Athiesm and Theism
- Thread starter wesmorris
- Start date
Happens to everyone. Happens to me especially when dealing with whatsup. Just the frustration he sets in sometimes, he just doesn't want to admit he's wrong.. ever... about anything, when he so clearly is. That kind of thing bugs me. Anyway, I would say more, but it's late and I need sleep =D
Objects are neutral until put to use... Scientists did not bomb anyone. And science comes up with cures for diseases, explains to 3rd world countries about aids, etc... No matter what group you pick you'll find your good and bad. Wether it be scientists or religious...
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
Thats what I was pointing out. They can both be useless, but can both help in their own ways.
Athiesm and Theism are equally unreasonable. Both must make unreasonable assumptions to maintain,
Atheism the belief that God does not exist,is a non sequiter, before you can answer that question you have to define who or what God is or is not ..he may be a Goddess it may be something else. This takes "metaphysical thought".
Secondly "Theism" the existence of god is based in subjective thought and indoctrination...If you take God off the Earth ,there is no proof that he exists!therefore anything believed in faith only holds true to that person.
I personally see Theism..as the union of God and the Goddess, the union of opposites..Light and sound....and Atheism, as a God who does not exist in some fluffy cloud but it is the synthesis of all wisdom, in that the power of the creator was there before the "big-bang..therefore it is the word "God" which is the problem.
dominic
Atheism the belief that God does not exist,is a non sequiter, before you can answer that question you have to define who or what God is or is not ..he may be a Goddess it may be something else. This takes "metaphysical thought".
Secondly "Theism" the existence of god is based in subjective thought and indoctrination...If you take God off the Earth ,there is no proof that he exists!therefore anything believed in faith only holds true to that person.
I personally see Theism..as the union of God and the Goddess, the union of opposites..Light and sound....and Atheism, as a God who does not exist in some fluffy cloud but it is the synthesis of all wisdom, in that the power of the creator was there before the "big-bang..therefore it is the word "God" which is the problem.
dominic
This is an assumption within itself. It is assumptive both to say that the existence of God is based on sunjective thought and indoctrination and to say that if we remove Him from the earth there is (or would be) no proof that he exists (or had existed). Science itself is one BIIIG assumption, mind you I embrace it - it supports itself. We assume that the scientific method is like... well... like God. I agree with the initiator though - from a neutral point of view - without excersising my faith {not to mention soul and spirit}
Secondly "Theism" the existence of god is based in subjective thought and indoctrination...If you take God off the Earth ,there is no proof that he exists!therefore anything believed in faith only holds true to that person.. that is what I said..Marcac...
If you take God or the notion of God off the Earth, no-one can proove he exists and people who manipulate other people, can make religious fanatics do all sorts of horrendous things in the name of God.
I believe that god isn't singular , but is pluralistic in substance
dominic
If you take God or the notion of God off the Earth, no-one can proove he exists and people who manipulate other people, can make religious fanatics do all sorts of horrendous things in the name of God.
I believe that god isn't singular , but is pluralistic in substance
dominic
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
And you, no doubt, having sucked your self-satisfied certainty from some pocket dictionary, will be sure to reveal the true meaning of those terms.
Perhaps missing from your pocket edition is the fact that, to
- "NOT believe that god exists"
- "GOD DOES NOT EXIST"
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
What is the scope of your agnosticism? Are you, for example, equally agnostic with respect to
- Jesus?
- YHWH?
- Ba'al?
- Kali?
- Aton?
- Mithras?
- the Sidhe Daoine?
- Unicorns?
- Loch Ness?
- Reincarnation?
- Past Life Regression?
- Astrology?
- Alien Abductions?
- ...
I reread my first response to this post I wanted to make additional points.
Okay, thank you.
Agnostic's as you put it, is NOT unreasonable because by the interpretation I believe to be correct it is that "no one knows the truth for sure" see what I mean? That is why it is TRUE, because it claims that all is hypothesis. It may be more correct to say that it is NOT FALSE, but to me that seems like the same thing.
and before 1920 they couldn't prove the big bang either. science makes progress, religion rejects changed or adapts itself to keep pace with science. religion is a substitute for context, when the context that religion has established has changed.. religion has to reform itself to emcompass that. some "wise man" of sorts has to "re-interpret" the words of the prophits such that they can BS you into thinking that's what they meant the whole time... you just didn't get it.
religion can in no way prove that god exists. sure, you can prove god exists if you just assume that god exists... but really you've only proved it to you, which is basically how delusion is defined? yeah, I think so.
Okay, thank you.
that is not a valid line of reasoning. think about it a bit eh? I believe that is a classical example of circular reasoning no? Pretty close if I've missed it, I don't think you made all the statements directly but let me see what you've implied:
a) god created the earth
b) the earth exists
c) the earth wouldn't exist if god were taken from earth
see how c refers back to a?
That's why there is agnosticism (which is really weak atheism). It claims to no position regaurding religion. I don't follow it, but it is there for anyone who would like a taste.
Re: Re: Athiesm and Theism
Oh, and I'm of the opinion that weak aitheism is a pussy way to say agnostic. I'll use my typical analogy as follows: The relationship between the words theist, agnostic and aitheist is as 1 > agnostic > 0. Imagined as a Venn Diagram one can imagine a circle split in two with "yes" on one side, "no" on the other and the circle is surrounded infinitely by an area labelled "no decision". To say "weak aithiest" in my opinion is to say "kind of not". Why not just say "I'm not sure"? Which is more direct? Which is more true?
I realize the dictionary allows for both arguments to be correct as each word has multiple definitions. I just think that the language adapted to the misuse of the words... and the most rational applications of the words is as I stipulated.
What say you?
Sorry to be such a cock, but thank you captain obvious. *giggle*
Oh, and I'm of the opinion that weak aitheism is a pussy way to say agnostic. I'll use my typical analogy as follows: The relationship between the words theist, agnostic and aitheist is as 1 > agnostic > 0. Imagined as a Venn Diagram one can imagine a circle split in two with "yes" on one side, "no" on the other and the circle is surrounded infinitely by an area labelled "no decision". To say "weak aithiest" in my opinion is to say "kind of not". Why not just say "I'm not sure"? Which is more direct? Which is more true?
I realize the dictionary allows for both arguments to be correct as each word has multiple definitions. I just think that the language adapted to the misuse of the words... and the most rational applications of the words is as I stipulated.
What say you?
It's funny how strong you have to be to admit you're weakness. Agnosticism is realizing that being sure of anything is an illusion of ego. A wise man knows he's a fool, a fool think's he's wise. And this basicly means you shouldn't have an opinion on yourself, lol. No ego.