QueenZone discussion #1395930

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.

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?

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?

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?

mooghead wrote: "Disbelief in a deity = believing a deity does not exist." I disagree

Jefffabiano wrote: link

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............

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

mooghead wrote: "Disbelief in a deity = believing a deity does not exist." I disagree

You 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 wrote:

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.

mooghead wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

mooghead wrote: "Disbelief in a deity = believing a deity does not exist." I disagree

You 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".

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.

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 ... "

mooghead wrote: Thats all us atheists want. Give us something to apologise for.

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.

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.

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 :-(

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

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 Real Wizard wrote:

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.

Jefffabiano wrote: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

ParisNair wrote:

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:

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.

Actually, thats is what I have come to belive as well. And it does not conflict with my Hindu beliefs.

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.

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.

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...