I have a severe distaste for: - Page 27

obvious Child · 07-18-08, 09:27 PM

Given that you have constantly failed to understand what that term means, this is most likely futile. But what the hell.

Again, you are arguing that there are only two choices here. You ignore that atheism itself is subdivided into two groups, soft and hard. Soft is essentially agnosticism where hard is a open rejection of the belief in a higher power. You are pretending (and rather badly at that) that atheism is a monolith, and that soft and hard are the same thing. Either you are deliberately maintaining your ignorance (which is called willful ignorance) or you simply don't understand the subject.

If you don't understand post #259, you're not going to understand any of this.

scourge99 · 07-19-08, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Monroe

They believe in reicarnation, so they don't kill cows. Who would want to be a cow? Good question. But......some of the Christian stuff sounds pretty far out there as does Judaism.

People are questioning things a lot sooner than they used to. The youth aren't that interested in tradition.

I would attribute this to the vast wealth of knowledge that is readily available to the average person. Hundreds of years ago there was no such thing as the internet or even mass production. The knowledge that many youth possess today from schooling, TV, travel, and our fast-paced society close many of the gaps that would otherwise be filled by supernatural or spiritual beliefs.

That is, IMO, the decline can be attributed to two things:

1) an ever increasing body of scientific knowledge
2) ever increasing ease of access to such knowledge

Without prevalent sources of mysticism in the world ones sense of spirituality is never provoked. Even today the most spiritual and religious tend to be those who claim to have had some sort of "mystical" or "divine" experience that is beyond explanation.

Marilyn Monroe · 07-20-08, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nkgupta80

a slight difference. Because not believing in gods, doesn't necessarily mean that you believe in the statement that they don't exist. ONe could simply sit in the middle, be an agnostic, not make judgement on the statement and claim that one has insufficient information to actually make a judgement.

Doesn't that seem wishy-washy? I'd think if they don't believe in gods, then they'd also believe they don't exist.

I suppose you could not "believe" that they can do anything, but they still exist, but that's enough to give me a headache.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 07-21-08, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Monroe

Doesn't that seem wishy-washy? I'd think if they don't believe in gods, then they'd also believe they don't exist.

I suppose you could not "believe" that they can do anything, but they still exist, but that's enough to give me a headache.

It's quite the hair split isnt it.

nkgupta80 · 07-21-08, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Monroe

Doesn't that seem wishy-washy? I'd think if they don't believe in gods, then they'd also believe they don't exist.

I suppose you could not "believe" that they can do anything, but they still exist, but that's enough to give me a headache.

its not confusing at all. I don't believe in god, but I don't hold a belief against it. In other words, I don't know. (that is not a belief).

Now if one were to specify god as being the JudeoChristian god, then I would assert a claim that the Judeo-Christian god doesn't exist.

Cephus · 07-21-08, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Monroe

Doesn't that seem wishy-washy? I'd think if they don't believe in gods, then they'd also believe they don't exist.

I suppose you could not "believe" that they can do anything, but they still exist, but that's enough to give me a headache.

No, not at all. It isn't wishy-washy, it's logical and rational.

One shouldn't believe something exists without sufficient evidence. I have not seen sufficient evidence that any god exists, therefore I don't believe in any. If I should be presented with evidence, I will re-evaluate my position. The same can be said of aliens, ghosts, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and honest politicians. No reason to believe = no belief.

Lack of believe does not equate to belief in the lack of existence.

section eight · 07-21-08, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Please indicate which religion you have a distaste for and why.

I would have to say all of the above (except atheists damn I accidentally checked atheists so -1 for atheists) not the actual people but religion in and of itself.

talloulou · 07-21-08, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Monroe

Doesn't that seem wishy-washy? I'd think if they don't believe in gods, then they'd also believe they don't exist.

I suppose you could not "believe" that they can do anything, but they still exist, but that's enough to give me a headache.

Nah, sometimes, "I don't know," is a reasonable and honest answer. I do not know of any Gods existing, does that mean they don't exist? I don't know.

I don't know of any aliens existing. Does that mean they don't exist?

Being agnostic doesn't mean you've no imagination. What I can imagine just doesn't equate to faith.

talloulou · 07-21-08, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

It's quite the hair split isnt it.

Not at all. I can imagine the possibilities of something without feeling forced to accept or deny its existence when all evidence seems inconclusive.

Bodhisattva · 07-21-08, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Maybe you can answer this bodhi.

I believe that god or gods do not exist.
I don't believe in gods or god.

What is the difference between these two statments?

There is no difference... is there supposed to be in order to make a point?