Switch Theme:

On atheism, theism, and agnosticism  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in au
Crushing Black Templar Crusader Pilot






Relapse wrote:
 IllumiNini wrote:
Relapse wrote:
The point is that we existed before this planet was created and we will exist after it's transformation. During our time here we learn and experience those things we need for our personal eternal progression. After our time on Earth is done, however long that may be, we are then ready to learn more that we need to know on the other side.


So let's assume that you're right (identifying as agnostic, I feel this is a necessary assumption), then I'll echo my previous post: How much can a person who died at the age of 5 learn that will prepare them in any way for Eternal Life? In addition: If they do learn anything, how much of it is material they didn't already have prior to being put on Earth?


You might not agree with this, but my religion, LDS, teaches us that we existed before coming to Earth as literal children of God. We were offered a chance to be born into mortality in order to receive a physical body and add whatever knowledge we needed to gain here, whatever that might be, to further our eternal progression when we leave this life.


To me, that still doesn't justify why people dying at 5 via things like disease, hunger, etc. is accepted or even happens. It also doesn't justify why God (assuming he/ she / it / other exists) lets it happen. IMHO, such suffering and death has about as much place in this world has about as much place as the cane does in a classroom, which is to say that it doesn't. And if this God (or any other God(s) on the assumption that it or they exist) let's this happen, then I seriously question whether or not this/these God/Gods truly are the God(s) we think them to be.

On the point of being offered and then subsequently choosing to be sent to Earth in order to learn is a noble concept, but given the current state of the world, it's a flawed one at best if you ask me.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




 IllumiNini wrote:
Relapse wrote:
 IllumiNini wrote:
Relapse wrote:
The point is that we existed before this planet was created and we will exist after it's transformation. During our time here we learn and experience those things we need for our personal eternal progression. After our time on Earth is done, however long that may be, we are then ready to learn more that we need to know on the other side.


So let's assume that you're right (identifying as agnostic, I feel this is a necessary assumption), then I'll echo my previous post: How much can a person who died at the age of 5 learn that will prepare them in any way for Eternal Life? In addition: If they do learn anything, how much of it is material they didn't already have prior to being put on Earth?


You might not agree with this, but my religion, LDS, teaches us that we existed before coming to Earth as literal children of God. We were offered a chance to be born into mortality in order to receive a physical body and add whatever knowledge we needed to gain here, whatever that might be, to further our eternal progression when we leave this life.


To me, that still doesn't justify why people dying at 5 via things like disease, hunger, etc. is accepted or even happens. It also doesn't justify why God (assuming he/ she / it / other exists) lets it happen. IMHO, such suffering and death has about as much place in this world has about as much place as the cane does in a classroom, which is to say that it doesn't. And if this God (or any other God(s) on the assumption that it or they exist) let's this happen, then I seriously question whether or not this/these God/Gods truly are the God(s) we think them to be.

On the point of being offered and then subsequently choosing to be sent to Earth in order to learn is a noble concept, but given the current state of the world, it's a flawed one at best if you ask me.



Check out the link I posted near the bottom of the last page and the links it takes you to. That covers the basics of what I believe concerning the purpose of our life on this Earth.
   
Made in au
Crushing Black Templar Crusader Pilot






Relapse wrote:


May I offer this in answer to some of your questions? There are several links contained that should give you a better idea of what my beliefs are concerning our pre mortal, mortal, and post mortal existence.

https://www.lds.org/topics/plan-of-salvation?lang=eng



I'll have a read over rhe next few hours.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




 IllumiNini wrote:
Relapse wrote:


May I offer this in answer to some of your questions? There are several links contained that should give you a better idea of what my beliefs are concerning our pre mortal, mortal, and post mortal existence.

https://www.lds.org/topics/plan-of-salvation?lang=eng



I'll have a read over rhe next few hours.




