Religion may become extinct in nine nations, study says
714 replies, posted
I hate definition fights. If you ar not 100% sure about god then you are an agnostic but at the same time either an athiest or a thirst because you can still believe or not even if your not sure.
This is what I've always thought about the bible in logic.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD_WptjCMPI[/media]
I'm quite a fan of Hitchens.
[QUOTE=thisispain;28771595]so which social disorder were you diagnosed with?[/QUOTE]
I think I might have thisispain disorder :P
On second thoughts, I'm probably "just a dick".
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28774737]No, it's not a stance, it's a quality of your stance. You can say "I don't know" and the only thing that can be followed up with is "and..". You either lean towards a god, lean away from, or don't care. If you think a god is unknowable and thus you don't lean towards either, that means you don't care.[/QUOTE]
I do care, from an intellectual stand point, and I look forward to a final resolution on the issue (as if that will ever happen), but whilst one remains unreachable, I will remain open to both claims. And, no, it really is a stance. It's the utter neutral ground, you can be invested in the argument. It's not Apathetism or Atheism, because I am not rejecting the existence of a deity out of hand, I am simply remaining open to the idea, but neither am I accepting the existence of one. I acknowledge that one may exist, or may not. Maybe some particularly charismatic atheist will sway me some day, or maybe I'll be seduced by some new agey religion that can convince me of the existence of a higher power (or some personal spiritual experience having the same effect, who knows?). Until then, I will regard both claims skeptically, disregard the bullshit thrown out by the vocal people who are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, and wait for some proof.
That's Agnosticism. Seriously, it's in the definition, and it's a well recognised stance. If that offends you, take it up with the rest of the world. (What you stated Agnostic Atheist/Theist etc, are gradations of this stance that are swinging one way or the other on the spectrum. Apatheticism is another gradation on the Atheist side of the spectrum)
Whoever is saying without religion we would have no morality is a unlogical idiot.
You're saying without a religious book I don't know whether its right or wrong to kill someone? Let a lone the hundreds of conflictions in the bible primarly that says one moment its wrong to kill unless from text 1, 4, 63 etc etc.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;28774789]I think I might have thisispain disorder[/QUOTE]
ooh i feel bad for you
[editline]23rd March 2011[/editline]
seriously dude it sucks
[QUOTE=Craigewan;28774796]I do care, from an intellectual stand point, and I look forward to a final resolution on the issue (as if that will ever happen), but whilst one remains unreachable, I will remain open to both claims. And, no, it really is a stance. It's the utter neutral ground, you can be invested in the argument. It's not Apathetism or Atheism, because I am not rejecting the existence of a deity out of hand, I am simply remaining open to the idea, but neither am I accepting the existence of one. I acknowledge that one may exist, or may not. Maybe some particularly charismatic atheist will sway me some day, or maybe I'll be seduced by some new agey religion that can convince me of the existence of a higher power (or some personal spiritual experience having the same effect, who knows?). Until then, I will regard both claims skeptically, disregard the bullshit thrown out by the vocal people who are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, and wait for some proof.
That's Agnosticism. Seriously, it's in the definition, and it's a well recognised stance. If that offends you, take it up with the rest of the world. (What you stated Agnostic Atheist/Theist etc, are gradations of this stance that are swinging one way or the other on the spectrum. Apatheticism is another gradation on the Atheist side of the spectrum)[/QUOTE]
Being often used doesn't make it any less wrong. And apatheism is off the scale, it's not related to either. And fine, you may be the one in a billion person who actually doesn't hold any opinion whatsoever towards it (which isn't a stance), but as it's used it almost always means "I think there's probably not a god but idk" which is agnostic atheist which is what like all atheists actually are. Gnostic atheism is really rare and pretty damned absurd.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28774990]cept you can't prove a negative bro
ain't no such thing as proof against anything[/QUOTE]
Also this, atheism is a negative position thus your only choice so far as your proof thing would be theism. Like I said, gnostic atheism is absurd.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;28774714]Not really, I see no proof one way or another, so I cannot accept or reject the existence of a higher power*
(* Not necessarily the God touted by Abrahmic religions, just a/some generic 'higher power')[/QUOTE]
cept you can't prove a negative bro
ain't no such thing as proof against anything
I'm taking the only logical stance, and the only one that is true to the meaning of the word "Agnosticism". (Which means accepting that the truth value of either statement is an unknown, and thus equally valid or equally wrong)
[editline]24th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;28774990]cept you can't prove a negative bro
ain't no such thing as proof against anything[/QUOTE]
There is nothing to disprove the existence of a god either. It's a null state. Nothing. That's what I mean.
And actually, people are making a claim "There is no God/Higher Power", that is a statement that needs to be backed up. It's the difference between Hypothesis and a Null Hypothesis, in effect, except with nothing to secure either statement.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;28774995]I'm taking the only logical stance, and the only one that is true to the meaning of the word "Agnosticism". (Which means accepting that the truth value of either statement is an unknown, and thus equally valid or equally wrong)
[editline]24th March 2011[/editline]
There is nothing to disprove the existence of a god either. It's a null state. Nothing. That's what I mean.
And actually, people are making a claim "There is no God/Higher Power", that is a statement that needs to be backed up. It's the difference between Hypothesis and a Null Hypothesis, in effect, except with nothing to secure either statement.[/QUOTE]
Your only logical stance is a pretty pussy stance, I gotta say. It's not unreasonable to take a negative stance against the commonly perceived god as in the judeochristian mythos. As for some amorphous watchmaker god, well there's no real point to taking a stance there because it couldn't possibly matter.
[QUOTE=thisispain;28774913]ooh i feel bad for you
[editline]23rd March 2011[/editline]
seriously dude it sucks[/QUOTE]
Lube up :)
Screw it, I'm goin in dry y0
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28775103]Your only logical stance is a pretty pussy stance, I gotta say. It's not unreasonable to take a negative stance against the commonly perceived god as in the judeochristian mythos. As for some amorphous watchmaker god, well there's no real point to taking a stance there because it couldn't possibly matter.[/QUOTE]
A pussy stance because I don't feel the need to baselessly tell people that the core of their beliefs is wrong, when I have absolutely no evidence with which to make that statement? A pussy stance because, whilst nobody has any proof whatsoever, all I'd be doing is attempting to force my own beliefs on someone if I took a stance without evidence? I can come down against Religious extremism, and always will do, but that doesn't invalidate the possibility that the core of their beliefs (A higher power exists) might be correct. And just as much, I will come down against arrogant atheists, who feel the need to preach about how their is no deity, with no basis for that. (Except for linking unconnected statements, such as "There was an Earthquake in Japan. Therefore, God does not exist" Correlation =/= Causation and all that. Because really, an Earthquake in Japan, to me, signifies that there was some motion in the Eurasian/Pacific plate subduction zone, not anything related to a Higher Power [well, unless we count the sum of all the forces acting on this Earth as a higher power. I certainly wouldn't want to work out how much energy was released in that quake])
Excuse me for having respect for how people might choose to come down on either side of an unknown, whilst respecting that the question is unanswerable.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;28775189]A pussy stance because I don't feel the need to baselessly tell people that the core of their beliefs is wrong, when I have absolutely no evidence with which to make that statement? A pussy stance because, whilst nobody has any proof whatsoever, all I'd be doing is attempting to force my own beliefs on someone if I took a stance without evidence? I can come down against Religious extremism, and always will do, but that doesn't invalidate the possibility that the core of their beliefs (A higher power exists) might be correct. And just as much, I will come down against arrogant atheists, who feel the need to preach about how their is no deity, with no basis for that. (Except for linking unconnected statements, such as "There was an Earthquake in Japan. Therefore, God does not exist" Correlation =/= Causation and all that)
Excuse me for having respect for how people might choose to come down on either side of an unknown, whilst respecting that the question is unanswerable.[/QUOTE]
Well you just totally misunderstood me. Where did I ever say a single thing about pushing it on anyone else? I couldn't give less of a shit what someone else believes, I think there's probably not a god. I can't prove it, but it's a personal opinion. I can't really say i'm more right than someone who believes in a hands-off god (for some reason) but as far as organized religions, well I think what we know of the world kind of invalidates that, but whatever I think someone else can think something different and I don't GAS.
e: Actually going off my last point you can kind of know that the specifics of a religion, at least, are wrong based on the knowledge we have. Of course you can't disprove a watchmaker god but don't say that it's utterly unknowable on all levels.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28774491]I think this has actually already been stated in this topic but i'm just so damn tired of seeing it.
Gnostic and Agnostic are both variations/degrees, either knowing or not knowing. Theist or Atheist are types, believing in a god or not. You can be a Gnostic Atheist, Agnostic Theist, or the opposite. You can't just be an agnostic.[/QUOTE]
Just building on top of this.
You are either an atheist or a theist. You cannot be neither. You call yourself agnostic because you don't know? Chances are that you're atheist because that is the [i]default stance[/i].
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;28775164]Lube up :)
Screw it, I'm goin in dry y0[/QUOTE]
dinner and movie first
thisispain doesn't return calls
I just don't get why people respect religion. If we can respect religion we should respect "santa" or the "easter bunny". They're all things one believes in. Nobody should be respected for believing anything. You should be respected for doing something. Doesn't mean you should disrespect it, though. Religion isn't wrong. You can't call a belief wrong, can you? Now, the bible etc, may be full of false 'facts' but that doesn't mean the religion as a whole is wrong. Debunking the bible hasn't changed anything, so lets just put that at rest.
that said, we shouldn't let religion stand in the way of human progress. Science is wonderful because unlike religion, you actually base your statements off tangible things. That's why I hate arguing with some religious people, they give you reasons why he should exist - not why he exists.
on the subject of the 'big bang', we will probably never know exactly what happened. However, the big bang theory is based upon reasonable evidence and is much more plausible than this dude who can create universes and planets with his 'bare hands'.
you shouldn't respect religion, you should respect people
don't be cocks towards them just because
[QUOTE=waxrock;28775246]Just building on top of this.
You are either an atheist or a theist. You cannot be neither. You call yourself agnostic because you don't know? Chances are that you're atheist because that is the [i]default stance[/i].[/QUOTE]
You could be ignostic.
"Fuck this argument we don't even have a good definition for god nor do we have one for "god exists", therefore who even knows!"
[QUOTE=thisispain;28775554]you shouldn't respect religion, you should respect people
don't be cocks towards them just because[/QUOTE]
Very wise advice.
[QUOTE=Variant;28773297][img_thumb]http://www.washingtonindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/batman.jpg[/img_thumb]
Welcome to a world without rules.[/QUOTE]
Nope.
Welcome to a world without rules that are theoretically unreasonable or unnecessary. Rules that regard situations in which a person is harmed, but have nothing against situations otherwise.
A world in which all drugs are legal, there is no gun control, speech is entirely free, and the only crimes are those that hurt other people.
Optimistic.
[QUOTE=rabid duck;28749117]Why be happy that something that shaped how we live today is becoming extinct?
I don't mean God making people of shit like that I mean hisotry, for example the Crusades, Aztecs, Indians.
Without religion the world would never be how it is now.[/QUOTE]
Yeah it would be better.
[editline]8:47 PM[/editline]
Holy fuck I'm late.
Religious variations add diversity to life.
I'm not necessarily religious, just really spiritual. But people keep making out religion to be some kind of awful institution of obsolete ideas and antiquated dogmas. But it's more than that, it's a means to find inner peace, and a way to connect to everyone around you.
You don't need an illogical belief for that.
Killing for religion, something I don't understand.
It seems people not on FP but on many sites are atheist or agnostic and mainly believe in science.
[editline]24th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=BCell;28749287]A world without religion. Does it feel kind of empty?[/QUOTE]
A world without religion. A world without stupid wars over meaningless things.
That's damn offensive and I stand by it.
[editline]24th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Swilly;28749018][img_thumb]http://www.gifbin.com/bin/20048442yu.gif[/img_thumb]
I couldn't find any better ones :smith:[/QUOTE]
I'll do you one better,
[img]http://bunkstrutts.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/fist-pump_tha-aych-too-91107.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=Craigewan;28774995][b]I'm taking the only logical stance,[/b] and the only one that is true to the meaning of the word "Agnosticism". (Which means accepting that the truth value of either statement is an unknown, and thus equally valid or equally wrong)
[editline]24th March 2011[/editline]
There is nothing to disprove the existence of a god either. It's a null state. Nothing. That's what I mean.
And actually, people are making a claim "There is no God/Higher Power", that is a statement that needs to be backed up. It's the difference between Hypothesis and a Null Hypothesis, in effect, except with nothing to secure either statement.[/QUOTE]Y'know, religion threads in FP have slowly given way, from being religious and non-religious debating, to agnostics circle-jerking over how awesome they are and how both sides are morons.
As for the "nothing to disprove god" wet fart that seems to issue from the anus of religious and agnostics alike, there's nothing to disprove Russell's Teapot, faeries, pink invisible unicorns etc. It's a load of arse. The last paragraph is equally asinine. The burden of proof lies on the one making the statement that something exists.
[editline]24th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=thisispain;28775554]you shouldn't respect religion, you should respect people
don't be cocks towards them just because[/QUOTE]For some reason, i'm imagining Björk as Confucius.