Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
You`re not getting it, are you. Re-read my previous posts. I summarise again for your benefit: Theism is to do with belief, Gnosticism is to do with knowledge. Two different things.
Anyways, this thread is dead. See you on the next debate.
Theist and Atheist are the certainty beyond gnosticism. You have it backwards, if agnostic was a certainty, then it wouldn`t be a doubt of, because thats not certain..there`s no x and y axis, theres no rating system that narrows what you are, "doubt" and "certainty" define against each other,they aren`t the same, and cannot be used on a grid with out being an oxymoron
It didn`t sink in, did it? Lemme help.
It`s a grid. On the x axis, there`s belief (Theism/Atheism). On the Y Axis, there`s certainty (Gnosticism/Agnosticism).
Try again, without the arrows.
Please respectfully desist from defining what I am and am not. I find it bit offensive for you to label me thus. I`m agnostic. I don`t know. If I release an apple from my hand tomorrow and it flies up to the sky, then we need to rethink the Theory of Gravity, and I`ll happily take part in the movement.
If, on the other hand, an Angel of the Lord comes down from the sky and explains the anti-gravitational apple, then I`m the first convert to Gnostic Theism you ever saw. Bring it.
The arrogance isn`t the definition of science, it when you replaced atheism as science. Because as we all know science is studied andcontributed by all.
When you reach the conclusion you have opened gnosticism which will, thus entering your thiesm or athiesm, because these are sure things. Agnosticism is not a sure thing.
You are a Gnostic athiest, because you have reached a conclusion til point of doubt. You do not doubt right now..you will though when this "irrefutable evidenc" comes. Which hasnt happend yet correct?Even by your definition, Agnostic Athiesm would mean you base your atheism on doubt or lack or knowledge..which..I would certainly hope its otherwise right?
"And replace Atheism with Science = Arrogance. Science is in everything and contributed by all"
Science is the study of the universe around us, without recourse to supernatural explanations. If you find that arrogant, then be my guest.
There`s a reason why most professional scientists (including me) are agnostic atheists. If you`re not agnostic, you`re a poor scientist. If you`re not atheist, then you have the caveat of something you can`t explain as "God did it!". Unfortunately, that`s not how science works.
Anyways, I`m off to other things. Not trying to be arrogant (I`ve genuinely enjoyed the intelligent discussion, immensely), but I really have to leave this thread.
Peace and goodwill.
Is atheism a noble quality? I would say no. Theism or atheiem is simply a matter of belief. Does one believe that the best way to govern a country is Republican or Democratic? That`s just personal opinion, or belief.
The real nobility comes at the level of gnosticism. Am I sure that I am right, beyond reproach? The only humble, humanitarian approach to take is agnosticism. I think I`m right, but I`m open to new ideas which may change my world view. An approach, I must say, that is sorely lacking in the religious, who are overwhelmingly Gnostic Theists.
You know the line: "I`m right, we`re the chosen people, you`re all going to hell except for me and my team. I didn`t make up the rules, God did, and while God loves you, you`re still all gonna burn unless you turn to my particular branch of religion."
To me, small voice as I am, that`s divisive and abhorrent in the extreme.
No, we don`t, on two points.
1) Atheism is not a statement of "I believe of no God". Rather it`s "I do not believe in God". There is a subtle, but important difference. The former is a matter of belief, or faith (e.g. I have faith that there is no God), while the latter is simply disbelief (e.g. I don`t believe in God).
2) Gnosticism/agnoticism is simply stating what you factually know ("Gnostic" is from the Greek, same stem as the word "knowledge"). Hence it is quite right and proper, and not oxymoronic, to declare oneself an Agnostic Athiest. It`s not trying to be clever. It`s simply a statement of "I don`t believe in God, but I don`t know". Contrast with Gnostic Theism: "I believe in my God, and I just know I`m right."
