Atheist or Religious?

Post Reply New Topic

Last edited by Wolfpup on 28 Apr 2007, 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

In practice that is not what it means. Agnostic doesn't really place as much weight on proof. It shows you have no real reason to believe something, but you make sure you know what side your bread is buttered just in case. I think it is reasonable to move down the line from the most likely to the least like when drawing up a hypostasis. As far a I'm concern the god idea is one idea that is 'out there'. There are many other wacky ideas that are a great deal more likely still. The problem with god believers is they wouldn't accept it even if it was possible to know everything. Like many beliefs they often it tell you more about human nature than the universe itself.

Last edited by Wolfpup on 28 Apr 2007, 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It's not so much a belief as a philosophical position. Some people take it more seriously than others, but the gist of it is that our perceptions are all that we can irrefutably prove to exist. The serious solpsist takes a strictly agnostic stance toward his assessment of his own experiences, never truly embracing the reality of what goes on around him. It's a strong view because, when attempting to prove something to a solipsist, one must act through his senses and perceptions, and this puts one in a bit of a bind if he doesn't really take his senses and perceptions seriously.

In a sense, I am a solipsist because I acknowledge the solipsist's objections to taking the connection between one's experiences and actual occurances for granted. It's untenable for our experience of the world to be copied verbatim from what actually goes on in it. Though it's a stretch to say that the world around us does not exist, it must be acknowledged that it isn't necessary for the world to exist for us to believe that it does.

Yup. I just assume that it does, because really, what could I do about it? But I do sometimes wonder... made watching The Matrix quite an experience!

Atheist.

Prove the existence of a God.

I'm an athiest but also a strong believer in the supernatural and paranormal like ghosts and stuff. I was baptized but i'm not religeous.

Ragtime there is weak and strong atheistm. What you are talking about is called strong atheism the statement there is no god/gods and can sound as bad as say yes there is.
The weak type does not make that statement. Goes something like this. I do not think they or even know what you mean by god/gods exist and that is more common than the strong type.

I'm religious, although not in the completely traditional sense.

Disprove it, you do realize atheism is a belief structure just like any other.

For that matter prove the existance of George Washington, see my previous post about Ben Franklin and Fahreinheit 451.

I guess that I am agnostic.

I don't believe in 'conventional' depictions of god, so therefore have no religion, but I do not agree that everything has just 'happened', so therefore something has caused everything to occur within the universe as it is.

I have high morale standings though, some would have you believe you need to have belief in a god to be morale - in my mind, religions are often the most immoral things ever!

But, if I ever need to have a belief (such as to be a Scout Leader in the UK - they accept homosexuality on the books, accept every religion, disability (if the adult is capable of looking after children at least) - but they do not accept athesist or agnostics!) I will either list it as Protestant Christian, or blag my way with the fact I have belief in myself (and I feel that often, all religion provides is the ability to believe in something)

I'm an atheist. I believe god doesn't exist, 100% positive there. I've contemplated this so much I could probably write a book about it. I doubt that I would ever write a book though. I'm not really the type of person to force my views on others. I may express some of my veiws occasionally, but I won't debate it. Also I'm not very good at writing and getting my point across.

You know, dude, you just completely wrote off the possibility that someone could have a perfectly valid and justifiable reason to find theism untenable. Why? Unlike a true agnostic, you're making a truth claim that it's impossible to argue substantively against theism. If you are so confident in this belief that you feel you can get off with just shooting us down off the cuff, how about you step up and explain to us how you've come to such strong conclusions. Put up, or shut up, man. I've spent too much time thinking my views through to lay down and take them being dismissed offhand.

No. I can't speak for atheists in general, but most I've known just find theism indigestible. It's not something that takes a PhD. Sometimes, a belief or claim just rubs you the wrong way.

Disprove the existance of her invisible pinkness and evil lawn gnomes with phasers.

Inability to disprove is no reason to believe.

I am an irreligious atheist. I do not like to rely on anything that I have not experienced first-hand, or things that will not help me to get through life. I believe that while there are some good points in religion, its presentation is flawed, and people focus too much on the details rather than the meaning. The meaning of almost all religions is essentially to "be good", and I think that if everyone would just be good to each other, it wouldn't matter if there were Hindus or Christians or Muslims or Atheists.

Sheesh, trying this again:

The passage of time is untenable in the absence of the universe's existence. The two are inseparable. For a universe to be created would be out of the question, for it would require a prior time in which the universe didn't exist. If time prior to the universe is categorically impossible, then belief in the universe having been created is rendered unviable.

Now, the universe is considered to have already been there when your deity came on the scene, so let's move on to Genesis. How do you purport that an entity brought the Earth into being merely by commanding it to? For your Creation myth to hold any water, you need to propose a mechanism. If no mechanism is proposed, then your belief is hollow, completely based upon assertions for which you give no weight of tenability. Therefore, why shouldn't I think it's stupid?