Which religion do you follow?

[middlehead]

None.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: mwtgg
Ok, why do I bother? Honestly. Why? Are you intentionally being dense or what?

Acknowledging that you can't prove the nonexistance of God does not mean you are saying there is proof of God's existance. It's saying there might be a God but you just can't know. I don't believe there is a Christian God. It seems obvious to me that it was made up by ignorant tribespeople thousands of years ago. But because I can't prove the nonexistance of God, I accept the fact that he could indeed exist.

Or maybe the same type of ignorant "tribespeople" made up the entire concept of a god because they felt too weak to be here on their own.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: mwtgg
Or maybe the same type of ignorant "tribespeople" made up the entire concept of a god because they felt too weak to be here on their own.

They probably did.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: SuepaFly
PS - I read once that atheist do believe in a supreme power, themselves, thus it is considered a religion.

I don't think that is necessarily a religion, in that a religion tends to be (I'm not so interested in the dictionary definition in this case) a deliberately and conciously developed belief structure that usually focuses around the supernatural. I do consider myself to be the most important being in the universe, and my morals to be absolute (in a sense), but I don't worship myself. Rather, I have a strong belief (as in "faith") in the righteousness of my personal morality.

 

[SuepaFly]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: SuepaFly
PS - I read once that atheist do believe in a supreme power, themselves, thus it is considered a religion.

I don't think that is necessarily a religion, in that a religion tends to be (I'm not so interested in the dictionary definition in this case) a deliberately and conciously developed belief structure that usually focuses around the supernatural. I do consider myself to be the most important being in the universe, and my morals to be absolute (in a sense), but I don't worship myself. Rather, I have a strong belief (as in "faith") in the righteousness of my personal morality.

I see what you mean. I think also that nowadays religion (maybe it has always been this way, I don't know) has evolved into a fanatical and structured sort of thing. For me, my relationship with God is a personal one, and one that can not and should not be pushed upon others, thus the structure becomes clear. But I do think that faith is a big part of religion, so long as it is absolute, you know?

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
I have a feeling that a lot of the so-called Atheists on this board, will turn to God at their final hours when their long journey finally comes to an end.

Ahh. The old axiom "there are no atheists in foxholes." Meaning that facing death turns one towards faith.

By the way, so what if one turns to faith in their final hours. As long as they live a generally good life, why not, with your final hours ticking by, declare yourself to be a theist to reap the rewards. The requirements to get into heaven are so insanely easy that, to me, exploiting one's faith to reap the potential rewards is a worthy compromise (ends justify the means). Hell, I might even consider it just so that if I'm wrong and there is a heaven, I'm assured a spot anyway. Win win!!

 

[Powermoloch]

Born as a muslim...I don't know now =/ lol

 

[Kadarin]

I am not religious at all.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Tom
Your proof only works within the mathmatical system as we understand it.

All proofs only work in language. Mine is no different than any other.

Can you prove there is an actual relationship between our "revealed" mathmatics, and what actually exists in the universe, to the exclusion of all other possibilities ?

Of course not, but now you're moving the goalposts with irrational expectations. I never set out to prove anything about external reality, because things in external reality are not "proven" or "disproven." Only propositions are subject to proof or disproof.

Also, incidentally, mathematics, like all languages, are defined, not "revealed."

If not, you haven't actually "proved" anything, in an absolute sense.

Yes, I have, in that I have proven the proposition as much as anything can be proven. You just think that "proof" is capable of more than it really is.

I am not referring to mathmatics as a language, but the principals upon which it is based, and if those principals can be proven true.

And I use the word "revealed", because as far as I know, the discovery and subsequent "proof" of relationships in mathmatics are not invented, they are discovered.

And somehow or other, you have interpreted what I've said as though I expect "proofs" to be more than they are, when my point is exactly that they aren't.

Because the discussion of "proof" as it pertains to this thread, is whether or not a negative can be proven, ie the non-existence of God or gods.

My point is that it can't be proven, and therefore believing it to be true, is just that, a belief system. And to the extent this belief system is codified with it's own doctrines, leaders, and followers, it is essentially a religion itself.

I more or less consider myself a follower of this belief system, but I always find it interesting when people of like "beliefs" think that this "belief" is actually based on logic and truth, which is the same position that the believers of any religion think about their beliefs.

 

[Hammerhead]

here's a map gallery showing the distribution of religion in the U.S.
Text

 

[Vic]

I am agnostic. I believe only in what I am able to physically observe and/or witness, or to logically deduce from what I am able to physically observe. All else is intellectual concept or hearsay -- topics for conversation, debate, and amusement.

Atheism is the positive affirmation in the non-existence of God. "I believe that God does not exist." As the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven, nor can the existence of non-existence of God be shown to be a priori, atheism is therefore a belief without proof -- a faith.

 

[Svnla]

I follow the Golden Rule religious <see my signature>. No kidding.

I am neither Atheism or anything. I guess I am neutral on religious. Well, unless there is a hot gal in a church <any denomination>

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: mwtgg
Why should someone be forced to disprove a claim that can't even be validated by those who make it?

No one's forcing you. But if you want to make the statement that God does not exist, you have to prove it.

Easily proved.

Children are raped every day. Any being capable of stopping such actions would. Since those actions occur anyway, it's clear that there is no God. Or, alternately, that Jesus is a pedophile.

Irrelevant. Your argument is emotional. It assumes the human desire to have some authority stop the tragedies of our own making. For all we know God is a twisted sadistic fsck. Or simply does not interfere to stop the evils of our own making. Or perhaps those evils serve a purpose to God. We cannot know.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Atheism is the positive affirmation in the non-existence of God. "I believe that God does not exist." As the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven, nor can the existence of non-existence of God be shown to be a priori, atheism is therefore a belief without proof -- a faith.

Plz see my earlier posts for an explanation why this usage is inaccurate.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: mwtgg
Why should someone be forced to disprove a claim that can't even be validated by those who make it?

No one's forcing you. But if you want to make the statement that God does not exist, you have to prove it.

Easily proved.

Children are raped every day. Any being capable of stopping such actions would. Since those actions occur anyway, it's clear that there is no God. Or, alternately, that Jesus is a pedophile.

Irrelevant. Your argument is emotional. It assumes the human desire to have some authority stop the tragedies of our own making. For all we know God is a twisted sadistic fsck. Or simply does not interfere to stop the evils of our own making. Or perhaps those evils serve a purpose to God. We cannot know.

While you and I often disagree, your point here is sound. The most his argument could disprove is the existence of God-that-would-stop-child-rape-no-matter-what. As you say, it may be that the god that exists is God-that-likes-to-see-children-raped, or God-that-does-not-interfere-with-earthly-goings-on. Indeed, the number of conceivable gods that are consistent will the reality of child rape is limited only by our imaginations.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Vic

Atheism is the positive affirmation in the non-existence of God. "I believe that God does not exist." As the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven, nor can the existence of non-existence of God be shown to be a priori, atheism is therefore a belief without proof -- a faith.

Plz see my earlier posts for an explanation why this usage is inaccurate.

What I read was you trying to make an invalid comparison. That belief is the same as, as a priori as, mathematics. It is not.

 

[azilaga]

Christianity

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Vic

Atheism is the positive affirmation in the non-existence of God. "I believe that God does not exist." As the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven, nor can the existence of non-existence of God be shown to be a priori, atheism is therefore a belief without proof -- a faith.

Plz see my earlier posts for an explanation why this usage is inaccurate.

What I read was you trying to make an invalid comparison. That belief is the same as, as a priori as, mathematics. It is not.

Would you care to elaborate?

 

[Vic]

One can observe the logical deductions of mathematics. The same cannot be said of theistic/atheistic belief. The only way the existence of God could possibly be proven or disproven would be if humans could return after death to tell the living of their post-life experiences. Or when one experiences death personally. Otherwise, the entire argument of God/non-God is simply an amusing but groundless intellectual debate comparable to discussing the possibility of superior-intelligence extraterrestrial life.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic
One can observe the logical deductions of mathematics. The same cannot be said of theistic/atheistic belief.

Okay, now I can see the distinction you're making. I guess I just don't see how it pertains to the points I made wrt the meanings of theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism.

The only way the existence of God could possibly be proven or disproven would be if humans could return after death to tell the living of their post-life experiences.

Well, to be precise, no statement about external reality is provable, because all experiences are consistent with solipsism.

Or when one experiences death personally. Otherwise, the entire argument of God/non-God is simply an amusing but groundless intellectual debate comparable to discussing the possibility of superior-intelligence extraterrestrial life.

Again, I don't see how this pertains to the points I made.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth
Well, to be precise, no statement about external reality is provable, because all experiences are consistent with solipsism.

You basically just proved my point right there.

If solipsism is not true, and "external reality" is true, then God's existence is unknown and can never be proven or disproven without actual experience.

If solipsism is true, and "external reality" is false, then God's existence is YOU.

How is this not obvious?

 

[darkswordsman17]

Why not other option in the poll?

I mean, surely we have some Jedi followers on here?

I forget where I saw it or who said it but there was a quote along the lines of:

When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion.

For me, I have not researched and studied any religion enough to subscribe to its teachings, and therefore, I do not claim to be anything. This is my biggest problem with religions, that people don't actually really look into it and see if its what they feel, they just say they're a certain religion because their parents or whoever were. Not only that, but because they feel they are part of that religion, they don't ever bother to look at other religions and see if they are worth their merit. It seems like most religions teach that only they have the right answer to so much, and that all other religions are therefore false.

At least, thats how I feel on the matter.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Garth
Well, to be precise, no statement about external reality is provable, because all experiences are consistent with solipsism.

You basically just proved my point right there.

You're going to have to bear with me, because I'm still not clear what your point actually is, or at least, how what follows below somehow pertains to the points I made. Can you be more explicit?

If solipsism is not true, and "external reality" is true, then God's existence is unknown and can never be proven or disproven without actual experience.

If solipsism is true, and "external reality" is false, then God's existence is YOU.

How is this not obvious?

It is, quite. Still, I don't understand what it means wrt to my points. It seems to me you are constructing a kind of argument against gnosticism, but I was never defending the coherency of any particular position, per se. Rather I was elucidating the distinction between the dichotomies theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism.

For example, you said that "Atheism is the positive affirmation in the non-existence of God." It isn't. Atheism is instead the lack of a positive affimirmation in the existence of God. I know it seems like a pedantic point, but it is important to me that people do not reject atheism for bad reasons.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth
For example, you said that "Atheism is the positive affirmation in the non-existence of God." It isn't. Atheism is instead the lack of a positive affimirmation in the existence of God. I know it seems like a pedantic point, but it is important to me that people do not reject atheism for bad reasons.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism

Weak atheism is a myth. An excuse, using disguised semantics and straw men, for the inconsistencies in atheism by apologists.
People should reject atheism for exactly the bad reasons you are trying to hide.

 

[Vegitto]

Missing mine .