasis on existence, but there definitely are extremes in rationalism too - which are dime-a-dozen in university circles (as you may/should know)- where rationalism is held as a 'God standard' and that in itself is beleif in the infallability of rationalism. Note: the term rationalism used here is as it relates to philisophy and scientific method. Colloqualy, rationalism is an unbounded term, as it implies reasoning but reasoning varies from person to person depending on viewpoint to viewpoint. This isnt an appeal to religiosity or assumed beleif - this is an appeal to openmindedness towards evolution of understanding - what we consider logic today in matters of unverifiable, can easily be seen as idiocy in the future by a different standard of logic. This is an appeal towards understanding and realizing the limitations of scientific process and logical rationale - without which, thought cannot progress beyond what is turning out to be increasingly, the deification of scientific process. i hear that crap day in and day out... the other day i was at a temple bookstore and the first book i picked up had a chapter on "how to talk to an atheist" and used that very line: denial of reality that is beyond sensory perceptions... while not even delving into oxymoron that this sentence is: "reality" that is beyond sensory perceptions... i would like to point your attention to the following that falls under the realm of beyond sensory perceptions: 1. Quantum Mechanics... not only is it beyond sensory perception, it is down right contradictory to our common sense. If you dont believe it, just know that you are not really where you are, it just so happens that the wave packet that constitutes the fundamental particles in your body have a greater probability of you being where you are. or that if you put an electron in a single, empty box, the ruddy bytch wont just sit there, it will move around... hence, even in its ground state, it possesses a finite energy (called the zero point energy which evidently they use in stargate atlantis to power their ZPMs) 2. Black Holes: Not only have we not seen one, the most prominent evidence for their existence is circumstantial. 3. All radiations beyond the visual and auditory spectrum. Not tangible, not observable by our pathetic senses, and yet the fundamental foundations of modern engineering. 4. Your bloody computer... works on invisible electrons traveling inside copper conductors (which by the way is vibrating and not stationary as our senses suggest)... In summary, this argument is weak, its pathetic, and it is obsolete. you are welcome to maintain a healthy agnosticism about this universe, though this is nothing but a hedging of your bets that there might indeed be a god... a result of your catatonic fear of being incorrect about divinity which suggests that you are stilll shackled by the limitations of a theistic upbringing for which the blame lies squarely with your parents. somehow you are so petrified of admitting that there is no god, that while your rational intellect points one way, you corrupt your ideals to accommodate an absurd fear. Nonetheless, you are still miles and miles ahead of those bound by the silly rituals and obligations of religion and are not impressionable enough to fall victim to any jingoistic fervor that it ferments. But nonetheless, grow a pair and say it with me... their 'aint no motherfrackin god!
CC1981 Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 i hear that crap day in and day out... the other day i was at a temple bookstore and the first book i picked up had a chapter on "how to talk to an atheist" and used that very line: denial of reality that is beyond sensory perceptions... Next time, to better educate yourself on where i am comming from, stop trying to read politically correct neo-conservative bible thumpers and try reading some Kant or Neitzche. 'beyond sensory perceptions' doesnt mean beyond the five human senses- it means beyond our ability to detect or know currently - as such, your quantum mechanics, etc. argument is irrelevant : we can still 'detect' quantum mechanics using technology. It overrules your black holes, electrons etc etc. as we are not talking about satisfying our five human senses of 'sensory perception'. The equivalent would be holding a dogmatic beleif in God or parallel universe or any such thing where we have ZERO sensory perception of the matter- even circumstantial or inductive. If you dont believe it, No need to simplify quantum mechanics for me - i have taken courses in 3rd/4th year quantum mechanics as science electives to my engineering. Not saying i know the ins and outs of it- but my knowledge of QM far superseeds what you think i know, based on your oversimplified 'dumbed-down' idea. For once and for all, lets be clear on something - you arnt talking to a scientifically challenged person here - my education in that is fairly credible by almost anyone's stadards - and neither do i reject science - all i am saying, and trying to get you to realize, is that scientific process, rationalism and logic too, has their limitations that cannot absolutely encompass the phenomenal reality at all levels. What you consider as unshakable pillars of scientific logic,reasoning and rationalism are quite the opposite and transitory- transitory in our perpetual quest of improving our understanding of phenomenal reality. Religion is a byproduct of that, a stage (depending on which religion you are talking about - not all religions are at the same stage - some are more evolved- some, like Islam or rabbanical judaism - the bottom rung of the intellectual ladder) and transitory too. Hell, the history of rationalism,scientific process and logic itself arnt linear and processes of thought just 200 years ago would be absurd assumptions by today's standards and vice versa. what humanity has considered to be logic,rationale and scientific process has evolved through time and it will evolve through the