Ex: There is a Muslim.If in a bizarre turn of events, Christ came down and said "YOU ARE WRONG", then logically he/she would change to Christianity..but what he/she beleives at this moment is exactly that, that Islam is the one true religion..this does not make he/she an Agnostic Muslim, because they have reached their conclusion til further notice..Everybody has a point of change..agnosticism is that true doubt..
And replace Atheism with Science = Arrogance. Science is in everything and contributed by all
"Tell me what has atheism contributed to humanity?"
Interesting point. Atheism as such cannot contribute anything to society, as it is simply the default position. No-one`s born Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu. We`re taught how to be that way by our parents, society and religious leaders.
Atheism is vanilla. It`s the starting condition. You may as well ask "What have humans ever contributed to humanity?"
But I will take it one stage further. Let`s not talk of atheism, but of science. Science is the search for truth, deliberatly without recourse to supernatural explanations for phenomena. It`s an attempt to understand the universe around us in purely physical, chemical and biological terms. There`s purposely no religion in science. Thus atheism has very close ties to the scientific method - God, the supernatural, whatever you want to call it, is shut out.
Your question could be transposed as: "What has science ever contributed to humanity?
Religion is based on people`s beliefs, hence theism (a belief in a higher being). Atheism is simply a lack of belief. You`re confusing atheism with gnosticism.
Hope that made sense to someone. Confused the sh*t out of me.
No. Theism/Atheism and Gnosticism/Agnosticism are two completely separate concepts. A/Theism is to do with what someone believes, A/Gnosticism is to do what someone knows/is certain about.
It`s quite possible to be an Agnostic Theist ("I believe in God/s but I admit I don`t know if I`m right in believing that") or a Gnostic Atheist ("I don`t believe in God/s and I`m absolutely certain that I`m right").
Personally, I`m an Agnostic Atheist ("I don`t believe in God/s but I`m not sure if I`m right, I`ll change my mind if/when evidence presents itself"). The vast majority of religious people worldwide are Gnostic Theists ("my God is real and is the one true God, everyone else is wrong and going to burn in hell for eternity").
As a matter of fact, I don`t want to prove anything. I want to live my life as I feel it should be led, based on my own morals, and not be told constantly to believe in certain a certain diety, especially when there are so many out there. I`d rather be left alone to live my life. If I die and there is a God, well... howdy doo. There`s a God. Looks like I have my proof. I can believe now.
But until then, I`mma stick with my nice little life and not force my morals on other people.
On the other hand, tell me what Christianity has contributed to humanity? It`s religious fanatics who start wars in the name of their god(s). It`s the religious who kill people in the name of God and feel no remorse for it. It`s it idea that a single religion is better or more right than another that creates such a hatred and a difference of opinion for others of differing faiths.
You say you still love me and that God still loves me if I don`t believe in him. Yet you still say I`m going to hell if I don`t feel like talking to a person I can`t prove exists. Some people have tried to save me before, and it`s absolute hypocrisy. I`ll pass on your faith, thanks.
"Survey says: 4 out of 5 evangelical divorcees believe marriage is sacred."
Atheism is defined by religious studies experts is a non-belief with Certainty there is no god. Agnostic people are SKEPTICAL. They believe there could be something.
Buddhism IS considered a religion according to Religious Studies and researchers- a "religion" does not need a diety to be a religion. Any belief in living a life a certain way can be considered religion.
Buddhism considers itself a way of life, not a mere philosophy. And they CAN identify with it as a religion, but not in our definition. Sure, there ARE philosophies involved, but the essence is to live. Dogen and Shinron believed that studying philosophies to gain understanding is key, though others differ slightly- everyone is different and can become a Buddha. If you ask them the DEFINITION of a diety they know the definition according to what is considered a world definition- but Buddhism does NOT state there is no god. It`s about LIVING.
