GERRYISADICK 23.08.2014 22:48 |
|
Chief Mouse 24.08.2014 00:57 |
"According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively." Now how can you put agnostic together with atheist in your poll? |
mooghead 24.08.2014 02:13 |
People tend to get the definition of atheist wrong. An atheist does not believe that there is no god. An atheist does not believe in the existence of god. Its a subtle but important difference. Atheist and agnostic should not be together as mentioned above. For what its worth when I ceased being a child I ceased having imaginary friends. |
brENsKi 24.08.2014 03:32 |
A bit of idol (pun intended) curiosity - why did you choose to leave Hinduism off the list? The THIRD largest world religion behind Christianity and Islam merits only shoehorning into the "other" category, while two that you list Buddhist and Jewish have only a small percentage of followers that Hinduism has. I don't know if you may want to consider re-titling Muslim and Jewish to Islam(ic) and Judaism(c). worth a thought? NB - thereis no such thing as "undefined" - if you have a belief then you are able to define it, therefore it's either in the list or it's "other", and if you don't have a belief then again you can define this - as agnostic or atheist. just trying to help |
thomasquinn 32989 24.08.2014 04:50 |
mooghead wrote: People tend to get the definition of atheist wrong. An atheist does not believe that there is no god. An atheist does not believe in the existence of god. Its a subtle but important difference. Atheist and agnostic should not be together as mentioned above. For what its worth when I ceased being a child I ceased having imaginary friends.Not true. Atheism = Greek, a-theos = "no god". Atheism is the DISBELIEF in the existence of a deity. Disbelief in a deity = believing a deity does not exist. |
GERRYISADICK 24.08.2014 09:30 |
Ok lets stop getting technical about it I didnt know the difference between the two |
GERRYISADICK 24.08.2014 10:49 |
Right lets politely say what we are I will go 1st. I am a sedevacantist |
noorie 24.08.2014 13:31 |
^^^^^^ I just looked that up. Very interesting! Me - Zoroastrian. |
mooghead 24.08.2014 13:50 |
I have an appreciation for Buddhism as Buddhists do not worship a deity, its about the inner self, it is very intriguing. But they believe in re incarnation and that fucks it all up :-( |
pittrek 24.08.2014 13:58 |
What am I if I think (think does not equal believe) that this all was created by a higher intelligence, but I don't believe that somebody is still controlling it? |
Chief Mouse 24.08.2014 14:05 |
pittrek wrote: What am I if I think (think does not equal believe) that this all was created by a higher intelligence, but I don't believe that somebody is still controlling it?Agnostic theist I assume (not an expert at all)? I'm probably something similar. |
mooghead 24.08.2014 14:09 |
"Disbelief in a deity = believing a deity does not exist." I disagree |
mooghead 24.08.2014 15:31 |
Jesus Christ ?@Jesusontwittorr John 3:16, Mark 4:20 John is clearly the fastest |
The King Of Rhye 24.08.2014 15:33 |
I've considered myself an agnostic/atheist sort.........I do kinda lump 'em together............OK, after looking some things up online...............I guess I could call myself a "strong agnostic" in that I don't think we CAN know.......which is kinda close to atheism I think............ And I kinda like the sound of this one too..... link |
mooghead 24.08.2014 15:41 |
The first paragraph sent me to sleep. I will happily apologise and fall to my feet to the big guy in the sky (of which there are thousands..) if anyone offers a shred of proof. Thats all us atheists want. Give us something to apologise for. |
GERRYISADICK 24.08.2014 15:43 |
link |
mooghead 24.08.2014 15:53 |
Lol! I am actually getting to like you xx |
GERRYISADICK 24.08.2014 15:56 |
I like you too your avatar is great |
The King Of Rhye 24.08.2014 23:28 |
pittrek wrote: What am I if I think (think does not equal believe) that this all was created by a higher intelligence, but I don't believe that somebody is still controlling it?Sounds like deism..... Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature. (wikipedia) |
thomasquinn 32989 25.08.2014 04:20 |
pittrek wrote: What am I if I think (think does not equal believe) that this all was created by a higher intelligence, but I don't believe that somebody is still controlling it?That makes you a deist, similar to Jefferson. The concept is from the 18th century, and its perception of god is often referred to as "the divine clock-maker" who designed the universe and the laws of physics, set it in motion and then left it alone. |
thomasquinn 32989 25.08.2014 04:23 |
mooghead wrote: "Disbelief in a deity = believing a deity does not exist." I disagreeYou may disagree as much as you like, but that merely suggests you don't comprehend the meaning of the word "disbelief". Disbelief is not simply "a lack of belief", that's called unbelief or non-belief. Disbelief, from Merriam-Webster: "the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue". |
thomasquinn 32989 25.08.2014 04:26 |
Jefffabiano wrote: linkThomas Aquinas' 'arguments' have been torn to shreds by philosophical criticism since the 18th century. The reason? They're not actually arguments at all, they're dogmas. |
thomasquinn 32989 25.08.2014 04:30 |
The King Of Rhye wrote: I guess I could call myself a "strong agnostic" in that I don't think we CAN know.......which is kinda close to atheism I think............No, it isn't. Strong agnosticism is a philosophical position, atheism a religious one: strong atheism does not exclude the possibility of the existence of a god, but states that we are unable to know whether this is so. Atheism rejects the possibility of a god altogether, making it a purely faith-based position as it rests on nothing further than the lack of evidence for the opposite position. To put it in the form of a parable, it is like the theory of the atom before the 20th century - it was impossible to objectively determine the existence of atoms, so the 'agnostic' camp held that the theory of the atom could neither be proven nor disproven, while the 'atheist' camps said that there was no evidence for atoms, so they didn't exist. |
mooghead 25.08.2014 05:37 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:For me to say I believe there is no god is in itself a belief system. I do not have a belief system because I am an atheist, an atheist who is more than happy to have his mind changed by anyone with anything that may make me change my mind.mooghead wrote: "Disbelief in a deity = believing a deity does not exist." I disagreeYou may disagree as much as you like, but that merely suggests you don't comprehend the meaning of the word "disbelief". Disbelief is not simply "a lack of belief", that's called unbelief or non-belief. Disbelief, from Merriam-Webster: "the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue". |
Donna13 25.08.2014 07:16 |
Well ... link |
brENsKi 25.08.2014 09:27 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:think you've confused yourself there. Atheism is either one or the other - NOT both as you stateThe King Of Rhye wrote:I guess I could call myself a "strong agnostic" in that I don't think we CAN know.......which is kinda close to atheism I think............No, it isn't. Strong agnosticism is a philosophical position, atheism a religious one: strong atheism does not exclude the possibility of the existence of a god, but states that we are unable to know whether this is so. Atheism rejects the possibility of a god altogether, making it a purely faith-based position as it rests on nothing further than the lack of evidence for the opposite position. |
thomasquinn 32989 25.08.2014 09:37 |
mooghead wrote:Exactly! Atheism is a belief system - a *negative* belief system in the sense that where a belief system is usually based around "we believe that ... ", atheism is based around "we believe that ... not", i.e. inverted religion (note that religion and church are related, but by no means interchangeable). That does not by any means detract from the inherent value of the atheistic belief system, it merely confirms that it is a set of views unlike religion but of the same nature, and not a level *above* religion as it is sometimes presumed to be.thomasquinn 32989 wrote:For me to say I believe there is no god is in itself a belief system. I do not have a belief system because I am an atheist, an atheist who is more than happy to have his mind changed by anyone with anything that may make me change my mind.mooghead wrote: "Disbelief in a deity = believing a deity does not exist." I disagreeYou may disagree as much as you like, but that merely suggests you don't comprehend the meaning of the word "disbelief". Disbelief is not simply "a lack of belief", that's called unbelief or non-belief. Disbelief, from Merriam-Webster: "the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue". Based on your stated views, I'd think that I would be inclined to say that you're an agnostic, but perhaps one who doesn't hold high expectations on the subject. You say that you would be happy to 'convert' if sufficient evidence of a reasonable nature is provided, whereas traditionally atheism does not believe such evidence could even possibly exist. |
Holly2003 25.08.2014 12:28 |
“You know when your dog is having a bad dream? That's who I pray to.” – Moe Szyslak. |
The King Of Rhye 26.08.2014 02:34 |
I guess what I mean when I say my beliefs are close to atheism is that because I believe that the question of if there is a god or any such thing is unanswerable, I live my life as if there is not....... That article about "ignosticism" I posted a link to earlier made a lot of sense to me........basically the description was that ignosticism says that........(.gonna quote again here cus this says it better than I can at the moment...)... Since the word "God" has many different meanings, it is possible for the sentence "God exists" to express many different propositions. What we need to do is to focus on each proposition separately. … For each different sense of the term "God," there will be theists, atheists, and agnostics relative to that concept of God. Bingo............ Also there was the dyslexic agnostic insomniac....... He stayed up all night wondering if there really was a dog....:p |
The Real Wizard 27.08.2014 14:19 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Atheism is a belief system - a *negative* belief system in the sense that where a belief system is usually based around "we believe that ... "...which is precisely why I don't describe myself as an atheist. I call myself a non-theist, or ambivalent. I don't have answers to such questions because a) nobody does, and b) I simply don't care. We have enough tangible issues (i.e. things that actually exist) to deal with in this life, and thus I find debate over an invisible man (or men, women, whatever) in the sky to be completely and utterly pointless. Religious belief has held back our species, historically and now, in ways that most people cannot understand. |
magicalfreddiemercury 27.08.2014 15:01 |
mooghead wrote: Thats all us atheists want. Give us something to apologise for.Sorry, but IMO, if after all this time - with famine, disease, war, natural disasters and the like - some deity finally decides to show itself, it won't be non-believers who owe an apology to that deity but that deity who owes an apology (and an explanation) to all of us. |
Doga 27.08.2014 15:24 |
Acording to Riddley Scott and Prometheus, we are the degree's Final Project of some aliens. |
Day dop 27.08.2014 21:56 |
Agnostic-atheist here. "An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed" - Carl Sagan. Seems reasonable enough to me. Whilst I cannot prove that God doesn't exist, I think there's probably no such thing. Therefore agnostic-atheist. Science/psychology has pointed in the the direction of God being nothing more than a man-made concept. |
The Real Wizard 28.08.2014 00:40 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: if after all this time - with famine, disease, war, natural disasters and the like - some deity finally decides to show itself, it won't be non-believers who owe an apology to that deity but that deity who owes an apology (and an explanation) to all of us.Brilliantly put. Probably the most clever and accurate thing you've ever said here. |
The Real Wizard 28.08.2014 00:45 |
Day dop wrote: Agnostic-atheist here. "An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed" - Carl Sagan. Seems reasonable enough to me. Whilst I cannot prove that God doesn't exist, I think there's probably no such thing. Therefore agnostic-atheist. Science/psychology has pointed in the the direction of God being nothing more than a man-made concept.Bang on. Speaking of brilliant scientists, behold the excellence and accuracy: |
ParisNair 30.08.2014 05:02 |
mooghead wrote: I have an appreciation for Buddhism as Buddhists do not worship a deity, its about the inner self, it is very intriguing. But they believe in re incarnation and that fucks it all up :-(Buddism evolved out of Hinduism, and like Hinduism (in its earliest form), Buddha formulated his philosophy on the basis of his observations and mediatational experiences. While the "father(s)" (we don't even know who exactly - its that ancient) of Hinduism concluded there is a Supreme deity, Buddha concluded there is none. While Hinduism teaches that ultimately the aatma becomes one with the universe (moksha), Buddha taught we are reduced to nothingness (Nirvana). The way I see it, different interpretations of the same experience. And I am Hindu because I am more convinced by Hindu philosophy (being born in a Hindu family helped, ofcourse). Coming to re-incarnation (common to both Hindu and Buddhist faith systems), maybe you have a incorrect understanding of this because you think about it from a mythological or maybe an Abrahamic view-point. If you think of it like energy changing forms, it may make more sense. The aatma (not to be confused with soul- aatma does not go anywhere to "rest in peace" when you die) is the "energy" which changes its form in this case. thomasquinn 32989 wrote:Actually, thats is what I have come to belive as well. And it does not conflict with my Hindu beliefs.pittrek wrote: What am I if I think (think does not equal believe) that this all was created by a higher intelligence, but I don't believe that somebody is still controlling it?That makes you a deist, similar to Jefferson. |
ParisNair 30.08.2014 05:06 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Thought provoking, indeed. I'm gonna save that quote.magicalfreddiemercury wrote: if after all this time - with famine, disease, war, natural disasters and the like - some deity finally decides to show itself, it won't be non-believers who owe an apology to that deity but that deity who owes an apology (and an explanation) to all of us.Brilliantly put. Probably the most clever and accurate thing you've ever said here. |
tomchristie22 30.08.2014 10:29 |
Atheism doesn't entail that the individual is certain a higher power doesn't exist - it just means they see nothing that gives them any reason to believe it does. |
GERRYISADICK 30.08.2014 10:42 |
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. |
The King Of Rhye 30.08.2014 14:26 |
Jefffabiano wrote: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. |
GERRYISADICK 30.08.2014 14:50 |
Nukes are better |
Doga 30.08.2014 17:58 |
ParisNair wrote:You'll be surprised between the concept of reincarnation of Buddishm and the theory of Cyclic model of the Universe.mooghead wrote: I have an appreciation for Buddhism as Buddhists do not worship a deity, its about the inner self, it is very intriguing. But they believe in re incarnation and that fucks it all up :-(Buddism evolved out of Hinduism, and like Hinduism (in its earliest form), Buddha formulated his philosophy on the basis of his observations and mediatational experiences. While the "father(s)" (we don't even know who exactly - its that ancient) of Hinduism concluded there is a Supreme deity, Buddha concluded there is none. While Hinduism teaches that ultimately the aatma becomes one with the universe (moksha), Buddha taught we are reduced to nothingness (Nirvana). The way I see it, different interpretations of the same experience. And I am Hindu because I am more convinced by Hindu philosophy (being born in a Hindu family helped, ofcourse). Coming to re-incarnation (common to both Hindu and Buddhist faith systems), maybe you have a incorrect understanding of this because you think about it from a mythological or maybe an Abrahamic view-point. If you think of it like energy changing forms, it may make more sense. The aatma (not to be confused with soul- aatma does not go anywhere to "rest in peace" when you die) is the "energy" which changes its form in this case.thomasquinn 32989 wrote:Actually, thats is what I have come to belive as well. And it does not conflict with my Hindu beliefs.pittrek wrote: What am I if I think (think does not equal believe) that this all was created by a higher intelligence, but I don't believe that somebody is still controlling it?That makes you a deist, similar to Jefferson. See, for eastern religions, time is cyclic, ''a circle'', it always returns to the same point, over and over, thing changes but the time return to the same spot. It reborns in a neverending cycle. The cyclic model says after the big bang, the universe expand till certain point, at that point, gravity will make the entire universe return to the initial state. For western religions, like Christianism and Judaism, the time is a line, not a circle, that means nothing can return to previous states, there is no reborn, after life, souls go to the afterlife (heaven, hell, purgatory) and stay there. The Big Freeze theory says exactly that, Universe is in evolution spreading itself from the starting point, in the end, the universe will be a place without light, and without heat, the whole universe will have a temperature of zero absolute, and all the stars will be wasted, in other words, a hell. |
magicalfreddiemercury 30.08.2014 18:44 |