future too - but what is the biggest roadblock to that evolution of thought is the rise of the new dogmatism: the dogmatism of scientific process, which seems to be the new God replacing the more traditional viewpoint of God. In summary, this argument is weak, its pathetic, and it is obsolete. That is the common misunderstanding of those who deify scientific process as the new God. a result of your catatonic fear of being incorrect about divinity which suggests that you are stilll shackled by the limitations of a theistic upbringing for which the blame lies squarely with your parents. Fear about being incorrect ? Its not fear - its lack of caring for divinity. As i said, you are yet to fully delve into the world of metaphysics, which is far more relevant and well rounded than what is fed in your science-only stream (which only sees one side of the coin - the better side admittedly, but fails to realize the limitations of scientific process) and my perspective is simple :Even IF a God exists, that being still doesnt have any right to tell us how to live our life if it is actually contradictory to our intrinsic nature. That is equivalent to a programmer programming the robot to grapple instead of punch and then punishing the robot for grappling instead of punching - fundamental contradiction in directives and free will. As such, it isnt fear of being wrong- it is absolutely pooh poohing the right of power of such a being EVEN IF it exists. But more importantly, agnosticism stems from the fact that you cannot really prove or disprove God and that its proof or not is irrelevant to our lives.Agnosticism is a question of asking relevance : you atheists and the opposing side of theists are the ones who are mentally shackled because you obviously care enough about this irrelevant question to form an opinion based on nothing. Do not really understand the concept of God that most theists ascribe to : such as 'reality of our universe is actually a dream inside God's head'. The ideas of creation are interesting, sometimes ridiculous but they do have a fundamental principle of logic behind it - that something must have a beginning. somehow you are so petrified of admitting that there is no god, that while your rational intellect points one way, you corrupt your ideals to accommodate an absurd fear. Petrified ? No. I dont admit to 'there is no God' because there is no reason for me to admit to that - as far as i am concerned, those who say 'there is no God' are making just as big an assumption as the ones who say 'there is God', given that there is zero evidence either which way and we DO need evidence of God's existence or non-existence to pass statements on that topic, as long as the question of origination lies unaswered ( as in where did the universe originate from ? the big bang yes- where did that supercondensed mass of ball come from ? quantum fluctuations ? yes - where did that come from...yadda yadda...)this rabbit hole goes a lot deeper than you imagine and i suggest you read some philosophy works before you form too hard an opinion on this topic that your dogmatic education of sciences no doubt pressure you into. This is not a question that you will be anywhere close to finding justifiable answers through from purely a scientific background - philosophy easily trumps this and i have never ever heard any professor of science stand up to Neitzche's pooh poohing of the 'dogma of science and the new God that is scientific process'. Yes- i have quoted Neitzche directly and maybe you should try it to your profs (after reading him - i suggest start with 'Thus spake Zarathustra' as its a good starting point for Neitzche)- only for you to realize how limited their view of science itself is and where the limitations of scientific process itself lies. IMO, the ones who cannot leave this question alone - cannot say to themselves that ' look- question of origination lies unanswered- so long as it does, question of God will always linger in the air, as in a twisted way, it is the only thing that even tries to answer the question of origination for now. But obviously, there is zero proof of God, God didnt program all of us to remember him so obviously it cant be that big a deal and therefore, God is irrelevant to my life - i will devote as much time and effort into beleiving or not beleiving in him as i devote to a bug' , those people are the ones who are jumping to conclusions. Perhaps those people need to see deep within themselves as to why they need to answer this question of God- why do they need to say 'yea or nay' to 'God exists?' question, instead of letting it be and going 'whatever...if he/she/it/they exist and want me to do something about it, i will know..if not, i dont give a rat's hiney and i will do what i want to do'. I wonder why you cannot leave this question as an 'indeterminate' or is it that you've never run into equations that are unsolvable and left it as unsolvable ? Its not fear or irrationality that leaves me to leave this question as 'answer unknown. i do not care'. It is simply, the most empirically sound perspective and stems from understanding the criticism of power of God - which is questioning the right of God to do what he wants just because he has the power to, a level of discussion we have not entered yet. And once you familiarize yourself with that thought process, it will dawn on you why it is absolutely irrelevant to me- like yesterday's used toilet paper - whether God exists or not. It is not a question about fear- it is a question about why even care ?
dial_100 Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Very sad. What a messed up ideology. They should prove the charges quickly and be given grand punishment. I would like to see them punished as quickly as possible. If they are guilty I feel ashamed of them :((. I feel like throwing up after knowing that these people want to kill others like this? Anyways, may the peace prevail... I condemn these heinous act.