Source: Asian American Studies-Psych major, JPN m
though that isn`t entirely what religion is about, the same case can be made about atheism. "God doesn`t exist" is a claim that cannot be proven as much as "God does exist". also the whole claim that religion is just for lazy thinkers, i believe it is easier to be skeptic and arrogant than to actually look up anything for yourself.
as for Buddhists not believing Buddhism is more a philosophy rather than a religion, that basically is an argument of semantics. atheism it self is somewhat a paradoxical religion in where the believer (or disbeliever) doesn`t believe atheism is a religion. i`d be convinced that atheism wouldn`t be a religion if there weren`t so many preachers.
The Big Bang is based on the observation that the universe is expanding not and thereby is not a `supernatural` phenomena. Besides, its merely a theory. Almost a hypothesis considering there is not much evidence for it and there are many studies that contradict it. But that is the nature of science. No one claims to know the answers to what we do not know and we are willing to accept when a theory is debunked. Perhaps one day we will know the origins of the universe with additional study and technology just as one hundred and fifty years ago we discovered the mechanism for the origin of life. I will never make the claim that all religions are wrong because in science there are no facts. It`s just EXTREMELY unlikely based on existing evidence
oh and I agree..stupid max count
Bloody max character reader unable to count!
I love Betty Bowers so much. Go visit her site for more LOL`s
@boredfjord" I like videos that expose the outrageous contents of the Bible concisely"I agree!
I hope you guys are right - bring it on!
Really? Let`s dissect that for a moment:
Here`s a list of some things which which can be said to be traits of "religion". How many of them apply to atheism? Belief in God(s), prayer, churches/temples, scripture/holy books, priests/religious leaders, belief in the supernatural (including angels/demons), miracles, holy wars, heaven/hell, lifestyle restrictions (diet, marriage, dress), belief without evidence (and holding such as a virtue, called "faith"), belief despite conflicting evidence, supernatural origins of the universe and/or humans, belief in the afterlife, regular ceremonies/acts of worship, sin, blasphemy, the notion that "We are (insert deity here)`s chosen people". I could go on, but you get the idea.
Atheism is neither religion nor faith. Declaring it to be otherwise, sadly, will not make it so.
Religion : from "re-ligare", means "to tie back, tie fast, tie up"... to get in contact with God.Religion is a system of faith in and worship of a Supreme Being, or a god or gods... or a system of denial of any god.
I agree with the message- if the message is that gays should have the right to marry, but I`m not too fond of the wrapping.
That`s Wikipedia`s definition of a religion. Atheism is not an organized approach to spirituality. It isn`t organized at all. It has no supernatural or transcendent quality. And it does not give meaning to the atheist`s experiences of life through reference to anything,but certainly not through reference a higher power, gods, or ultimate truth. So in what sense, then, is atheism a religion? Atheism is a single belief; the belief that there are no gods. That`s it. I hope you find that more satisfying than "atheism is a religion the way bald is a hairstyle."
Not me. Darwin isn`t the king of nonreligious people. He`s not our Jesus and The Origin of Species is not our Bible. Not even close. Nonreligious people agree with those theories of his that have stood up to a century and a half of intense scientific scrutiny and whatever other subjective opinions of his that we may find palatable personally, and we dismiss whatever else he said. No one treats Darwin like an object of worship, and atheism is not a religion.
I still believe in God, just not Christianity. I`ve been doubting it for a long time and I`m just so tired of it. I`ve never liked organized religion because people use it to manipulate you and control you. Most of religion is run off of fear. And I`m tired of it. So God, yes. Christianity, no.
Okay, done with my rant.
no need for the hackneyed response of "atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color."
So Ocean, what is your concept of god? from your defenses, I`m guessing that you are some form of Christian. But why Christian? What evidence is there to support that Jehovah is any more real than say Odin, Vishnu, Ra, Zeus, Legba, Quetzaquatal, or the various Native American gods? We actually have MORE scientific evidence to support the idea that Cthulhu exists than we do Christ.
History, psychology, paleantology, anthropology, sociology, and a history of theology all basically show that it was MAN who created GODS. They exist in one place - as archetypes in the collective human subconcious.
That entire episode proves that Christians are sheep. Easily led to wherever their drug addled gay prostitute loving leaders lead them.
Fair enough. But you`re avoiding the real point of my original question. You said that the OT injunctions (specifically, the ones you find it convenient to disobey) are metaphors. "Those are old testament stories, my personal application is that these where told metaphorically for the people of their time, however the messages they carry are universal: faith, obedience, consequence."
So I am asking you what the metaphor of these passages is. How is "don`t eat pork" a metaphor? How is "Kill the sorceresses" a metaphor? Or "David cut off the foreskins of the 200 Philistines he had just murdered?" Or "they had penises like donkeys and ejaculated like horses?" None of that is made up, though it is paraphrased for the sake of brevity. What are we supposed to take away from those OT passages?
I never said that science proves God doesn`t exist. I said this "...based the current body of scientifically observed facts, it`s absurd to say that there is any evidence of any gods." Meaning that the facts we have observed scientifically do not logically lead to the conclusion that there is a God. This is different than saying that God has been disproved.
I hate the word spirituality. It seems, to me, to presuppose the existence of a spirit. But of course there is no such thing. So surely we can satiate our desire for ritual or a sensation of connectivity with the world around us or whatever it is you wrongly call "spirituality" without believing in any superstitious claptrap.
Coconut Head Smash
The point is what`s true. The point is being honest and seeing reality as it is. And based the current body of scientifically observed facts, it`s absurd to say that there is any evidence of any gods. Least of all the Christian God.
If the OT stories were metaphors, then what is the meaning of the metaphors? For example, how could "kill men for having sex with each other" POSSIBLY be a metaphor for anything good or just? And why would God, in his alleged omniscience, choose to communicate with his fallible creation through metaphor when he knew that most or all of his followers would interpret the metaphors incorrectly?
And the New Testament is worse, in a way, because it introduces the concept of hell. And and being that created hell, as it is popularly understood, is evil beyond measure.
The pope is a man with weakness like any other, those who decide to do what the holy spirit guides them to IS incapable of great deeds but those who abuse power can do great damage. If you don`t understand think about this, does the pope ask God what to eat for breakfast? I don`t think so therefore he does have free will and can act as any man but his duty is to be as connected with God as possible
PS: Those red lines under the words you`re typing are telling you something. sheesh.
Have you read the OT? God is commanding his armies to raze cities and butcher unarmed civilians. When Jephthah sacrifices his own daughter to God, God calls him a "man of great faith." God clearly supports murder all over the Bible.
The Catholic Church gives a lot? Wow. How about preaching against condom use in AIDS-stricken Africa where about 25 Million people currently have HIV? Senior members of the Catholic Church in Africa have gone so far as to state that not only do condoms not work in preventing AIDS, but that some European-made condoms are infected with HIV deliberately..
Also like to point out its easy to tell who is an atheist here by reading the comments.
Also like to point out its easy to tell who is a Christian here is by reading the comments.
Astheroid, Your inability to spell and use words correctly speaks volumes about your intelligence.
A religion believes that you can have as many wives as you have as long as you can support it.
What she sayin is a d.ck in p.ssy. not an assh.le.
And before you tell I`m ignorant, think how we reproduct, in nature.And some of my buddies are gay but they understand what it means to it. unlike some people who just push it too much.
I`m with you on that. I mean there are many events and things with factored into Rome`s downfall, but you really have to wonder if the people of the empire would have been able handle those issues (or if some of them would have even happened) if they had not been slowly infected by the downtrodden, guilt-ridden, guilt inducing, self-loathing psychology that Judeo-Chrstianity brought with it. It was such a 180 from the confidence and justifiable (for the most part) pride of Roman morale.
You meant befor it destroyed the roman empire?