Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Paganism
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

I was waiting for Jezus to add something. . .

One of the main problems I have with religion is that it tells you what to believe in while God is an individual affair.

And Jesse, don't worry, I read everything you wrote. I always learn a lot from ya. I bow my head at the feet of the Lotus.

"Only the individual can find Truth." J. Krishnamurti
Post Fri May 02, 2003 10:40 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

RandomSurge wrote:
I don't see the point in being atheist (besides just shutting all that religion "bullshit" out)....you're rejecting religion because you see they dont' have the answers...so then you go to the extreme and say YOU have the answer


You misunderstand atheism.

It only states that the answer exists devoid of divinity - not that we have any idea what that answer may be.
Post Fri May 02, 2003 11:51 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

FireFly wrote:
I was waiting for Jezus to add something. . .

One of the main problems I have with religion is that it tells you what to believe in while God is an individual affair.

And Jesse, don't worry, I read everything you wrote. I always learn a lot from ya. I bow my head at the feet of the Lotus.

"Only the individual can find Truth." J. Krishnamurti


Make sure you get his CD.
Post Fri May 02, 2003 11:52 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Nope



Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 1916
 Reply with quote  

MessiahCarey wrote:
RandomSurge wrote:
I don't see the point in being atheist (besides just shutting all that religion "bullshit" out)....you're rejecting religion because you see they dont' have the answers...so then you go to the extreme and say YOU have the answer


You misunderstand atheism.

It only states that the answer exists devoid of divinity - not that we have any idea what that answer may be.


I worded it wrong...because if you read the next line is says

"which is, there is no god"

I shouldn't have used the word "answer"...but anyway

it's no less logical to believe in a god than it is to say such a being doesn't exist. That's the problem I have with atheists. They believe themselves to be more rational, but in reality, they're not. Simply because your disbelief is based on belief
Post Fri May 02, 2003 2:28 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

Interesting.

Of course, it all depends on what "God" you speak of. I speak with great certainty when I express my view that the God of Judeo-Christian mythology does not exist. Does this mean there's no possibility of a higher power? Of course not, a logical person could never make such a claim. Would this admission make me an agnostic? Perhaps, depending on your definition.

"They believe themselves to be more rational, but in reality, they're not. Simply because your disbelief is based on belief"

The burden of proof in any rational discussion, in my opinion, lies on the one that makes a claim that cannot be directly inferred without the influence of that which you are trying to prove.

I mean...listen to what you're saying here. Someone has developed a beleif, we won't say it's God, we'll say it's the beleif that a man eating frog is down the street waiting to kill us all.

I say: No, that's ludicrous of course there isn't - why would you beleive that?
You: Because he's there.
me: Have you seen him?
You: No, but I have been told by what I deem as a reliable source that he is there.
me: Well I don't beleive it.
You: Your disbeleif is unfounded because it is based on my belief that it IS there.

How is that rational in comparison to atheism - an ideology that states that in order to have a belief you should acquire proof of existence and not merely proof of concept?

- Shane
Post Fri May 02, 2003 5:48 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

This isn't to say that atheists don't employ arguments that are irrational - I have seen it many times.

You're once again generalizing - and quite poorly. Either you have talked to atheists that are idiots or have no ability to articulate their beliefs (or lack thereof as the case may be).

My previous arguments aren't to be an end-all proof of the non-existance of God, for those keeping score...but more towards disassembling the (all too common) notion that atheism is in reaction to religion when it stands on its own. There have ALWAYS been atheists - I would argue that they may have created religion...

- Shane
Post Fri May 02, 2003 5:55 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Nope



Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 1916
 Reply with quote  

MessiahCarey wrote:

I mean...listen to what you're saying here. Someone has developed a beleif, we won't say it's God, we'll say it's the beleif that a man eating frog is down the street waiting to kill us all.

I say: No, that's ludicrous of course there isn't - why would you beleive that?
You: Because he's there.
me: Have you seen him?
You: No, but I have been told by what I deem as a reliable source that he is there.
me: Well I don't beleive it.
You: Your disbeleif is unfounded because it is based on my belief that it IS there.

How is that rational in comparison to atheism - an ideology that states that in order to have a belief you should acquire proof of existence and not merely proof of concept?




ehh...why use me in the dialogue?? I don't believe in anything...especially man eating frogs...but anyway

"You: No, but I have been told by what I deem as a reliable source that he is there."

sorry but that's not why most people believe in a superior being...you're accusing me of generalizing...but then you make a statement like this.

also....you mention this man eating frog is "down the street"...so this further complicates things...for obvious reasons

AND to kill your argument even more

you misunderstood what I meant by "your disbelief is based on a belief"

your disbelief in a superior being is based on the belief it doesn't exist...you have no more proof for your belief than does the other

this is the old: they can't prove it, but you can't disprove it

I never claimed either belief to be more rational than the other
Post Fri May 02, 2003 6:04 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

Okay...understood. I used "you" merely as an example - I know where you stand, or at least where you stood the last time you addressed the issue on the board.

My argument does have flaws when taken in literal - I should have properly developed a better scenario...the fundament of what I was saying still holds true:

It is more logical to place the burden of truth on someone who says something DOES exist, not something DOESN'T exist.

I hate to use law as an example, but it comes to mind quickly - please answer this question:

In the event that I have stated that you and I have a written agreement, if it is ever brought in question, is it up to ME to prove that the document DOES exist, or YOU to prove that it DOESN'T?

