Religious Belief Throwdown

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

>The Wright Brothers, Igor Sikorsky, Robert Goddard, Albert Einstein and
>Thomas Edison all have one very important thing in common.

>They made real things that do not require belief.

You do not require belief to ride in an airplane - but the Wright Brothers required belief that they could solve what seemed to be a long string of insurmountable problems.

When the Wright Brothers started their work, there was no evidence that a powered aircraft existed, or even could exist. Fortunately, they did not think it was meaningless to think it COULD exist - and their belief led them to Kitty Hawk where they proved that it could, indeed, be done.

You've going down a strange road here Bill, unless you're saying that atheism is wrong because one day an engineer might build god?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Atheism isn't a religion, so really they don't get a say.

To be inclusive we'll let Atheists in too, though.

I'll start for them:

They do have a very good church, it's called The Church of Reality. "If it's real, we believe in it".

You see, the average atheist tends to believe in things that can be proven, so it isn't really so much about belief as it is about verifiable evidence for this wacky group of radical realists. The best part of this belief system is that it allows for change in the face of new evidence.

Basically, the idea is not to believe in anything for which there is no direct evidence, and to disregard that for which there is contradictory evidence.

Simple enough.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You see, the average atheist tends to believe in things that can be proven, so it isn't really so much about belief as it is about verifiable evidence for this wacky group of radical realists.


Altho I usewd to consider myself an athiest, I am now agnostic, I do agree with science and evidence. But I use the word, "proof" very carefully and consider it a fool's word. Science doesn't use it, as they will have to eat crow if they use it enough. They leave the word for fallacious institutions like the church and court system.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The best part of this belief system is that it allows for change in the face of new evidence.

Agreed, which is why the use of, "proof" is so inapplicable.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Basically, the idea is not to believe in anything for which there is no direct evidence, and to disregard that for which there is contradictory evidence.


No. The idea is to discount that which has been disproven, leave everything else up for grabs.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

To be an atheist, you have to believe there is no God.

Not really. If you don't believe in a god of some sort, you're an atheist. A-theism=without god. That's all there is to it.

No, Bill's right. Athiests believe there is definately not a god, agnostics are in the middle, so athiesm is not a passive roll, it's proactively aginst the idea of a god.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

JackC has identified the correct.

In fact, Buddhism is an atheistic religion.

Agnostics, while honest, are rather boring for our purposes here.

"Hell if I know", doesn't make for a very lively thread.

The truth, as evidence bears, is often boring since we can't dream up BS that makes us feel good.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>>> Requesting that assertions be proved with evidence

Okay. Give me evidence that there is no god. I mean emprical studies designed to demonstrat the lack.

This doesn't mean, "I asked God to help me bang Suzi."

Therein lies the issue. There is a similar lack of evidence to support or deny the existence. That's why it is dogmatic.

Right, and I'm sorry, faith is as impressive as crossing my fingers, but I respect those who cross thier fingers when making large decisions, just don't want to follow their lead.

[JackC 0]

Quote

No, Bill's right. Athiests believe there is definately not a god, agnostics are in the middle, so athiesm is not a passive roll, it's proactively aginst the idea of a god.

While Atheism does include those who believe there is no god, it also includes those who place no faith in god or find the concept of god to hold no meaning. If you do not actively believe in a god (whatever else you may or may not believe) you are an atheist. Agnostics may be atheist or theist. They may believe (or disbelieve) in god and still think the evidence in not known or unknowable.

[maadmax 0]

I like your approach to discerning reality, what ever it may be. I also use similar principles to dismantle the unknown. To say there is no God is a pretty big leap. It may be more appropriate to say there is no god that meets my particular expectations. If you look at the big picture "the unknown" is still a pretty sizeable part of it. "The known" is turning out to be stranger than we could have imagined it.

_______________________________________

[billvon 3,120]

>unless you're saying that atheism is wrong because one day an engineer
>might build god?

Nope, no more than a scientist might one day build earthlike planets around other stars. But he might, one day, discover them. Until he does, the statement "there are earthlike planets orbiting other stars" (or even "there are no earthlike planets circling any stars near us") is unsupportable.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

No, Bill's right. Athiests believe there is definately not a god, agnostics are in the middle, so athiesm is not a passive roll, it's proactively aginst the idea of a god.

While Atheism does include those who believe there is no god, it also includes those who place no faith in god or find the concept of god to hold no meaning. If you do not actively believe in a god (whatever else you may or may not believe) you are an atheist. Agnostics may be atheist or theist. They may believe (or disbelieve) in god and still think the evidence in not known or unknowable.

With that I'm a hard core extremist, fundamentalist Christian Atheist.

You've convoluted rigid boundaries there.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Atheist

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


—Synonyms Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. 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. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.


I'm more of a skeptic with that defintion / list of synnonyms. See. an atheist must deny the existence, not just who, "...place no faith in god or find the concept of god to hold no meaning."

[JackC 0]

Call yourself whatever you want mate. If skeptic fits you, great.
Strong and weak atheism

Agnostic atheism

Agnostic theism

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Call yourself whatever you want mate. If skeptic fits you, great.
Strong and weak atheism

Agnostic atheism

Agnostic theism

So you're trying to paint the shades inbetween....braavo.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

Call yourself whatever you want mate. If skeptic fits you, great.
Strong and weak atheism

Agnostic atheism

Agnostic theism

So you're trying to paint the shades inbetween....braavo.

It wasn't me.

They did it.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

>unless you're saying that atheism is wrong because one day an engineer
>might build god?

Nope, no more than a scientist might one day build earthlike planets around other stars. But he might, one day, discover them.

So I think that if a god did exist, then it would be "discoverable," or "knowable," which precludes me from being agnostic.

[deibido 0]

Have we started throwing definitions around already?

Sweet.

n.

1. God
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

So. . . which one will we use?

"User assumes all risk"

[deibido 0]

Some more . . .


Maltheist - God exists, and he is a rotten son of a bitch.

Apatheist - God? What? Who cares? More coffee please.

"User assumes all risk"

[billvon 3,120]

>So I think that if a god did exist, then it would be "discoverable," or
>"knowable," which precludes me from being agnostic.

It might be, it might not be. I don't know.

[deibido 0]

In the Church of Reality, doubt is required. Doubt is the basis for the Principle of Self Scrutiny. Realists doubt everything. That's how we continually test ourselves to make sure that what we believe in is really real. Our doubt causes us to reexamine everything all the time to make sure we have it right. Doubt also gives us a deeper understanding of what we know. It helps us prune the Tree of Knowledge removing the dead parts so that the live parts grow stronger.

Interestingly enough where doubt is required in our church, in fiction based churches doubt is prohibited. In Christianity doubt is the unforgivable sin. The one thing you are absolutely prohibited from doing in the Christian church is to think. Fortunately it is a requirement in our church.


Choose Reality

"User assumes all risk"

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

>So I think that if a god did exist, then it would be "discoverable," or
>"knowable," which precludes me from being agnostic.

It might be, it might not be. I don't know.

Well, if we want to say that something exists but is not knowable, then we can make up all sorts of imaginary things to believe in.

[billvon 3,120]

>Well, if we want to say that something exists but is not knowable, then we
>can make up all sorts of imaginary things to believe in.

Correct. And people do.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

>Well, if we want to say that something exists but is not knowable, then we
>can make up all sorts of imaginary things to believe in.

Correct. And people do.

Which is fine, but I see no reason to lend any credibility to any of those imaginary things. Not even in the sense of calling myself agnostic to them.

(This is not so much aimed at you as it is to the person who claimed that agnostics are atheists with brains.)

[rhys 0]

Quote

You say you believe in some sort of "magic" that constitutes matter. But do you know what that magic is, how it does it's thing or what properties it has? If you don't then I have to wonder, do you even know what you believe?

I believe that life shopuld be respected, life being all life not just people.

How and why we are here is sometihing we may never know, There are religions that state they know what is going on but the credability of those is weak at the best of times.

I just go on living, live close enough to work to not need a car, recycle, eat quality food that is organic if possible, be nice to my friends and colleges and I am happy.

Why do we need to have an explanation in order to believe?Life is magic!

I may sound like a christian when I say that but I am not so gullable or as stupid as a christian!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[maadmax 0]

Why do we need to have an explanation in order to believe?Life is magic!

I may sound like a christian when I say that but I am not so gullable or as stupid as a christian***

Aw shucks, and there for a moment I thought there might be hope for you yet

[JackC 0]

Quote

Why do we need to have an explanation in order to believe?

To help avoid delusions. I think that's a fairly good reason.

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

I am not so gullable or as stupid as a christian!

As I was reading your reply, I was pleased to see an intelligent, thought out one. Then you wrote the above quote. You were so close.

The bottom line people is that every post in this thread represents a personal opinion, nothing more. Personal opinions are useless to everyone except the individual person. We're all just microscopic dots in the grand scheme of the universe and history.

_________________________________________
Chris

[deibido 0]

Reality is not an opinion.


Choose Reality.

"User assumes all risk"