Religion

x_rex30 · Post by **x_rex30** » Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:52 am

I eat religion and spit out the seeds

Copycat_Revolver · Post by **Copycat_Revolver** » Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:55 am

BurningLeaves wrote:
DOKTOP KPbI/\OB wrote: You can be atheist and religious at the same time.
Actually I think that would fall more along the lines of agnostic, someone who believes there may in fact be a god or god like figure, but do not believe in one specific religion and doesnt pretend to know any of the answers.

Hold on, you seem to be misunderstanding his point and also slightly missing the point of agnosticism.

First of all, an agnostic is (to paraphrase) someone who believes that such things as the nature and existence of god is ultimately unkowable by any man. They can, though, still follow a specific religion. However, they typically believe that because of man's inherrent fallibility (look around, we're all idiots) makes impossible to ever know anything about the workings of the universe without some measure of doubt or improvability.

Atheists are more about a non-belief in a central god-figure. Of course that's a fairly vague definition, so you end up with many types of atheists, including those who follow what you might call "religious" practices. Doesn't mean they're not atheists.

godix · Post by **godix** » Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:59 am

guy07 wrote:
godix wrote: It's fairly easy to know about the drake equation and realize it means exactly fuck all. But to know what the drake equation is and STILL believe it proves anything, wow, that level of idiocy actually requires effort.
True. It's just an equation. Until it is proven right, it means jack shit. I'm not saying aliens exist. I'm saying i think there's a chance that aliens exist. I'm the type of person who doesn't believe something until they see/experience it first hand.

Actually that wasn't what I was refering to, although that is another reason believing the drake equation is BS. I was referring to the fact that equation has no real numbers in it. If you don't know how many stars there are, how many have earthlike planets, and so on then the equation doesn't produce any real numbers. Claiming the drake equation proves aliens exist is kinda like claiming A + B = 2 must be true even if you don't know what A or B are.

x_rex30 · Post by **x_rex30** » Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:13 am

I don't have much believe in living things coming from other worlds to ours. But I do believe there are living beings outside our earth.. why would we be the only ones? Seems kinda silly and pointless to me.

BurningLeaves · Post by **BurningLeaves** » Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:37 am

Copycat_Revolver wrote:
Hold on, you seem to be misunderstanding his point and also slightly missing the point of agnosticism.

First of all, an agnostic is (to paraphrase) someone who believes that such things as the nature and existence of god is ultimately unkowable by any man. They can, though, still follow a specific religion. However, they typically believe that because of man's inherrent fallibility (look around, we're all idiots) makes impossible to ever know anything about the workings of the universe without some measure of doubt or improvability.

Well faith and religion to me are two different things, I think at least, religion would be more definitive, with sets of rules and specific beliefs. Where as I view faith as a feeling or notion of higher powers or god with or with out direct ties to a specific religion. I just dont see how, a person as an atheist who does not believe in god whatsoever would belong to a specific religion that worships a god which he doesnt believe in? I could see a person of either agnostic or atheist disposition still having faith in something, but if they are atheist I dont see them, someone who believes god doesnt exist, subscribe to a religion to worship something he does think exists. The whole point of religion is to take away the 'unknown', with what they believe are definitive answerers. where as atheists specifically believe there is no god, and have their own belief set in that, agnostic on the other hand would be someone who believes theres no sure answer, and I could see why a person like that could be a part of religion, and just maintain some skepticism about it.

Copycat_Revolver · Post by **Copycat_Revolver** » Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:53 am

BurningLeaves wrote:I just dont see how, a person as an atheist who does not believe in god whatsoever would belong to a specific religion that worships a god which he doesnt believe in?

You're right about the difference between religion and faith. And for most religions, their beginning and end revolves around a belief in god. However, beyond that they are also built on a core set of standards and values, some of which can be agreeable with the beliefs of an athiest or agnostic.
I mean, is there really anything wrong with "love thy neighbor"?

For some people, yes, religion is their way of getting answers, but for others it's also a set of guidlines for living life and being good to one another.
A belief in god is not necessary to find some truth in such things.

Sukunai · Post by **Sukunai** » Sat Jul 26, 2008 7:46 am

I'm impressed at how many of you people "believe" I'm an agnostic.

According to the top 2 google results, they claim an atheist can know there is no god and an agnostic claims there is no proof either way.

Which just goes to show that the internet is a lousy place to find clear definitive arguments for anything a scientist would give a damn about.

I'm not this flawed concept of agnostic. Nor am I this inconsistent definition of atheist.

You see, there has to actually BE something to argue about.
There is no god, we invented the idea of god. You can't have an argument over a complete fiction.

To put it into terms you might relate to better, I might as well be arguing over the existence or non existence of Sauron, Moradin, Cthulhu or any other fictional being.

I don't give a flying fuck HOW much you claim to believe in something, or how MANY pf you claim to believe in something, you can't manifest something out of nothing by sheer force of belief.

When you do manage to do so though, I'd like you to force into existence by sheer force of belief, a few billion dollars for me (it would be really handy).

Copycat_Revolver · Post by **Copycat_Revolver** » Sat Jul 26, 2008 7:58 am

Sukunai wrote:...a bunch of dismissive crap.

What in the merry old hell is your point?

Look, there are a lot of people out there who do believe in some sort of god. You don't have to agree with it but you do have to respect it.

Please see previous post about "angry athiests".

The fact remains that people should be allowed to believe in whatever they bloody well please, "fictional" or not. If you want to worship Willy the Magical Doorknob, go right ahead and build a damn shrine. I'll buy you a wreath.

Also, why is it that you think athiests (or whoever) aren't allowed to use words like "believe"? That is the most childish bit of nonsense I've been subjected to recently. So congrats on that part.

Copycat_Revolver · Post by **Copycat_Revolver** » Sat Jul 26, 2008 8:02 am

Quick, Doctors! We need a chart for the stupid level of this thread.

Start with "Relegion".

BasharOfTheAges · Post by **BasharOfTheAges** » Sat Jul 26, 2008 8:35 am

Copycat_Revolver wrote:
Sukunai wrote:...a bunch of dismissive crap.
What in the merry old hell is your point?

Look, there are a lot of people out there who do believe in some sort of god. You don't have to agree with it but you do have to respect it.

For Political correctness's sake you may have to act like you respect it, but to be true to science and logic, you don't have to respect it at all.

Take it this way - say enough men believe that women are shit and deserve to be treated as such. Now because of this belief they are allowed leeway in matters of speech and actions that are demeaning and psychologically and/or physically traumatizing towards women. Do you have to respect their rights to those beliefs when it perpetuates those actions?

Want a less fantastic, real-world comparison? How about gays and many denominations of Christianity?

You're free to have whatever religious beliefs you want, but when those beliefs start harming others or you use them to gain political or social sway over the lives of others your reasoning should be brought into question. Religious beliefs (not universal moral beliefs or philosophical beliefs) should not grant privilege and should not be beyond question if an attempt is made to seek privilege.

Many (western) religions do this - their adherents try to get special treatment, try to change law based on their religious beliefs. Using logic and debate as the basis for a trial in the court of public opinion would mean having to go after and disprove or provide evidence on how fallible their sole basis of argument is.

Now i'm not saying one side or the other is right, but i can see why atheists would be angry when everything else in our society is scrutinized as it rightly should be (if not slightly less than it should be) but we're not allowed to touch religions - belief sets so full of holes, manipulations, and tales of fantasy - because that's somehow wrong. But yet, "it's my religious beliefs" is a perfectly acceptable answer for a whole host of socially intolerable things. It's infuriating because reason tells you it's pretty stupid and damned unfair.