- Shane
Post Fri May 02, 2003 6:24 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jesse



Joined: 02 Jul 2002
Posts: 6166
Location: privileged homeless
 Reply with quote  

RandomSurge wrote:
I don't see the point in being atheist (besides just shutting all that religion "bullshit" out)....you're rejecting religion because you see they dont' have the answers...so then you go to the extreme and say YOU have the answer

which is, there is no god
You basically have "faith" there is no god...as weird as that may sound
that "answer" of yours is no different from that of god-based religions
we're all ignorant...stop trying to play like you know anything
and if you're going to believe that you do...don't be an asshole about it
I don't impose my ignorance on you, do I?


Whom, specifically, are you addressing with this? Is this just a generalized complaint about atheists you've known? I very rarely see atheists long out of high school behaving in the manner you describe (however I have seen plenty of THAT).

You say you don't see the "point" in being atheist, but it's not as though one believes things to make a point - you either do believe something or you don't.

I am an atheist because I do not believe that there is a god or higher power. It's merely a descriptive label.
Post Fri May 02, 2003 6:34 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Jesse



Joined: 02 Jul 2002
Posts: 6166
Location: privileged homeless
 Reply with quote  

oh and thanks to shane & firefly for validating my existance. ^_^
Post Fri May 02, 2003 6:35 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Nope



Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 1916
 Reply with quote  

MessiahCarey wrote:

It is more logical to place the burden of truth on someone who says something DOES exist, not something DOESN'T exist.



screw the example...I'll just address the original statement

I agree with it...always have.

BUT...the intrinsic questions cannot be answered by anyone. Simply because nobody has any TRUE knowledge/insight....ANYTHING

NOW, we're not talking about some monster down the street that's destroying shit...we're talking about a supposed being(s) that has created everything. I'm not going to go into the whole "design" thing because I'm sure you know about.

If there is no superior being, then how did everything come about? there are the god-less "theories" and the creator "theories."

neither is any more probably in my mind. I'm pretty sure I know of all the prevalent ones.

Do atheists have no theories at all? Do they just not belief in a superior being and leave it at that? Or do they actually try to explain everything minus god? (I'm sure there are both types)

you said that atheists have always been....and that they might have in fact created religion...if that's the case, they are the ones with the burden of truth :)
Post Fri May 02, 2003 6:38 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Nope



Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 1916
 Reply with quote  

Jesse wrote:


You say you don't see the "point" in being atheist, but it's not as though one believes things to make a point - you either do believe something or you don't.

I am an atheist because I do not believe that there is a god or higher power. It's merely a descriptive label.


"your disbelief in a superior being is based on the belief it doesn't exist...you have no more proof for your belief than does the other"

usually if you believe in something, you think you are right (oh how smart I am)...

but I never saw how atheists are any more right that those who believe in a superior being
Post Fri May 02, 2003 6:46 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Jesse



Joined: 02 Jul 2002
Posts: 6166
Location: privileged homeless
 Reply with quote  


Quote:

BUT...the intrinsic questions cannot be answered by anyone. Simply because nobody has any TRUE knowledge/insight....ANYTHING


So what you're stating, absolutely, is a refutation of absolute statements?


Quote:

If there is no superior being, then how did everything come about?


Just because one solution to a question fails to satisfy a person doesn't mean there's any onus upon that person to then provide a satisfactory new solution. Cats have the right to say "Nah" and just leave it there if they feel like it.


Quote:

Do atheists have no theories at all? Do they just not belief in a superior being and leave it at that? Or do they actually try to explain everything minus god? (I'm sure there are both types)


Exactly, atheism isn't a set doctrine, it's a simple description. Atheists don't have anything in common neccessarily other than not believing in god. So as you say, many of them have their explanations, and many of them let it be.


Quote:

you said that atheists have always been....and that they might have in fact created religion...if that's the case, they are the ones with the burden of truth :)


you mean burden of proof, and I don't see your logic in this assertion. Can you extrapolate?
Post Fri May 02, 2003 6:47 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Nope



Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 1916
 Reply with quote  

jesse: about the absolute statements: I know how this may seem problematic, but I'm not disproving ALL absolute statements...just the ones concerning the answers to intrinsic questions. I never said there were no absolute statements or truths...but concerning this subject...there aren't.

and on your plead to extrapolate: I fucked up...nevermind

but

simply because the burden of proof lies on those that say something exist, doesn't mean that if they can't do that satisfactorly concerning THIS INSTANCE (a monster destroying shit is a little different from intrinsic questions) that this "something" simply does not exist

Shane: the fact is, that you won't be able to come up with a better example...no matter how "less literal" you get. Because the answers to intrinisic questions are not something you can make an analogy with. They are unique all in themselves (as far as disproving and proving is concerned)
Post Fri May 02, 2003 7:04 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

RandomSurge wrote:
jesse: about the absolute statements: I know how this may seem problematic, but I'm not disproving ALL absolute statements...just the ones concerning the answers to intrinsic questions. I never said there were no absolute statements or truths...but concerning this subject...there aren't.

and on your plead to extrapolate: I fucked up...nevermind

but

simply because the burden of proof lies on those that say something exist, doesn't mean that if they can't do that satisfactorly concerning THIS INSTANCE (a monster destroying shit is a little different from intrinsic questions) that this "something" simply does not exist

Shane: the fact is, that you won't be able to come up with a better example...no matter how "less literal" you get. Because the answers to intrinisic questions are not something you can make an analogy with. They are unique all in themselves (as far as disproving and proving is concerned)


I've got to chew on this for a bit.

I've gotta say that I certainly agree that the truth isn't available. There isn't enough data on the matter to come to an adequate conclusion either way.

This is fun.

- Shane


Last edited by MessiahCarey on Fri May 02, 2003 7:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
Post Fri May 02, 2003 7:10 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Thu Jul 24, 2014 12:13 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon