|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:28 pm
You know, only a year ago I would've said no, quite definitely no. But now? Yes, quite definitely yes. Funny how those things go.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 7:40 pm
nikkitynikk Comments, Yes, No, Maybe? biggrin I only get to pick if one of them exist? Shinto, Buddha, do I have to choose?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:33 am
I've yet to see any evidence of any gods existing.
Until I see such evidence, I'll have to say "There are more than likely no gods."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:11 am
Not being able to prove a god's existence doesn't mean xe doesn't exist. Nor does it mean xe doesn't exist if you can't disprove it either. So a big maybe may be in place. But in general, I question the following: Does it really matter if we believe in any god? And does it really matter which god we believe in or which religious acts we follow? Guess I like to believe it's more 'bout how we respect life, than how to perform rituals. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:45 am
I agree with Gakre about scientific proof of god(s) existing. It's not possible to prove a lack of existence so there really is a strong case for agnosticism
The only proof there can be, as of yet, is "person proof,'
An atheist has an ideological construct, a mental box, that he or she has labeled 'god,' proceeded to look in that box and found it empty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:09 am
Maybe, maybe not.
Personally, I do not believe in a god.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 4:40 pm
kittycross I agree with Gakre about scientific proof of god(s) existing. It's not possible to prove a lack of existence so there really is a strong case for agnosticism The only proof there can be, as of yet, is "person proof,' An atheist has an ideological construct, a mental box, that he or she has labeled 'god,' proceeded to look in that box and found it empty. That's an incorrect view of atheism. A theist, has an ideological construct which they have labelled God, and followed it. An atheist, is someone who hasn't bothered to construct said ideological construct. For example, a baby is atheistic, but lacks the mental faculty to construct an abstract omnipresent/omnipotent moralistic entity. The biggest problem is that the term "atheist" shouldn't really exist. There's no word, for someone who doesn't believe in Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny. There's no name for people who don't believe in Vampires, Unicorns or Dragons. Why is there a name for people who don't believe in God? I also feel compelled to point out that, while it's not possible to disprove existence, the null hypothesis IS the default. Ergo, until proven otherwise, there is no God - according to logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 4:56 pm
Valheita kittycross I agree with Gakre about scientific proof of god(s) existing. It's not possible to prove a lack of existence so there really is a strong case for agnosticism The only proof there can be, as of yet, is "person proof,' An atheist has an ideological construct, a mental box, that he or she has labeled 'god,' proceeded to look in that box and found it empty. That's an incorrect view of atheism. A theist, has an ideological construct which they have labelled God, and followed it. An atheist, is someone who hasn't bothered to construct said ideological construct. For example, a baby is atheistic, but lacks the mental faculty to construct an abstract omnipresent/omnipotent moralistic entity. The biggest problem is that the term "atheist" shouldn't really exist. There's no word, for someone who doesn't believe in Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny. There's no name for people who don't believe in Vampires, Unicorns or Dragons. Why is there a name for people who don't believe in God? I also feel compelled to point out that, while it's not possible to disprove existence, the null hypothesis IS the default. Ergo, until proven otherwise, there is no God - according to logic. Literally speaking, an atheist is one without theism. The baby is a very good example. What is generally accepted to be an atheist specifically says "I don't believe in that," referring to their conceptualization of deism. . Atheism in practice exists much as an inverse dogma of theism. No proof for the belief yet many will preach on blind faith. I agree that null hypothesis would be no hypothesis of positive or negative existence: Agnosticism- neither believing nor disbelieving. Very logical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:15 pm
kittycross Valheita kittycross I agree with Gakre about scientific proof of god(s) existing. It's not possible to prove a lack of existence so there really is a strong case for agnosticism The only proof there can be, as of yet, is "person proof,' An atheist has an ideological construct, a mental box, that he or she has labeled 'god,' proceeded to look in that box and found it empty. That's an incorrect view of atheism. A theist, has an ideological construct which they have labelled God, and followed it. An atheist, is someone who hasn't bothered to construct said ideological construct. For example, a baby is atheistic, but lacks the mental faculty to construct an abstract omnipresent/omnipotent moralistic entity. The biggest problem is that the term "atheist" shouldn't really exist. There's no word, for someone who doesn't believe in Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny. There's no name for people who don't believe in Vampires, Unicorns or Dragons. Why is there a name for people who don't believe in God? I also feel compelled to point out that, while it's not possible to disprove existence, the null hypothesis IS the default. Ergo, until proven otherwise, there is no God - according to logic. Literally speaking, an atheist is one without theism. The baby is a very good example. What is generally accepted to be an atheist specifically says "I don't believe in that," referring to their conceptualization of deism. . Atheism in practice exists much as an inverse dogma of theism. No proof for the belief yet many will preach on blind faith. I agree that null hypothesis would be no hypothesis of positive or negative existence: Agnosticism- neither believing nor disbelieving. Very logical. Then all humans are atheists. Some just accept their atheism more than others. Except, clearly, this isn't true. Your interpretation of atheism is too simple. For example, it fails to take into account the concepts of Weak and Strong Atheism. That is not the null hypothesis however. The null hypothesis is there is no god, because by definition the Null Hypothesis cannot be proven. You cannot prove there is no God, but there's nothing stopping you proving there IS a god. You see? Agnosticism is simply a way of saying "I'm an atheist, but I don't want to call myself that".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:39 pm
Valheita kittycross Valheita kittycross I agree with Gakre about scientific proof of god(s) existing. It's not possible to prove a lack of existence so there really is a strong case for agnosticism The only proof there can be, as of yet, is "person proof,' An atheist has an ideological construct, a mental box, that he or she has labeled 'god,' proceeded to look in that box and found it empty. That's an incorrect view of atheism. A theist, has an ideological construct which they have labelled God, and followed it. An atheist, is someone who hasn't bothered to construct said ideological construct. For example, a baby is atheistic, but lacks the mental faculty to construct an abstract omnipresent/omnipotent moralistic entity. The biggest problem is that the term "atheist" shouldn't really exist. There's no word, for someone who doesn't believe in Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny. There's no name for people who don't believe in Vampires, Unicorns or Dragons. Why is there a name for people who don't believe in God? I also feel compelled to point out that, while it's not possible to disprove existence, the null hypothesis IS the default. Ergo, until proven otherwise, there is no God - according to logic. Literally speaking, an atheist is one without theism. The baby is a very good example. What is generally accepted to be an atheist specifically says "I don't believe in that," referring to their conceptualization of deism. . Atheism in practice exists much as an inverse dogma of theism. No proof for the belief yet many will preach on blind faith. I agree that null hypothesis would be no hypothesis of positive or negative existence: Agnosticism- neither believing nor disbelieving. Very logical. Then all humans are atheists. Some just accept their atheism more than others. Except, clearly, this isn't true. Your interpretation of atheism is too simple. For example, it fails to take into account the concepts of Weak and Strong Atheism. That is not the null hypothesis however. The null hypothesis is there is no god, because by definition the Null Hypothesis cannot be proven. You cannot prove there is no God, but there's nothing stopping you proving there IS a god. You see? Agnosticism is simply a way of saying "I'm an atheist, but I don't want to call myself that". Agnostics aren't necessarily fence-sitters, even if some are of the "i believe in a higher power, but lets not say the g-word, okay?' variety. There are quite a few people out there in the genuinely "not sure" category. Actually, as for proving there is a god, personally I'm pagan of the animist variety. Have you been outside today? seen any plants? look in a mirror? You saw gods. There they are everywhere. All the time. I I personally have created life. That's pretty spiffy. The tree outside is doing it too. The following was my first post in this thread I made quite a while back - i don't know if it was simply to non-Judeo-Christian-centric, made people uncomfortable or *shrug* kittycross I only read the first page rather that sort through all seven (*is lazy today*) so I apologize if this has already been covered but which God are we talking about here? Even if we narrowed the vagarities of this question down to the Christian God, the question still remains of to which one is the OP referring? The God of the Baptists is quite differently portrayed than the God of the Methodists. For that matter, the God of the Irish Catholics is perceived very differently than that of the Roman Catholic. Further, if we go by the Torah and Bible, multiple gods are mentioned. "Elohim" is plural. JVH was one of many gods of the time but this was inconvenient for politic of many of the editors of the scripture through time so unless you pick up the Aremeic, Sanskrit or Hebrew versions the text is generally edited for it's offensive and inconvenient content. So if the biblical scriptures are acknowledged as relevant to the existence of a "God" it must then be considered in context of the Gods, the Elohim. Could the OP- or anyone- please define for the sake of the discussion what is this "god" and also to please define "existence"? I don't mean to be all argumentatively existential here but merely by conceptualizing a "God," by the abstract notion and in naming the existence of said "God" has been created and exists, if only in the abstracted. I think perhaps a more pertinent question is, does it really matter if there is a God/dess(s/es)? Incidentally for Catholics in general the elected Pope is considered the Holy avatar of God on Earth according to the ministries of Saul the messiah hunter Paul the Apostle, so by extension is this question also asking if the Pope exists or is a valid office. For the record I'm a polytheistic pagan and (semi-regularly) attend the Honolulu Shinto jinja for Izuchi-no Mikoto Okami, and drop by other shrines and altars as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:51 pm
Waiiiiit a minute......
If i believe in Amaterasu, Hecate, Visnu, Osiris, Maui and Hermes, but not the Pope as an avatar of Yahweh, or Jesus of Nazareth as more than a really cool Rabbi, does that make me pantheistic + double atheistic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:06 pm
kittycross Agnostics aren't necessarily fence-sitters, even if some are of the "i believe in a higher power, but lets not say the g-word, okay?' variety. There are quite a few people out there in the genuinely "not sure" category. Actually, as for proving there is a god, personally I'm pagan of the animist variety. Have you been outside today? seen any plants? look in a mirror? You saw gods. There they are everywhere. All the time. I I personally have created life. That's pretty spiffy. The tree outside is doing it too. The following was my first post in this thread I made quite a while back - i don't know if it was simply to non-Judeo-Christian-centric, made people uncomfortable or *shrug* If you believe in a higher power, you aren't agnostic. You're a theist or a deist. And similarly, if you're unsure, then you're either Atheos in so far as you don't follow a god, or you're theos in that you do. Nobody is not sure, as you can't be unsure as to whether you follow a god or not. Nope, I haven't been outside today as it happens. As for plants, trees and animals... I've not encountered anything to make them divine. Replicating structures of chemicals are pretty neat, but hardly supernatural. The reason I responded to your recent post was rather simple. It offended me. See, I'm an atheist - but I haven't rejected the existence of a God. I simply haven't found a God worth worshipping. The assumption that I had labelled a single God, and rejected it was insulting. And yes. If it makes you feel any better, you're less atheistic than most Christians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:01 pm
Valheita kittycross Agnostics aren't necessarily fence-sitters, even if some are of the "i believe in a higher power, but lets not say the g-word, okay?' variety. There are quite a few people out there in the genuinely "not sure" category. Actually, as for proving there is a god, personally I'm pagan of the animist variety. Have you been outside today? seen any plants? look in a mirror? You saw gods. There they are everywhere. All the time. I I personally have created life. That's pretty spiffy. The tree outside is doing it too. The following was my first post in this thread I made quite a while back - i don't know if it was simply to non-Judeo-Christian-centric, made people uncomfortable or *shrug* If you believe in a higher power, you aren't agnostic. You're a theist or a deist. And similarly, if you're unsure, then you're either Atheos in so far as you don't follow a god, or you're theos in that you do. Nobody is not sure, as you can't be unsure as to whether you follow a god or not. Nope, I haven't been outside today as it happens. As for plants, trees and animals... I've not encountered anything to make them divine. Replicating structures of chemicals are pretty neat, but hardly supernatural. The reason I responded to your recent post was rather simple. It offended me. See, I'm an atheist - but I haven't rejected the existence of a God. I simply haven't found a God worth worshipping. The assumption that I had labelled a single God, and rejected it was insulting. And yes. If it makes you feel any better, you're less atheistic than most Christians. I'm sorry if I have offended you. That is not my intention at all. You have said nothing that changes my perception of atheism in any way You can be dogmatic and close-minded with your atheism as bible thumping church fanatic can be with their rhetoric. Can you tell me what you don't believe? Why you are capitalizing god?Why the incessant focus of an unnamed, yet capitalized singular god? Why is there on this singular, specific entity that you and so many other categorically reject? If you haven't labeled a single God, the why do you keep labeling a single God? What exactly is it you think is divine that you don't have? Why do you think you have to worship anything? What's wrong with just appreciating things? I agree with you that there are terminology problems. Ones I have problems with are: supernatural, divine, god etc. How can anything be outside of the nature of existence, ever ? If you are looking specifically to find something that does not exist to convince you of it's existence..... that makes no sense to me. In Nietzsche's Gay Science, he postulates that only belief can replace belief. I found this echoed in the introduction to the Greatness of Saturn (tales Hindu Saturn mythos) as the author of the introduction remarks on how American belief spirituality has been in large part replace with ritualistic observance of sports, pop icons, technology fads and the like. I see it too in those who have rejected Christian faiths and replaced it with the religion of anti-God or anti-faith or anti-worship. Is it really so hard for people to just believe in themselves? I 've met so many intelligent people, generally raised around Christianity, especially Catholicism, that have found it failing and become Atheists, by which they really mean anti-Christians. They don't believe in God, the Bible and Jesus is not their savior. Then it goes further: Christianity destroyed other beliefs, they destroyed their belief in Christianity, all gods became one God and there is no God, there are no gods because there is no God to the point where no one will even answer the simple questions of which God/dess/es are we talking about here, and can some one just for the sake of argument define what deity is? back to agnostic: you cannot truly follow or truly not follow when you are truly not sure. To specifically follow or not you would need the belief of a direction of belief.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:26 pm
Valheita kittycross I'm sorry if I have offended you. That is not my intention at all. You have said nothing that changes my perception of atheism in any way You can be dogmatic and close-minded with your atheism as bible thumping church fanatic can be with their rhetoric. Can you tell me what you don't believe? Why you are capitalizing god?Why the incessant focus of an unnamed, yet capitalized singular god? Why is there on this singular, specific entity that you and so many other categorically reject? If you haven't labeled a single God, the why do you keep labeling a single God? What exactly is it you think is divine that you don't have? Why do you think you have to worship anything? What's wrong with just appreciating things? I agree with you that there are terminology problems. Ones I have problems with are: supernatural, divine, god etc. How can anything be outside of the nature of existence, ever ? If you are looking specifically to find something that does not exist to convince you of it's existence..... that makes no sense to me. In Nietzsche's Gay Science, he postulates that only belief can replace belief. I found this echoed in the introduction to the Greatness of Saturn (tales Hindu Saturn mythos) as the author of the introduction remarks on how American belief spirituality has been in large part replace with ritualistic observance of sports, pop icons, technology fads and the like. I see it too in those who have rejected Christian faiths and replaced it with the religion of anti-God or anti-faith or anti-worship. Is it really so hard for people to just believe in themselves? I 've met so many intelligent people, generally raised around Christianity, especially Catholicism, that have found it failing and become Atheists, by which they really mean anti-Christians. They don't believe in God, the Bible and Jesus is not their savior. Then it goes further: Christianity destroyed other beliefs, they destroyed their belief in Christianity, all gods became one God and there is no God, there are no gods because there is no God to the point where no one will even answer the simple questions of which God/dess/es are we talking about here, and can some one just for the sake of argument define what deity is? back to agnostic: you cannot truly follow or truly not follow when you are truly not sure. To specifically follow or not you would need the belief of a direction of belief. No.. i guess you really haven't explained yourself well at all. atheos= without god atheistic= being without belief in god not following what may or may not exists without any design as to following due to the lack of certainty of existence does not negate the possible presence of of unspecified deities. That is your own presumption you choose to inflict on others Capitalization has meaning , as you well know. It is to denote God as a proper noun or to show reverence, either way you specifically note a specific god or God concept by capitalizing. Again, our personal choice of language reflecting you. True spirituality is never imbued. It is inherent. Perhaps that is why you can find it. You've been walking all over it. Is "Beings deserving of worship" really your definition of deity? There are many, many other definitions, and by your definition Kim Kardashian has attained true deistic godhood to many people. Other definitions include things like, sacred, respected beings. Like my husband and my cats. Your limited world view is your own choice I fail to see why you are so hung up on worship. Do you need to call someone master? just... why?Regardless of whether you approve of the grouping of all non-theist,non-deistic non-religious people as "Atheist,"the term exists and you're just going to have to deal with it. It's been around while root: theist
1660s, from Gk. theos "god" (see Thea) + -ist. The original senses was that later reserved to deist: "one who believes in a transcendant god but denies revelation." Later in 18c. theist was contrasted with deist, as allowing the possibility of revelation.If you believe in god/dess/es, but just happen to not currently have one on you, you are not, by generally accepted definition, an atheist any more that I am hypoglycemic for not carrying sugar packets with me, even if you are without a personal god. Perhaps hypotheistic might be more accurate I've met nice, intelligent, sensible Atheists and nice, sensible intelligent Christians, and nice, intelligent, sensible Jews, and nice, intelligent sensible Buddhist, etc.. but I will still sigh and shake my head when I meet one who will chose to go through life with blinders on rather than face ideas that challenge their way of thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
