| Author |
Topic: Guide to world religions |
cindyleigh
Cool Runner |
 posted Apr-16-2006 09:26 PM
  
quote:
Originally posted by makeda:
This is what I expected cindyleigh's post to be! 
Ha! I know El Dude isn't an atheist then...'cause he stepped in sh*t the other night at work. 
IP: Logged |
torque
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 10:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cindyleigh:
Yeah, its just too layered and too short. I had the same stylist for 2 years ..LOVED HER..she up and quit on me last Nov. to go into real estate...still looking for a replacement. Oh well, it'll grow.Okay, the basis of my atheism...first let me offer my definition of atheism..which is an absence of belief in the existence of gods...plural, not singular, as I am equally absent in my belief in the gods of the many varied religions of the world. I quite simply disbelieve their existence, or am highly skeptical. In all matters, except seemingly belief in god, isn't it generally accepted that we doubt the existence of something unless we have evidence that it exists? If one were to describe dinosaurs, for example, and claim that they roamed the planet millions of years before man...wouldn't you doubt their existence...until you saw a fossil? There are many who claim the existence of Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster, why do we doubt them? For me, I doubt them because they have no proof. For me, its all about evidence. It is difficult to prove the non-existence of something, but as someone who doesn't believe in the existence of the non-proven...or who is highly skeptical so as not to profess belief based on faith alone..I will avoid this endless loop. I sympathize with the paradox of the believer, how do you prove the existence of something that is essentially non-detectable?
I hear what you're saying. My barber just up and quit. Do you know how hard it is to find someone that can do a decent flat top??? I quite simply disbelieve their existence, or am highly skeptical. Ok...let me start with this statement then. What I garner from this is that if someone were to show you proof of Gods existance, then you would believe. Is that a fair assumption?
IP: Logged |
cindyleigh
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 10:38 PM
I would be less skeptical, the degree to which would depend on the weight of the evidence.
IP: Logged |
torque
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 10:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cindyleigh:
I would be less skeptical, the degree to which would depend on the weight of the evidence.
So, with this, then you could no longer say that you were 100% sure that there is no God? Is this fair too?
IP: Logged |
cindyleigh
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 10:53 PM
It is unlikely that any evidence you present would make me 100% certain of your god's existence (I am assuming that you have monotheistic view and that you have one particular god in mind). As for being 100% certain that god does not exist, there are different species of atheism..just as there are different species of Christianity. For a strong atheist, the default position is a negative one, i.e. god does not exist. For a weak atheist, the default position is the skeptical one, i.e. without proof, I assert neither the existence or non-existence. I am a weak atheist.
IP: Logged |
torque
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 11:00 PM
But in your statements you claim that you may more or less be less skeptical on the existance of God if proof were shown to you. These statements define an agnostic. "Show me the money!" A weak atheist is akin to a weak theist. It doesn't exist...either you believe or you don't. As much as you would like to state there avarying degrees, there aren't when it comes down to God. Either you believe, you're not sure, or you don't believe. So, in summing this up, you have gone from athiest to agnostic in about half a dozen posts. Would you care to go one step further?
[This message has been edited by torque (edited Apr-16-2006).]
IP: Logged |
cindyleigh
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 11:17 PM
Agnosticism is a relatively new term, coined in 1876. Agnostics not only believe that we do not know whether or not god exists, but that we will never know for sure.As far as atheist bents, I am more of a free thinker. The free thinker is one who disbelieves in the existence of god, but is prepared to weigh evidence and decide in either direction. I disagree with the notion that you either believe or you don't. That is a faith based assertion. I am wary of dogma.
IP: Logged |
torque
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 11:25 PM
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a godMain Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective
- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb These definitions are from Webster. Clearly from this is that you are agnostic (free thinker) than a atheist (closed thinker).
IP: Logged |
cindyleigh
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 11:35 PM
Always refer to the primary source:For Huxley's writings on agnosticism:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0879757493/103-5586498-8063049?v=glance&n=283155 and free thinking:
http://www.freethinker.co.uk/ Clearly we have different definitions of the term "atheist" but as I have clarifed my working definition let us move on. Was their proof forthcoming? ....we will have to finish this later, Desperate Housewives is on! [This message has been edited by cindyleigh (edited Apr-16-2006).]
IP: Logged |
russellm
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 11:46 PM
oh, good Lord!My FIL tells a story about a atheist in his class at officer training school in Ireland when they were being instructed on where to go to church on Sunday's Church Parade... he said, "I'm an atheist, thank God." Why the isistance of a precise definition of atheist, agnostic or theist? Why should an atheist have to take up space in their brain for that? You beleive or you don't If you don't, fine. Neither stance in itseld makes you a good or a bad person. Do you also need an explanation as to why a person doesn't believe in Santa Clause? It is a nonsensical question to a non believer. [This message has been edited by russellm (edited Apr-16-2006).]
IP: Logged |
torque
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 11:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cindyleigh:
Always refer to the primary source:For Huxley's writings on agnosticism:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0879757493/103-5586498-8063049?v=glance&n=283155 and free thinking:
http://www.freethinker.co.uk/ Clearly we have different definitions of the term "atheist" but as I have clarifed my working definition let us move on. Was their proof forthcoming?
Neither of the links helped me...the first takes me to the cover of a book and the second is the Free Thinker Newsletter?
The basis of this letter is founded by an outspoken critic about religion? H*ll that describes me too! But, you stated that you were an atheist and you have yet to provide evidence that you are anything but agnostic. By popular definition of course. Many years ago it was a widely held belief that the earth was flat. Was it flat? People certainly believed that it was and held their opinion. Does it mean it was flat? No. Once it was discovered that the earth was indeed round many changed their views..reluctantly at first. But there were still many that believed the earth was flat. Today, it is not only common knowledge that the earth is round but almost laughable that people could have believed anything different. What I'm getting at is that just because you believe in something now that it may change with new discoveries. Your views are that of an agnostic. This I firmly believe. You are willing to balance the evidence and choose on way or the other. That is being very open minded. Athiests claim that "There is no God". By popular definition. How do we know the Napoleonic wars happened? Or for that matter anything written in history. You have to rely on faith that the information you are getting is reliable...the more the information the beter your choice will be to come to a conclusion that something happened, or didn't happen. We've looked to the past, now how about right now. What do you feel has been the greatest scientific discovery? Keep in mind we are talking about reliable information.
IP: Logged |
torque
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-16-2006 11:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by russellm:
oh, good Lord!Do you also need an explanation as to why a person doesn't believe in Santa Clause? It is a nonsensical question to a non believer.
Because, there are very good reasons (historical and scientific) to come to the conclusion that someone does not believe in Santa Claus. What I'm getting at is that you have to have a basis for your belief. Not just "because" again, cause and effect. Something does not happen from nothing. Sorry, I wanted to add that from this perspective ("because" ie: no eveidence) it requires a h*ll of a lot more faith than from evidence that I have provided ie: recorded history. There is more evidence, but I have yet to touch on it. [This message has been edited by torque (edited Apr-17-2006).]
IP: Logged |
Sage38
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-17-2006 06:31 AM
--Because, there are very good reasons (historical and scientific) to come to the conclusion that someone does not believe in Santa Claus.--
this statement also applies to a non-belief of a supreme being. I can see perfectly good reasons (historical and scientific) not to believe in god/s.
I personally believe it is all mythology starting from way back in the dawn of time when man first needed to explain stuff he was frightened or confused by. That's all religion is (all a belief in god is)...stories to make you feel better about a scary and confusing world. And it's fine..... use religion, use god, for what it's good for...comfort, community and a guide to good living. Some of us don't need to look to religion or a higher power for those things. I'm not saying either way is better or worse..it's a personal choice and doesn't need to be justified. And yes, if there was proof...like when there was proof that the world is round, then of course i have the right to reevaluate my position...like the people who believed the world was flat reevaluated their postion. Until then........ Anyway, great discussion. It's nice that it's stayed so friendly.
Nancy
IP: Logged |
TropicalEsq
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-17-2006 06:57 AM
quote:
Originally posted by torque:
Neither of the links helped me...the first takes me to the cover of a book and the second is the Free Thinker Newsletter?
The basis of this letter is founded by an outspoken critic about religion? H*ll that describes me too! But, you stated that you were an atheist and you have yet to provide evidence that you are anything but agnostic. By popular definition of course. Many years ago it was a widely held belief that the earth was flat. Was it flat? People certainly believed that it was and held their opinion. Does it mean it was flat? No. Once it was discovered that the earth was indeed round many changed their views..reluctantly at first. But there were still many that believed the earth was flat. Today, it is not only common knowledge that the earth is round but almost laughable that people could have believed anything different. What I'm getting at is that just because you believe in something now that it may change with new discoveries. Your views are that of an agnostic. This I firmly believe. You are willing to balance the evidence and choose on way or the other. That is being very open minded. Athiests claim that "There is no God". By popular definition. How do we know the Napoleonic wars happened? Or for that matter anything written in history. You have to rely on faith that the information you are getting is reliable...the more the information the beter your choice will be to come to a conclusion that something happened, or didn't happen. We've looked to the past, now how about right now. What do you feel has been the greatest scientific discovery? Keep in mind we are talking about reliable information.
Torque, you're a bright person, quit being so boneheaded about this! I am an atheist. I do not believe in the existence of any God or supreme being I have ever heard described. Period. That said, If proof of the existence of God is offered to me and I find it acceptable proof such that it convinces me, I will then become a theist, a believer. Atheists can become theists. There is nothing about "I do not believe" that is resistant to proof and acceptance. I only wish the same could be said about theists. Unfortunately, they generally are resistant to changing their beliefs. An atheist says, "i'm not yet convinced. But if something convinces me, I'll change my position." A theist says, "I am convinced. No matter what anyone says or does, nothing will make me change my position." You are unfortunately ascribing traits of believers to non-believers.
IP: Logged |
pigeye
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-17-2006 07:46 AM
I do not believe in God. It doesn't seem to me to be necessary to posit a god to explain most of what we see, and falling back on god(s) to explain what we can't explain seems to me less than satisfactory and rather anti-intellectual.
Now, if you showed me *proof* of God's existence, I would not need to
believe in God, I would *know* God exists.
As for your Napolean example...well, I guess there is more than just written evidence.
IP: Logged |
Chasing Amy
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-17-2006 07:52 AM
quote:
Originally posted by TropicalEsq:
quit being so boneheaded about this!
 I've been looking for an excuse to use this one for awhile - thanks Trop!
IP: Logged |
Wendell56
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-17-2006 08:14 AM
I believe the major religions in the U.S. can be be summed up as follows:Jews don't recognize Jesus as the messiah, Protestants don't recognize the Pope, and Baptists don't recognize one another in the liquor store.
IP: Logged |
CharlesRiverBlowfish
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-17-2006 08:45 AM
So what's with bandying about words like "proof" and "evidence" when discussing religious belief? My understanding is that religion is a matter of faith and needs no proof or evidence.------------------
Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge
IP: Logged |
Sage38
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-17-2006 08:55 AM
sigh.....that's the point. If you are a "believer" you don't need proof or evidence. Those of us that don't believe would need proof or evidence in order to become believers. we were being asked to justify our non-belief and we were all making the point that we would be willing to re-evaluate the sitch if solid proof were available (and i don't mean passages from the bible or personal "epiphanies").
n
IP: Logged |
torque
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-17-2006 08:58 AM
quote:
Originally posted by TropicalEsq:
You are unfortunately ascribing traits of believers to non-believers.
Exactly! We are all bound by the same rules of criteria when arriving at a belief. I again say that the reason "because, there is no evidence" is not a good enough. You wouldn't accept the evidence that I have already provided by reason of it's not good enough. Well, at least I have provided some evidence and you haven't. It's a two way street. You cannot discredit my evidence simple because you do not agree with it. Where is your proof that God does not exis? From my own experience, which I have discussed with Korts already, I too was an atheist turned agnostic and finally a theist. These decisions were not taken lightly. There is no way that I would blindly believe in something unless I too had proof. The more I searched to establish the reasons that I did not believe in a Diety the more the evidence that there is a God. Now, who is being more close minded about the situation? We're stuck at the fact that no one has yet acknowledged that there is a process to arriving with your assumptions other then "there's no proof". What is your proof that there is no proof?
IP: Logged |
torque
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-17-2006 09:02 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Chasing Amy:
I've been looking for an excuse to use this one for awhile - thanks Trop!
Amy, we're trying to have a civil debate to which most of us are enjoying without the poo flinging.
IP: Logged |
torque
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-17-2006 09:04 AM
quote:
Originally posted by CharlesRiverBlowfish:
So what's with bandying about words like "proof" and "evidence" when discussing religious belief? My understanding is that religion is a matter of [b]faith and needs no proof or evidence.[/B]
But, that's blind faith and it is dangerous.
IP: Logged |
leahmonster
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-17-2006 09:06 AM
Torque, you can argue this until you are blue in the face and be as logical or as illogical as you want, and once in a while you might be able to persuade a person one way or another but most people deep down just believe or do not believe. I don't believe, I need no proof from you about anything. I am glad you are secure in your faith and I won't insult you by telling you what I think you actually believe, or why you believe and I won't ask you for proof at all, it's your faith, or in my case my lack or faith!
IP: Logged |
Chasing Amy
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-17-2006 09:08 AM
quote:
Originally posted by torque:
Amy, we're trying to have a civil debate to which most of us are enjoying without the poo flinging.
Aw c'mon! My Fire 'n Brimstone Curmudgeon is funny! Admit it!
IP: Logged |
torque
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-17-2006 09:11 AM
quote:
Originally posted by leahmonster:
Torque, you can argue this until you are blue in the face and be as logical or as illogical as you want, and once in a while you might be able to persuade a person one way or another but most people deep down just believe or do not believe. I don't believe, I need no proof from you about anything. I am glad you are secure in your faith and I won't insult you by telling you what I think you actually believe, or why you believe and I won't ask you for proof at all, it's your faith, or in my case my lack or faith!
I can understand this leah. But what I'm asking people is to explore the reasons they do not believe. Much like when writing a thesis in university proving a theory wrong. It's a process of critical thought. It requires a tremendous amount of faith to be an atheist.
IP: Logged |