Check the videos out, also. Some of the people in them experienced a lot of what is being talked of in this thread.
   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

 Peregrine wrote:
 Kovnik Obama wrote:
What does it matter to their immortal souls, that they died at 5 or 50 or 500? That they spent 5 seconds, 5 minutes or 5 years suffering?

The framework of religious ontology is completely different from that of modern, western individualism. It is, in a sense, epic, cosmic, universal. An instance of suffering takes on a completely different meaning when interpreted through the hermeneutics of God's love for his Creation.


And yet, over and over again, people pray to live, people pray for the people they love to live, etc. They don't celebrate how cancer is bringing them closer to their eternal fate and who cares about living a few more meaningless years out of eternity. It's almost like people know, on some level, that this life is all you get.


Again twisting a reasonable comment. This life is all you get on Earth, unless ones theology includes reincarnation. In which case there is still and investment in this singular life before moving onto the next.
Human life is important especially to the individual, even if assured of resurrection there is no reason to seek death now.

From a Christian point of view your position is deeply unscriptural. Giving up ones life is seen as highly sacrificial, giving up something valuable, not just in the case of Jesus but for anyone, even within the concept of having eternal life, and sometimes directly referencing both concepts in tandem.

Matthew 16:25
For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

Revelations 12:11
And they loved not their lives unto the death - They did not so love their lives that they were unwilling to die as martyrs.

Human mortal life is still valuable, and not just as currency for martyrdom, but as and of itself.

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
In the first place, these children are not simply wiped from existence but are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.


IOW, if you care about your children you'd better murder them asap. Kill them in their state of innocence and get them to salvation before they have a chance to lose it. Who cares if they lose their mortal lives, eternal salvation is what matters, right?


The theology makes sense. David mourned and petitioned God for his sons life, his first son born to the wife he stole by murdering Uriah the Hittite. He mourned to petition God to stay his hand, when God did not and the boy died David celebrated, because his son was now in paradise and life would go on, and father and son would be reunited after death.
Eternal salvation matters most of all. Life matters enough that while it is being lived it should be protected.

n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in no
Longtime Dakkanaut





Atheism does not mean you have a belief, a faith or say anything about what exists or not. It's simply a lack of belief in gods and godesses.

I know there' strong forces among non-atheists to change this into being a positive statement, a faith comparable to theism. There is a clear motivation for this.

An atheist does not rely on zero evidence.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/01 13:36:01


 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

 Orlanth wrote:

Human life is important especially to the individual, even if assured of resurrection there is no reason to seek death now.


You should never be a suicide counselor.

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

 Orlanth wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Kovnik Obama wrote:
What does it matter to their immortal souls, that they died at 5 or 50 or 500? That they spent 5 seconds, 5 minutes or 5 years suffering?

The framework of religious ontology is completely different from that of modern, western individualism. It is, in a sense, epic, cosmic, universal. An instance of suffering takes on a completely different meaning when interpreted through the hermeneutics of God's love for his Creation.


And yet, over and over again, people pray to live, people pray for the people they love to live, etc. They don't celebrate how cancer is bringing them closer to their eternal fate and who cares about living a few more meaningless years out of eternity. It's almost like people know, on some level, that this life is all you get.


Again twisting a reasonable comment. This life is all you get on Earth, unless ones theology includes reincarnation. In which case there is still and investment in this singular life before moving onto the next.
Human life is important especially to the individual, even if assured of resurrection there is no reason to seek death now.

From a Christian point of view your position is deeply unscriptural. Giving up ones life is seen as highly sacrificial, giving up something valuable, not just in the case of Jesus but for anyone, even within the concept of having eternal life, and sometimes directly referencing both concepts in tandem.

Matthew 16:25
For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

Revelations 12:11
And they loved not their lives unto the death - They did not so love their lives that they were unwilling to die as martyrs.

Human mortal life is still valuable, and not just as currency for martyrdom, but as and of itself.

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
In the first place, these children are not simply wiped from existence but are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.


IOW, if you care about your children you'd better murder them asap. Kill them in their state of innocence and get them to salvation before they have a chance to lose it. Who cares if they lose their mortal lives, eternal salvation is what matters, right?


The theology makes sense. David mourned and petitioned God for his sons life, his first son born to the wife he stole by murdering Uriah the Hittite. He mourned to petition God to stay his hand, when God did not and the boy died David celebrated, because his son was now in paradise and life would go on, and father and son would be reunited after death.
Eternal salvation matters most of all. Life matters enough that while it is being lived it should be protected.


It seems to me that these points are valid only if you already believe in God and the afterlife. In other words, they cannot of themselves be valid reasons for belief in God and afterlife because that would be a circular argument. In your case of course you have been convinced by the evidence of scripture.

A Humanist would say that life is valuable and should be lived well (ethically, etc.) without the need to do so because you think God wants you to and because you expect a reward in Heaven.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Incubus





 Kilkrazy wrote:
 Orlanth wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Kovnik Obama wrote:
What does it matter to their immortal souls, that they died at 5 or 50 or 500? That they spent 5 seconds, 5 minutes or 5 years suffering?

The framework of religious ontology is completely different from that of modern, western individualism. It is, in a sense, epic, cosmic, universal. An instance of suffering takes on a completely different meaning when interpreted through the hermeneutics of God's love for his Creation.


And yet, over and over again, people pray to live, people pray for the people they love to live, etc. They don't celebrate how cancer is bringing them closer to their eternal fate and who cares about living a few more meaningless years out of eternity. It's almost like people know, on some level, that this life is all you get.


Again twisting a reasonable comment. This life is all you get on Earth, unless ones theology includes reincarnation. In which case there is still and investment in this singular life before moving onto the next.
Human life is important especially to the individual, even if assured of resurrection there is no reason to seek death now.

From a Christian point of view your position is deeply unscriptural. Giving up ones life is seen as highly sacrificial, giving up something valuable, not just in the case of Jesus but for anyone, even within the concept of having eternal life, and sometimes directly referencing both concepts in tandem.

Matthew 16:25
For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

Revelations 12:11
And they loved not their lives unto the death - They did not so love their lives that they were unwilling to die as martyrs.

Human mortal life is still valuable, and not just as currency for martyrdom, but as and of itself.

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
In the first place, these children are not simply wiped from existence but are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.


IOW, if you care about your children you'd better murder them asap. Kill them in their state of innocence and get them to salvation before they have a chance to lose it. Who cares if they lose their mortal lives, eternal salvation is what matters, right?


The theology makes sense. David mourned and petitioned God for his sons life, his first son born to the wife he stole by murdering Uriah the Hittite. He mourned to petition God to stay his hand, when God did not and the boy died David celebrated, because his son was now in paradise and life would go on, and father and son would be reunited after death.
Eternal salvation matters most of all. Life matters enough that while it is being lived it should be protected.


It seems to me that these points are valid only if you already believe in God and the afterlife. In other words, they cannot of themselves be valid reasons for belief in God and afterlife because that would be a circular argument. In your case of course you have been convinced by the evidence of scripture.

A Humanist would say that life is valuable and should be lived well (ethically, etc.) without the need to do so because you think God wants you to and because you expect a reward in Heaven.


Another funny thing about this logic is that we have to assume your god is evil if it exists.

Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Orlanth wrote:
This life is all you get on Earth, unless ones theology includes reincarnation.
Are you suggesting that ones theology changes the reality of what actually happens after death? Like "I believe I'll come back" so I do?

If I therefore make up a BS religion, and I indoctrinate children into it for a few generations, until it is thier deeply and zealously held belief -- a belief that the indoctrinated live and die by (not to mention have furious internet arguments about). Are you suggesting that when believers do die, will they really go to whatever BS afterlife I made up for them (because they believe they will)? Or will it still just be some nonsense that I made up, which they were just foolish to believe in for so long?



This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/08/01 23:09:38


 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




If you can make an assertion without evidence, then I can dismiss it without evidence. We atheists are not the ones who carry the burden of proof. Atheism is not a religious view, or a claim that requires evidence to back it up. It requires no leap of faith to say that you don't accept an assertion that is made without evidence. Atheism is the rejection of a claim that hasn't met its burden of proof.
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

 Orlanth wrote:

From a Christian point of view your position is deeply unscriptural


Are your beliefs consistent with Christianity as a whole?

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




 Kilkrazy wrote:
 Orlanth wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Kovnik Obama wrote:
What does it matter to their immortal souls, that they died at 5 or 50 or 500? That they spent 5 seconds, 5 minutes or 5 years suffering?

The framework of religious ontology is completely different from that of modern, western individualism. It is, in a sense, epic, cosmic, universal. An instance of suffering takes on a completely different meaning when interpreted through the hermeneutics of God's love for his Creation.


And yet, over and over again, people pray to live, people pray for the people they love to live, etc. They don't celebrate how cancer is bringing them closer to their eternal fate and who cares about living a few more meaningless years out of eternity. It's almost like people know, on some level, that this life is all you get.


Again twisting a reasonable comment. This life is all you get on Earth, unless ones theology includes reincarnation. In which case there is still and investment in this singular life before moving onto the next.
Human life is important especially to the individual, even if assured of resurrection there is no reason to seek death now.

From a Christian point of view your position is deeply unscriptural. Giving up ones life is seen as highly sacrificial, giving up something valuable, not just in the case of Jesus but for anyone, even within the concept of having eternal life, and sometimes directly referencing both concepts in tandem.

Matthew 16:25
For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

Revelations 12:11
And they loved not their lives unto the death - They did not so love their lives that they were unwilling to die as martyrs.

Human mortal life is still valuable, and not just as currency for martyrdom, but as and of itself.

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
In the first place, these children are not simply wiped from existence but are in a state of innocence which allows them salvation, or in other words, access into God's presence.


IOW, if you care about your children you'd better murder them asap. Kill them in their state of innocence and get them to salvation before they have a chance to lose it. Who cares if they lose their mortal lives, eternal salvation is what matters, right?


The theology makes sense. David mourned and petitioned God for his sons life, his first son born to the wife he stole by murdering Uriah the Hittite. He mourned to petition God to stay his hand, when God did not and the boy died David celebrated, because his son was now in paradise and life would go on, and father and son would be reunited after death.
Eternal salvation matters most of all. Life matters enough that while it is being lived it should be protected.


It seems to me that these points are valid only if you already believe in God and the afterlife. In other words, they cannot of themselves be valid reasons for belief in God and afterlife because that would be a circular argument. In your case of course you have been convinced by the evidence of scripture.

A Humanist would say that life is valuable and should be lived well (ethically, etc.) without the need to do so because you think God wants you to and because you expect a reward in Heaven.



In all fairness, most Christians I know are kind and caring people to begin with. YMMV

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/02 01:29:59


 
   
Made in no
Longtime Dakkanaut





Niffenator wrote:
If you can make an assertion without evidence, then I can dismiss it without evidence. We atheists are not the ones who carry the burden of proof. Atheism is not a religious view, or a claim that requires evidence to back it up. It requires no leap of faith to say that you don't accept an assertion that is made without evidence. Atheism is the rejection of a claim that hasn't met its burden of proof.

Allthough I agree with your main point, atheism includes more than just rejection. It also includes simple absence, which requires not statement or opposition of any kind.
   
Made in au
Crushing Black Templar Crusader Pilot






Niffenator wrote:
If you can make an assertion without evidence, then I can dismiss it without evidence. We atheists are not the ones who carry the burden of proof. Atheism is not a religious view, or a claim that requires evidence to back it up. It requires no leap of faith to say that you don't accept an assertion that is made without evidence. Atheism is the rejection of a claim that hasn't met its burden of proof.


I feel that Atheism is a bit more complicated than that, bur if nothing else: This is definitely a solid basis on which the theorem of Atheism is formed.

Dont get me wrong: I agree with you in the sense that if religion can make claims that those outside their religion struggle to or can't accept because they find it hard to beleive, then so can atheists. But... I always felt there was an ever-so-little bit more to it.

For example, I feel that (even though I'm Agnostic) there has always been a burden on Aheists to prove that any God (or any set of Gods) doesnt exist purely because - to my mind - Athiesm is founded on the idea of scientific proof and that (based on reasonable scientific extrapolation) there is no reason to believe that a God (or set of Gods) exists. In other words: The basis of Atheism as I understand it requires a bit more proof than Religion because Atheism doesn't require a leap of faith.

This is part of why I consider myself to fall into the class of Agnosticism: Because regardless of whether or not there is a God or set of Gods, Agnostics are not burdened by the requirement to prove either case.
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Relapse wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
 Orlanth wrote:
...

The theology makes sense. David mourned and petitioned God for his sons life, his first son born to the wife he stole by murdering Uriah the Hittite. He mourned to petition God to stay his hand, when God did not and the boy died David celebrated, because his son was now in paradise and life would go on, and father and son would be reunited after death.
Eternal salvation matters most of all. Life matters enough that while it is being lived it should be protected.


It seems to me that these points are valid only if you already believe in God and the afterlife. In other words, they cannot of themselves be valid reasons for belief in God and afterlife because that would be a circular argument. In your case of course you have been convinced by the evidence of scripture.

A Humanist would say that life is valuable and should be lived well (ethically, etc.) without the need to do so because you think God wants you to and because you expect a reward in Heaven.



In all fairness, most Christians I know are kind and caring people to begin with. YMMV


I don't deny it. Humans tend to have a capacity for kindness and cooperation. Many religions inspire their adherents to this sort of behaviour. I think Christianity is especially strong in this respect due to Jesus having made it a key part of his message.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




Niffenator wrote:
If you can make an assertion without evidence, then I can dismiss it without evidence. We atheists are not the ones who carry the burden of proof. Atheism is not a religious view, or a claim that requires evidence to back it up. It requires no leap of faith to say that you don't accept an assertion that is made without evidence. Atheism is the rejection of a claim that hasn't met its burden of proof.


I don't think of atheism as a rejection of anything.

It is the default position. I tend to also believe that probably everyone is an atheist. Faith and routine reinforcement are methods to suppress what everyone understands, even if only subconsciously...there are no supernatural powers at play in the universe. If people really believed what they profess to believe in terms of supernatural powers, entities, etc , there would be no need of faith anymore then there is a need to have faith in gravity, or a need to attend regular meetings to reinforce their "belief" in gravity.


The extend to which people can actually believe something with no evidence is interesting. I suspect the people who put on outward shows of faith are the people who believe in their religion the least (and maybe even Jesus had a couple things to say about this).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/02 13:51:55


 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

Relapse wrote:

In all fairness, most Christians I know are kind and caring people to begin with. YMMV


Turns out that being an ass is pretty difficult.

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






 jasper76 wrote:
Niffenator wrote:
If you can make an assertion without evidence, then I can dismiss it without evidence. We atheists are not the ones who carry the burden of proof. Atheism is not a religious view, or a claim that requires evidence to back it up. It requires no leap of faith to say that you don't accept an assertion that is made without evidence. Atheism is the rejection of a claim that hasn't met its burden of proof.


I don't think of atheism as a rejection of anything.

It is the default position. I tend to also believe that probably everyone is an atheist. Faith and routine reinforcement are methods to suppress what everyone understands, even if only subconsciously...there are no supernatural powers at play in the universe. If people really believed what they profess to believe in terms of supernatural powers, entities, etc , there would be no need of faith anymore then there is a need to have faith in gravity, or a need to attend regular meetings to reinforce their "belief" in gravity.


The extend to which people can actually believe something with no evidence is interesting. I suspect the people who put on outward shows of faith are the people who believe in their religion the least (and maybe even Jesus had a couple things to say about this).



I figure the default position is the i dont know anything and am a empty vessel for knowledge position.
you are not really born thinking that a thing doesn't exist, you learn pretty much everything and compile it to make sense of the world. you are told about the monsters in the closet and until you confront it, its there had has power over you. same with religion, science, whatever.




This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/02 15:14:02


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




Blank slate might be the default for an infant.

But as we simply interact with our surroundings, we realize that in truth, there are no supernatural forces at play in the world. And even if we pretend that there are such forces at play, most if not all of us know somewhere basic in our brain that it's all a fantasy.
   
Made in us
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets






 jasper76 wrote:
Blank slate might be the default for an infant.

But as we simply interact with our surroundings, we realize that in truth, there are no supernatural forces at play in the world. And even if we pretend that there are such forces at play, most if not all of us know somewhere basic in our brain that it's all a fantasy.


Ah, the good ol' elitism dude, this is why people hate saying they're atheists. Others come out with such a slap in the face that it makes us look like asshats.

Even if you don't believe in God, there's no reason to go around shouting "I don't believe in God and you shouldn't either!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Desubot wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
Niffenator wrote:
If you can make an assertion without evidence, then I can dismiss it without evidence. We atheists are not the ones who carry the burden of proof. Atheism is not a religious view, or a claim that requires evidence to back it up. It requires no leap of faith to say that you don't accept an assertion that is made without evidence. Atheism is the rejection of a claim that hasn't met its burden of proof.


I don't think of atheism as a rejection of anything.

It is the default position. I tend to also believe that probably everyone is an atheist. Faith and routine reinforcement are methods to suppress what everyone understands, even if only subconsciously...there are no supernatural powers at play in the universe. If people really believed what they profess to believe in terms of supernatural powers, entities, etc , there would be no need of faith anymore then there is a need to have faith in gravity, or a need to attend regular meetings to reinforce their "belief" in gravity.


The extend to which people can actually believe something with no evidence is interesting. I suspect the people who put on outward shows of faith are the people who believe in their religion the least (and maybe even Jesus had a couple things to say about this).



I figure the default position is the i dont know anything and am a empty vessel for knowledge position.
you are not really born thinking that a thing doesn't exist, you learn pretty much everything and compile it to make sense of the world. you are told about the monsters in the closet and until you confront it, its there had has power over you. same with religion, science, whatever.



How? Most children are born with an innate fear of the dark without any adults telling them about the Boogeyman.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/02 15:38:29


~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 jreilly89 wrote:
Even if you don't believe in God, there's no reason to go around shouting "I don't believe in God and you shouldn't either!"


So, question: is it ok to go around shouting "I believe in god and you should too", like many religious people do and various religions command their followers to do?

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

I think anybody who believes/doesn't believe in something and spends their time telling the person who doesn't believe/believes in something how wrong they are is a donkey cave. I'm fine with people asking about your belief in a general small-talk manner, and expanding on that if the other person is interested. To me there isn't that much difference in protocol when asking "what church do you go to" and "what's your NFL team". Both are fine questions to ask when talking to someone, and when the reply is "I don't care for religion" or "NFL sucks, hockey is the real sport" then you drop the subject.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/02 15:47:27


 
   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




 jreilly89 wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
Blank slate might be the default for an infant.

But as we simply interact with our surroundings, we realize that in truth, there are no supernatural forces at play in the world. And even if we pretend that there are such forces at play, most if not all of us know somewhere basic in our brain that it's all a fantasy.


Ah, the good ol' elitism dude, this is why people hate saying they're atheists. Others come out with such a slap in the face that it makes us look like asshats.

Even if you don't believe in God, there's no reason to go around shouting "I don't believe in God and you shouldn't either!"


I never said people should or should not believe in God. I just asserted that probably everyone won the planet is fundamentally an atheist, because it may not even be possible to fundamentally believe in things, such as supernatural forces, for which the actual world provides no evidence and cannot provide a model.

FWIW, I don't think people should base their lives around things with no evidence, and this viewpoint extends beyond religion to pretty much any subject matter I can think of. And I have no qualms whatsoever about expressing this opinion, especially in a society where people commonly threaten others with torture for not playing along with the crowd.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/02 15:50:58


 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






 jreilly89 wrote:

How? Most children are born with an innate fear of the dark without any adults telling them about the Boogeyman.


Lol sorry the phrasing could of used some work.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets






 jasper76 wrote:
 jreilly89 wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
Blank slate might be the default for an infant.

But as we simply interact with our surroundings, we realize that in truth, there are no supernatural forces at play in the world. And even if we pretend that there are such forces at play, most if not all of us know somewhere basic in our brain that it's all a fantasy.


Ah, the good ol' elitism dude, this is why people hate saying they're atheists. Others come out with such a slap in the face that it makes us look like asshats.

Even if you don't believe in God, there's no reason to go around shouting "I don't believe in God and you shouldn't either!"


I never said people should or should not believe in God. I just asserted that probably everyone won the planet is fundamentally an atheist, because it may not even be possible to fundamentally believe in things, such as supernatural forces, for which the actual world provides no evidence and cannot provide a model.


....based on? That's a pretty big assumption, and like the doctrine you so proclaim, I'd like to see evidence of it. Also, how is it not possible to believe in things for which the world provides no evidence? Plenty of people believe in ghosts, and that has shaky evidence at best.


FWIW, I don't think people should base their lives around things with no evidence, and this viewpoint extends beyond religion to pretty much any subject matter I can think of. And I have no qualms whatsoever about expressing this opinion, especially in a society where people commonly threaten others with torture for not playing along with the crowd.


Then you should have no problem with people going around and telling you you should believe in a higher power. Freedom of speech and being a decent person works both ways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
 jreilly89 wrote:
Even if you don't believe in God, there's no reason to go around shouting "I don't believe in God and you shouldn't either!"


So, question: is it ok to go around shouting "I believe in god and you should too", like many religious people do and various religions command their followers to do?


No, I think being a douchebag and trying to command others, no matter your religion, is wrong. But nice try, Perry.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/02 16:28:07


~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) 
   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




I don't care that people tell other people they believe in a higher power. It's the threat of torture, that sometimes goes along with it that I have a problem with.

"I believe in God," is much different than "I believe in God, and if you don't, you will burn forever.". One is a statement, the other is a threat made to coerce another individual into adopting the same worldview or be subjected to unimaginable violence.

My advice not to base your life around things for which there is no evidence does not come with a threat of eternal hell fire, or a threat of any kind whatsoever.

As to the assumption I made, please just file it away as speculation. If I pretended to have knowledge that I don't have, I apologize. As I said in my first post on the subject, I think the extent to which people can actually believe things for which the world provides no evidence is an interesting subject.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/02 16:39:15


 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






 jasper76 wrote:
I don't care that people tell other people they believe in a higher power. It's the threat of torture, that sometimes goes along with it that I have a problem with.

"I believe in God," is much different than "I believe in God, and if you don't, you will burn forever.". One is a statement, the other is a threat made to coerce another individual into adopting the same worldview or be subjected to unimaginable violence.

My advice not to base your life around things for which there is no evidence does not come with a threat of eternal hell fire, or a threat of any kind whatsoever.

As to the assumption I made, please just file it away as speculation. If I pretended to have knowledge that I don't have, I apologize. As I said in my first post on the subject, I think the extent to which people can actually believe things for which the world provides no evidence is an interesting subject.


I dont know. constantly having people tell other people that their belief system is wrong and you should feel bad seems very mentally torturous.

also people telling you are wrong because of what a small minority of people that are not you have done in the past or recently.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/02 16:43:30


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




Are you talking about Christians feeling the need to tell atheists they are wrong, the opposite, or both?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/02 16:48:01


 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






 jasper76 wrote:
Are you talking about Christians feeling the need to tell atheists they are wrong, the opposite, or both?


Both. iv been on the receiving end of both lol

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: