Do you believe in God?

[Tic Tach]

 

[Sam48]

@Tic Tach- Do you accept the premiss that I stated above? You did not respond.

 

[Denur]

The getting into the agnostic school of thought although it could be considered weak athiesim, And honestly I think keeping an open mind on the afterlife is a pretty good stance on the subject, since there is almost no way to prove or disprove what happens when we die.

That describes pretty well the way I fee it.

 

[Tic Tach]

@Tic Tach- Do you accept the premiss that I stated above? You did not respond.

You made numerous comments; could you clarify what specifically you are speaking about?

 

[Tic Tach]

......And honestly I think keeping an open mind on the afterlife is a pretty good stance on the subject, since there is almost no way to prove or disprove what happens when we die.

On openmindedness:

http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup#p/u/5/T69TOuqaqXI


.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

It depends how you see it. I'm a Buddhist and many people (Buddhists and non-Buddhists) see Buddha as God. Personally, I see him as a teacher.

I was brought up as a Christian and went to a Christian school, but never really 'got' it. The almost strict 'do this, not that' really confused my young mind and as soon as I was no longer fully dependant on my parents I ditched religion altogether.

A few years ago I finally 'scratched the itch' to explore Buddhism and haven't looked back since. Probably the best decision I have ever made.

I still have Christian friends, but they have a more realistic, mature attitude towards their religion, something I had never seen as a child.

Religious or not, most people in the world are striving to achieve the same thing - To treat others with love and respect and to appreciate life in all its glory. Whether you need to follow a religion to do this or not is up to you as an individual.

It's a great shame that religious texts have been editied to manipulate and put fear into people.

 

[Sam48]

You made numerous comments; could you clarify what specifically you are speaking about?

It's a yes or no question regarding all my comments as a whole.

Just to restate then, is an atheist the opposite of one who believes in a religion in terms of what the religious man believes? (Being that the atheist believes nothing of what the religious man believes and makes his own assertions)

 

[Tic Tach]

Is an atheist the opposite of one who believes in a religion in terms of what the religious man believes? (Being that the atheist believes nothing of what the religious man believes and makes his own assertions)

What flawed premise I see in your question is "all or nothing thinking", and that's where one walks into the pie-in-the-face every time, for if your premise is flawed, so too will be your conclusions.

A theist and atheist may agree on a whole host of things, and even have their moral compass pointed in the same or similar direction, but on the one particular matter of "believing" in deities, they simply don't share that belief and all that goes with it.

Cheers.

 

[Sam48]

A theist and atheist may agree on a whole host of things, and even have their moral compass pointed in the same or similar direction, but on the one particular matter of "believing" in deities, they simply don't share that belief and all that goes with it.

So as either religious, for one, and assertive, for the other, they are complete opposites then, yes?

No need to expand.

 

[Tic Tach]

So as either religious, for one, and assertive, for the other, they are complete opposites then, yes?

I'm sorry, I just don't understand what you're saying.

 

[Sam48]

Simply put,

A religious man believes in God (Or many, depending on the religion)

An atheist does not believe in any God or higher power.

So in that case only, they are quite opposite.
However, in a sense, it can be looked at the other way round since there is no possible way as of now to prove or disprove that a God exists. This then means atheism could be looked upon the same as a religion (Even though it isn't one, not by definition as you already explained)

 

[Tic Tach]

However, in a sense, it can be looked at the other way round since there is no possible way as of now to prove or disprove that a God exists. This then means atheism could be looked upon the same as a religion

Um, no. You're using the wrong terminology. In science, we don't "prove" things, we only disprove. "Proof" is a term applicable to matters of law, court and the legal system, and mathematics. The idea that a person's evidence-void claims are equally as valid as the person who doesn't accept them, is a logical fallacy.

If you have time:

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=QualiaSoup#p/u/18/-h9XntsSEro

 

[Sam48]

Um, no. You're using the wrong terminology. In science, we don't "prove" things, we only disprove.

Well yes. Proof by disproof (And only as we currently view it). Therefore, if there is no possible way to disprove something, there is subsequently no possible way to prove it as well. (According to science/scientific method)

 

[Crumpet]

Though I'm not too sure about God, I have a feeling there is something...

 

[Tic Tach]

Well yes. Proof by disproof (And only as we currently view it). Therefore, if there is no possible way to disprove something, there is subsequently no possible way to prove it as well. (According to science/scientific method)

But one does not have to prove a negative. One should assume a negative. When talking about unicorns, or goblins, one does not have to prove their non-existence; the mere lack of any evidence is sufficient reason not to believe in them.


Science seeks to draw a conclusion from the evidence at hand, while religion seeks to find evidence for a conclusion at hand. (Steven J. Hurlin)

 

[homeforsummer]

This then means atheism could be looked upon the same as a religion (Even though it isn't one, not by definition as you already explained)

Not really, since that assumes that atheists are actively coming together to disbelieve in something, rather than, as many atheists are, just happy to go about their daily lives without even thinking about their atheism.

Put it this way: If you're religious you'll worship your god, meet up with other people on sabbath days, try and incorporate the teachings into your daily lives etc.

An atheist just gets on with his or her life. There's no following, there's no sitting down on a pew with a hundred other people praying to science, nada.

There's no more active belief in there not being a god than there is active belief about Santa Claus not being real. I don't spend all year (hell, I don't even spend Christmas) thinking "well, I don't know what all this Santa stuff has to do with anything, the bloke doesn't even exist!". I just get on with my life...

But one does not have to prove a negative. One should assume a negative. When talking about unicorns, or goblins, one does not have to prove their non-existence; the mere lack of any evidence is sufficient reason not to believe in them.

Very well put 👍

 

[Sam48]

But one does not have to prove a negative. One should assume a negative. When talking about unicorns, or goblins, one does not have to prove their non-existence; the mere lack of any evidence is sufficient reason not to believe in them.

Yes, I see. It does not rule out that it doesn't exist but of course it doesn't make it worth studying either without evidence.

Not really, since that assumes that atheists are actively coming together to disbelieve in something, rather than, as many atheists are, just happy to go about their daily lives without even thinking about their atheism.

Put it this way: If you're religious you'll worship your god, meet up with other people on sabbath days, try and incorporate the teachings into your daily lives etc.

I was referring to one on one phycological terms only. Nothing else.

 

[homeforsummer]

I was referring to one on one phycological terms only. Nothing else.

That would make no difference, for the exact reasons I stated. Religious people are consciously following something. Atheists aren't giving any conscious thought to religion at all, because they don't run their lives by it. There is no faith, no belief system.

Again, I don't believe in unicorns. I don't form part of a group that doesn't believe in unicorns. I've seen no evidence they exist. This doesn't make me a follower of a religion that doesn't believe in unicorns, it just makes me like anybody else who doesn't spend their day thinking about how unicorns don't exist.

If unicorns existed and I still didn't believe in them, then you could say that my religion was the Unicorn Disbelievers. Likewise, if God was proven to exist and I was still an atheist, then you could consider atheism to be a religion of disbelief.

 

[Ellis]

i think that religion was created to explain the un explainable and now its just become outdated. But then again you do get occurances which still to this day cannot be explained. interesting topic though

 

[Baron Blitz Red]

I voted no. Religion is just a current version of something that will eventually be regarded in history as mythology. Those former beliefs were just as real to the people then and there, but look at them now...

 

[Sam48]

That would make no difference, for the exact reasons I stated. Religious people are consciously following something. Atheists aren't giving any conscious thought to religion at all, because they don't run their lives by it. There is no faith, no belief system.

I understand religion is not the proper word to describe a bunch of people who don't accept or believe in something. What you stated above only makes the two more opposite of each other. (Which is what I was trying to show)

 

[homeforsummer]

Your point was that atheism could be considered the same as religion given that the existance of God is unprovable and that the nonexistance of god is also unprovable.

Whilst neither is provable, it's a bit of a vague term to use and it's fairly safe to say that atheism is really nothing like theism. There are dozens of things that are unprovable but that doesn't mean they're anything like religion... It's a bit like saying a building and a pie are both the same because neither are like an elephant...

As for attempting to show that the two are opposites, is that not blindingly obvious for everyone to see? I can't say that I've ever been confused between believing in god and not believing in god...

 

[Sam48]

As for attempting to show that the two are opposites, is that not blindingly obvious for everyone to see?

But does that not make them quite similar as well? Up and down are opposites, but they are also both directions. The issue is that up and down both exist, so it would be like comparing two theists to each other, which is why that analogy does not work. So in this case atheism would be something like forward. It's a direction, but it has no affiliation with up and down, nor left or right. It's its own movement, which I think is what you're saying.

Correct?

 

[Luminis]

But does that not make them quite similar as well? Up and down are opposites, but they are also both directions. The issue is that up and down both exist, so it would be like comparing two theists to each other, which is why that analogy does not work. So in this case atheism would be something like forward. It's a direction, but it has no affiliation with up and down, nor left or right. It's its own movement, which I think is what you're saying.

Correct?

You could liken basically come up with a reason to liken two things to each, just to be able to claim that they are 'similar'. For example: Humans and stones both consists of atoms, so humans and stones are similar.
But: If two things have basically nothing in common, it would be best to assume that they are, indeed, different.

Now, I can understand that you are hellbent to somehow assemble and explanation as to why atheism and religiousnes are similar. Thing is, they are fundamentaly different states of mind, that only have one thing in common: They are states of mind.

 

[Sam48]

You could liken basically come up with a reason to liken two things to each, just to be able to claim that they are 'similar'. For example: Humans and stones both consists of atoms, so humans and stones are similar.

That is a much broader example than mine. Plus, humans and stones are not opposite, so it is not relevant either as I was only showing how opposite thinkers are similar. (Not anymore, of course)

Now, I can understand that you are hellbent to somehow assemble and explanation as to why atheism and religiousnes are similar.

Errrr, not really. I thought I had a good example of why I was wrong in my last post.

Thing is, they are fundamentaly different states of mind, that only have one thing in common: They are states of mind.

Yes, that.

 

[Mr. S]

I like the discussion...yet, one thing is stuck in my mind:

If God is able to prevent evil but unwilling, then he is not loving and good.
If God is willing but unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful.
If God is unwilling and unable to prevent evil, then he is neither all-powerful nor loving and good.
If God is able AND willing to prevent evil, then why does evil rear it's ugly head in the world?

I think there's no thing like "god". Religions a merely a contest about who's having the coolest imaginary buddy, I think. However, if someone wants to believe: go for it, none of my business. Just stay away from trying to "convert" me, please.

 

[theotherspongey]

I like the discussion...yet, one thing is stuck in my mind:

If God is able to prevent evil but unwilling, then he is not loving and good.
If God is willing but unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful.
If God is unwilling and unable to prevent evil, then he is neither all-powerful nor loving and good.
If God is able AND willing to prevent evil, then why does evil rear it's ugly head in the world?

I think there's no thing like "god". Religions a merely a contest about who's having the coolest imaginary buddy, I think. However, if someone wants to believe: go for it, none of my business. Just stay away from trying to "convert" me, please.

Very well said. 👍

 

[Luminis]

Yes, that.

Which would mean that being a Hippy (which is a state of mind as well, I think) would be just as similar to being Christian?

I like the discussion...yet, one thing is stuck in my mind:

If God is able to prevent evil but unwilling, then he is not loving and good.
If God is willing but unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful.
If God is unwilling and unable to prevent evil, then he is neither all-powerful nor loving and good.
If God is able AND willing to prevent evil, then why does evil rear it's ugly head in the world?

Good ol' Epicurus

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

Is it coincidence that his name contains the word "Epic"?

 

[Sam48]

If God is able AND willing to prevent evil, then why does evil rear it's ugly head in the world?[/I]

What would we be without evil?

 

[theotherspongey]

What would we be without evil?

A peaceful species,