Doga wrote: You'll be surprised between the concept of reincarnation of Buddishm and the theory of Cyclic model of the Universe. See, for eastern religions, time is cyclic, ''a circle'', it always returns to the same point, over and over, thing changes but the time return to the same spot. It reborns in a neverending cycle. The cyclic model says after the big bang, the universe expand till certain point, at that point, gravity will make the entire universe return to the initial state. For western religions, like Christianism and Judaism, the time is a line, not a circle, that means nothing can return to previous states, there is no reborn, after life, souls go to the afterlife (heaven, hell, purgatory) and stay there. The Big Freeze theory says exactly that, Universe is in evolution spreading itself from the starting point, in the end, the universe will be a place without light, and without heat, the whole universe will have a temperature of zero absolute, and all the stars will be wasted, in other words, a hell.I find all of this (and the previous posts) fascinating, truly. But I'm left feeling as I usually do, that since no one knows what, if anything, exists beyond this life, then it's this life we need to live. No guilt about not behaving as we're told some invisible entity would have us behave, not harming others for believing something different or for not believing at all, not living for the ever-after reward but for the moment and for the pleasures of the here and now. It's so sad to think so many people spend this life thinking about the next when, for all they know, this is all there is... and then all the stars will be wasted... |
ParisNair 31.08.2014 02:25 |
Doga wrote: You'll be surprised between the concept of reincarnation of Buddishm and the theory of Cyclic model of the Universe. See, for eastern religions, time is cyclic, ''a circle'', it always returns to the same point, over and over, thing changes but the time return to the same spot. It reborns in a neverending cycle. The cyclic model says after the big bang, the universe expand till certain point, at that point, gravity will make the entire universe return to the initial state. For western religions, like Christianism and Judaism, the time is a line, not a circle, that means nothing can return to previous states, there is no reborn, after life, souls go to the afterlife (heaven, hell, purgatory) and stay there. The Big Freeze theory says exactly that, Universe is in evolution spreading itself from the starting point, in the end, the universe will be a place without light, and without heat, the whole universe will have a temperature of zero absolute, and all the stars will be wasted, in other words, a hell.The way I understand it, re-incarnation is different to the cyclic model of the Universe/time. Re-incarnation deals with only the aatma (which is present only within living beings) while the Universe is not restricted. Maybe I can surprise you by saying that Hinduism already has a theory on the Universe/time being cyclic. Hindu scriptures divide time into 4 parts known as Yugas, which together cover billions of years, and at the end of the fourth Yuga, the cycle repeats again. And, I guess you'll also find it interesting to know that Hinduism does not have a Garden of Eden or a dramatic "Let There be Light" moment, but it does hint towards evolution- link The above graphic tells about some of the various "avatars" in which Lord Vishnu appeared in this universe at critical points in time. |
ParisNair 31.08.2014 02:43 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: I find all of this (and the previous posts) fascinating, truly. But I'm left feeling as I usually do, that since no one knows what, if anything, exists beyond this life, then it's this life we need to live. No guilt about not behaving as we're told some invisible entity would have us behave, not harming others for believing something different or for not believing at all, not living for the ever-after reward but for the moment and for the pleasures of the here and now. It's so sad to think so many people spend this life thinking about the next when, for all they know, this is all there is... and then all the stars will be wasted...This is where the Indic religions (Hinduism and its off-shoots -Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc) are different. There is no judgement day, no after-life, fear of heaven or hell. Hinduism even has had the concept of Atheism within its various schools of thought, believe it or not. What we do have, is the here and now; and that is the most important concept in Hinduism - Karma. |
BETA215 31.08.2014 07:21 |
I prefer to don't enter in any bag, like Buddhism or Christianism. But, if I have to enter in one, I CAN be inside the Agnostic Theism bag. Anyway, I love this threads. I learn a lot from this threads, 'cause all my family is Catholic with a lot of bits from almost all the religions, kind of a mixture, and I only believe that there's a god. Despite the Sunday's mornings, they respect my position. And I'm the only who eats meat at Important Catholic Days. :) |
GERRYISADICK 31.08.2014 08:09 |
Beta get your family out of francis church! |