Kriterion Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Thats got to be one of the weirdest logic I have ever heard. How is "believing" in God the same as "not believing" in Him? Next you are going to tell me "enjoying" watching cricket is same as "not enjoying" cricket? Or "loving" a girl is the same as if she "doesnt love" you?? you haven't understood me. what i am saying, at this point, all i am saying, is that not believing in God, is itself a belief. in other words, it is impossible to not believe in anything. even disbelief of everything is itself a "belief' in something (i.e the presence of an ideology), meaning that you cannot disbelieve everything. your ideology is complete skepticism. I am still perplexed why Athiesm would be called a religion. If the notion of "without" in front of the word makes it similar then I suppose asymetrical is same as symetrical! Heck explore it further and perhaps Anti-Christ is the same as Christ as well! xxx its better to use the word "ideology" to describe atheism if one doesn't like religion. both religion and atheism are ideologies. that is what people colloquially refer to as horse manure. atheism is not a belief in non existence... it is a practice of adhering to theories that are falsifiable, and have subsequently been vindicated. what you understand as "belief" is nothing but a collective circle jerk over rationality and a blind arrogance and ignorance of logic. take this fox news crap somewhere else you nutter. this is real horse manure. there is no strict cut and dry definition of atheism. different atheists think of things differently. which is why instead of religion, a better term of atheism is to call it an ideology, as that implies no homogeneity. technically, buddhists are atheists, since the buddha himself never mentioned the presence of deities. at best, they could be classified as agnostics. but to suggest that all atheists are scientific and rational persons, is ludicrously biased, pro-atheistic propoganda akin to saying that all people of colored skin are dirty, brutish, and inferior beings. wiccans are technically atheists, and nothing they do is "theorectically falsifiable".
Lurker Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 you haven't understood me. what i am saying, at this point, all i am saying, is that not believing in God, is itself a belief. in other words, it is impossible to not believe in anything. even disbelief of everything is itself a "belief' in something (i.e the presence of an ideology), meaning that you cannot disbelieve everything. your ideology is complete skepticism. I have to say you are trying to force down this theory that people who do not beleive in God beleive in something else. To compound your argument you end your argument with skepticism. I dont quite see how beleif and skepticism come into the same argument? They run quite contrary to it dont they? The beleif in God encompasses a LOT of things. Merely beleiving in God counts for nothing really. I can put you in a room of 100 religious God fearing people and not all of them are the same. Some would be Muslim and their sense of God is completely at odds with a Buddhist. Some would be Jews and to them a Hindu religious person would be a pagan. Heck think of Jerusalem, the land of 3 religions, all beleiving to have evolved from same Abraham yet at logger heads trying to kill each other. On the other hand you can put 100 athiests in the room and you wont have a problem. Simply because this is no "beleif" as you put it. It is a "lack" of beleif in a Super power without proven arguments. You can not say Beleif = Lack of Belief. xxx
CC1981 Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Some would be Muslim and their sense of God is completely at odds with a Buddhist To my knowledge, Buddhism is the only religion which specifically refuses to hold the idea of a 'creator God' or God of any sort, as Buddha was fairly categoric on this : Of all the questions asked to him, the question of existence/non-existence of God was one where Buddha was specifically agnostic.
Lurker Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 ^^ True. Which is why Buddhism is considered less of a religion, and more a philosphy. I shouldnt have clubbed with other religion as such. However if you do have to draw a line in sand between an athiest a religious person I would say a Buddhist will lean more towards the religious person.
triam Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 " what i am saying, at this point, all i am saying, is that not believing in God, is itself a belief. in other words, it is impossible to not believe in anything. even disbelief of everything is itself a "belief' in something (i.e the presence of an ideology), meaning that you cannot disbelieve everything. your ideology is complete skepticism" I hope I can really clarify this issue and I am not trying to be snide in this. But can it be proven that Santa Claus does not exist?? Going by every available evidence we conclude that Santa Claus does not, does this mean we have considered or have every possible evidence available to us? No, because frankly it is not possible to prove a negative. Nobody can conclusively prove "There is No Santa Claus". Similarly the statement "There is no god" is not provable, what atheists do is consider all possible 'available' evidence and state that there is no god. This is in no way a belief, this is a statement which can be proved wrong if any possible evidence presents itself with the statement "There is no god". Hopefully that simplifies this.
THX_1138 Posted October 31, 2008 Posted October 31, 2008 " what i am saying, at this point, all i am saying, is that not believing in God, is itself a belief. in other words, it is impossible to not believe in anything. even disbelief of everything is itself a "belief' in something (i.e the presence of an ideology), meaning that you cannot disbelieve everything. your ideology is complete skepticism" I hope I can really clarify this issue and I am not trying to be snide in this. But can it be proven that Santa Claus does not exist?? Going by every available evidence we conclude that Santa Claus does not, does this mean we have considered or have every possible evidence available to us? No, because frankly it is not possible to prove a negative. Nobody can conclusively prove "There is No Santa Claus". Similarly the statement "There is no god" is not provable, what atheists do is consider all possible 'available' evidence and state that there is no god. This is in no way a belief, this is a statement which can be proved wrong if any possible evidence presents itself with the statement "There is no god". Hopefully that simplifies this. simplified, lucidated, postulated and well articulated... yes! convincing... no! there is a certain stage of critical development and once past that stage, convincing one of a new idea/notion is virtually impossible. as is the case with some of the theists and agnostics here.
CC1981 Posted October 31, 2008 Posted October 31, 2008 simplified, lucidated, postulated and well articulated... yes! convincing... no! there is a certain stage of critical development and once past that stage, convincing one of a new idea/notion is virtually impossible. as is the case with some of the theists and agnostics here. What irks me about your perspective ( and believe me, you arn't alone - the so-called university-bred cognoscenti largely fall into this category) is that somehow you think you are better, despite making the same basic assumptions and 'filling in the blanks'. You may not be convinced by my argument - i don't have a problem with that, but have you considered that you arnt convincing in this topic to me either ? You are correct- convincing someone of new idea/notion is virtually impossible once a certain stage of critical development is reached for most people. And that is the case with the theists and agnosts here. But what irks me, is that you make the presumption to exclude the atheists in that group when they too belong right in there. As i said, please yourself a favour and read a few of Neitzche and Kant's works ( Kant is religious btw) and then follow up with some buddhist ( nagarjuna) stuff. You may be surprised to find that while it doesnt necessarily make one more virtuous, it does make one thing categoric too : that just like some religious people are completely blinkered and have 'tunnel vision', so too does the scientific community to a significant extent in upholding their dogma of atheism and worship of the scientific process, rationalism and logic. Just like how some religious people are completely oblivious (and chose to remain that way) about the fallacies in their convictions, so too does the scientific community in this matter and so too do the atheists. I read somewhere that a large part of the financial crisis in the world is due to the fallacies of the business schools in the west, where the education completely ignores cultural and social education : a vital skill and knowledge in the corporate world. That got me thinking how we are such a reactionary species, where we often wait for ***** to hit the fan before we actually do something/realize whats been staring at our faces for so long. And until you scientists inevitably come up to your 'stone wall' of the inexplicable, you won't realize that your program makes the same mistake. We really need to teach philosophy to science students, just so that you guys can see how you've been 'programmed' with one side of the coin.
Kriterion Posted November 1, 2008 Posted November 1, 2008 I have to say you are trying to force down this theory that people who do not beleive in God beleive in something else. To compound your argument you end your argument with skepticism. I dont quite see how beleif and skepticism come into the same argument? They run quite contrary to it dont they? The beleif in God encompasses a LOT of things. Merely beleiving in God counts for nothing really. I can put you in a room of 100 religious God fearing people and not all of them are the same. Some would be Muslim and their sense of God is completely at odds with a Buddhist. Some would be Jews and to them a Hindu religious person would be a pagan. Heck think of Jerusalem, the land of 3 religions, all beleiving to have evolved from same Abraham yet at logger heads trying to kill each other. xxx i'm not more forcing my theories on others than anyone else. we're all exchanging our personal viewpoints, and each of us believes he's right. we're all even stevens here. so let me get this straight, you have no beliefs at all? in other words you don't believe in anything pertaining to god/religion? how is that possible??? some people believe in ghosts. i do not. yet my not believing in ghosts is itself a belief in the subject matter of ghosts. as long as the concept exists, and one is aware of its existence, you have to have a belief about it, whether for or against, pro or con. you can't be neutral and claim you don't have any beliefs about. On the other hand you can put 100 athiests in the room and you wont have a problem. Simply because this is no "beleif" as you put it. It is a "lack" of beleif in a Super power without proven arguments. You can not say Beleif = Lack of Belief. this is the biggest load of baloney thats ever spewed from the brains of the areligious ever. the idea that people would all be hunkey dorey in the absence of religion is ridiculous. besides how do you? in a world which as always been populated by religous minded people, how do you know this is true? mere probability would indicate otherwise, but the atheists belief in this, without ANY evidence - feel free to site some - is itself proof positive that they are themselves equally prone to hold onto ideas which require a "leap of faith" with ABSOLUTELY no empirical data to back it. i have to hand it to CC, his views of agnosticism are the most rationale of ideologies. one of my friends has the exact same beliefs (not sure how far CC takes them) and he was quite influential in my philosophical development.
CC1981 Posted November 1, 2008 Posted November 1, 2008 However if you do have to draw a line in sand between an athiest a religious person I would say a Buddhist will lean more towards the religious person. True...but then again, just like most buddhists would come across as more religious than atheist, most atheists come across as narcissistic ar$eholes than normal people....i think the line has to be drawn between theory and practice (though i tend to emphasize on practice). I have to say you are trying to force down this theory that people who do not beleive in God beleive in something else. This isnt a theory - its basic deduction. A beleif in no God is a beleif in itself ! Duh ! I dont quite see how beleif and skepticism come into the same argument? They run quite contrary to it dont they? Yin and yang....you need to see both sides of the coin to have a balanced view. It is a "lack" of beleif in a Super power without proven arguments. You can not say Beleif = Lack of Belief. Dude, i lack beleif in a supreme being as well. Which is why i consider the question of supreme being irrelevant and i spend literally zero time thinking about what will happen to 'me' after i die or what will a supreme being think IF it exists. However, i do not take it over the line of sanity, transforming the 'if it exists' to ' it exists/it doesnt exist'. Those who say 'there is no proof of the supreme being, therefore it doesnt exist' are making just as big a fallacy as those who say ' there is a supreme being- look at this/that/blahblah'. Simply because, the question of origination (where did everything come from) lies hithero unanswered/unsolved. Maybe it will never be solved - maybe we are physiologically incapable of comprehending the ultimate objective reality - if it exists. But until we CAN comprehend the ultimate objective reality, we cannot rule out God. Since we cannot fully answer 'where everything came from', denial of God *MUST* be backed by principle sufficient reason and held to the same rigour of scientific process. As strange as it sounds, God has no proof of existence, but when origination is viewed, the concept of God satisfies Occam's razor. You don't need to prove something's non-existence when the non-existence of that 'something' doesnt leave questions unanswered or when that something doesnt fit into Occam's razor. All the so-called scientific intellectuals who yell ' you cannot prove non-existence, therefore God doesnt exist' are absolutely, categorically making a logical fallacy that they themselves do not realize ( some are blinded by their holy books, most scientists/science students are blinded by scientific method and logic) Since neither the existence or non-existence of God can be proven (as of now), any moral questions regarding God should be viewed from the perspective of relevance. If God cannot be proven or disproven and if God has not made it his/her/its/their objective to pre-determine our awareness of itself, then the logical deduction is beleif in God is not relevant in our life. If it isnt relevant, then there is no point in arguing if it exists or doesnt exist, if it is so or isnt so. Think of God as yesterday's used toilet paper - once you wipe your hiney and flush it down the toilet, do you wonder what happened to the TP ? likewise, once you are familiar with the concept of God but see absolutely nada to confirm or deny it, why bother with God ? Furthermore, i'd like to add that beleif in God creates an artificial sense of morality - where one is ready to do untold attrocities because 'God told them so and God must be right'. Not once did i read in the Koran or the Bible anyone asking God ' please God, i love you, but explain to me why did you genocide so many instead of talking to them or curing them of whatever it is you deem as 'illness' and if killing innocent people was a necessary collateral damage, please explain it to me why'. All you see is ' God smote down the Sodomites and Gommorans, Allah's messenger consented to genocide of Banu Kurayzaa, God-avatar Parashuram killed all kshatriyas' etc etc. Not once do you encounter a lucid justification that highlights the killings done by God or God's avatar's/messengers in context of alternatives. And just like how beleif in God can artificially alter one's sense of morality - essentially driven by a compounding of fear and greed ( fear of disobeying God and suffering the consequences, greed of obeying God and reaping the rewards - the quintessential 'carrot and stick' combination that ALL religions suffer from), so too can absolute rejection of God. rejection of God leads to rejection of a higher reality or atleast, the possibility of one. This rejection leads to the kind of narcissism we see in society today, where 'I don't believe in God' essentially mutates to 'I am my own God'. IMO, the only thing we need to realize is karma - karma not in the crude hindu concept of ' jaisi karni waisi bharni', karma in the context of buddhism : action, reaction and consequences. What you or I do has consequences - there is no good or bad necessarily, just consequences we can desire and consequences we do not. Once we realize that, then it becomes easier to guage or meditate on our actions. I will close with an example : I do not cheat on my partners - never ever. Not because i am somehow, somewhere afraid of what God would do to me, or what society will think of me or how some higher power might punish me - but simply because cheating is breaking trust - when you break someone's trust, you damage that person's ability to function in a trusting relationship again. And to do so with someone you are/were intimate with, is narcissistic and being a complete user. That is the 'reaction/consequence' of cheating in my books and that is why i do not cheat. I hope you realize how this perspective is far more liberating/independent of God - it doesnt require beleif or denial of God to function.
triam Posted November 3, 2008 Posted November 3, 2008 CC As per your definition what do you mean by 'God', I know that you are smart enough not to utter inane things like omnipresent etc etc, so what is your definition of God?
CC1981 Posted November 3, 2008 Posted November 3, 2008 As per your definition what do you mean by 'God', I know that you are smart enough not to utter inane things like omnipresent etc etc, so what is your definition of God? Hard for me to define what 'God' really is, considering i don't really care. But if i were to pick, I'd say God can be defined as the original creator of the universe - a being/a collection of beings/ conciousness, whatever. If there is such a thing, then God would be the 'mind' - the universal mind perhaps- or the universal conciousness - whether it is singular, plural, asexual or has a gender,omnipotent or omnipresent, is irrelevant to me, really.
Lurker Posted November 3, 2008 Posted November 3, 2008 so let me get this straight, you have no beliefs at all? in other words you don't believe in anything pertaining to god/religion? how is that possible??? Why is that not possible?? Just because you beleive in God, or do not beleive in Ghost, am I supposed to act the same? Seriously what is that if not trying to shove your own ideology down other people's throat?? If you want me to go into specifics on what I do/dont beleive in, please spell it out. Lets take Islam. Tell me your beleif and I shall tell you what I do NOT beleive. Then you can try to convince me how your beleif in Islam = my disbeleif in it. Fair? this is the biggest load of baloney thats ever spewed from the brains of the areligious ever. the idea that people would all be hunkey dorey in the absence of religion is ridiculous. Hunkey/dorey?? You either do not understand what I write, or you are getting weirdly defensive since you are religious. I stand by my argument that if you have 100 athiests in a room, there would be NO FIGHT ON ISSUE OF THEOLOGY. On the other hand if you put 100 religious persons in a room they will all, in the very least, be defensive of their own beleif and in many cases(look around the world) would be downrightly judgemental of others. besides how do you? in a world which as always been populated by religous minded people, how do you know this is true? What kind of evidence do you need?? How many "fights" based on religion has ever happened in a Communist country?? Please show me some examples on how athiests have gone hammer and tongs at each other with a - My athiest philosphy is better than yours? xxx
yoda Posted November 4, 2008 Posted November 4, 2008 I stand by my argument that if you have 100 athiests in a room, there would be NO FIGHT ON ISSUE OF THEOLOGY. That's like saying "If you put 100 GWs in a room, they would have nothing intelligent to talk about".
CC1981 Posted November 4, 2008 Posted November 4, 2008 I stand by my argument that if you have 100 athiests in a room, there would be NO FIGHT ON ISSUE OF THEOLOGY True. But you would have a lot of fights over the issue of philosophy....and theology is just a branch of philosophy. So nothing different, really.
Recommended Posts