Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Adam Houten on April 26, 2009 at 6:02pm

And yet Guardian you assume to know better than us, even though by your own reasoning you cannot know anything at all. Furthurmore you are not so different from us at all. You live life the same way as us, yet call our ways of life a religion.

Do you live life as if there were no god, as if there were no supreme being? Then you are an atheist. Just like us.

Permalink Reply by Dave G on April 26, 2009 at 6:02pm

Okay, how about this:

We know nothing.

Permalink Reply by Guardian, past and present. on April 26, 2009 at 6:10pm

We can only know what we can touch. (observe) this includes all of us. This was my reasoning Adam. That by answering what we do not know the answer to, regardless of the way we answer it, become what many here claim to be intellectually dishonest, which is what we are being to our very selves when, we answer the question, by taking a path.

I have choose, to follow what is known, and observable, not what is theoretically said to be true, due to examples. No matter how logical they sound, there fore, I wait, in time for the answer to be revealed. Like Buddhism "waiting requires patience, knowledge requires knowing"

-----

Dave, well none of us know the answer to the unknowable, although we may try and theoretically find an answer, there is no way of proving that answer. Therefore, none of us are being intellectually honest, being the none of us, including myself know. Therefore the reason, I wait before the paths, waiting.

Permalink Reply by Dave G on April 26, 2009 at 6:19pm

Ah, I understand your stance much better now, Guardian. I think that terminology and word definitions are causing confusion. Would you agree with the classical agnostic position that whether or not a god exists is unknowable?

Permalink Reply by Guardian, past and present. on April 26, 2009 at 6:34pm

I think everything beyond the state of observation is unknowable. However I will not choose to believe that it is impossible for a God to exist, or vice versa.

Permalink Reply by Atheist Ninja on April 26, 2009 at 6:57pm

Do you believe there are equal chances that God does or does not exist? If so, then for what reason?

Permalink Reply by Guardian, past and present. on April 26, 2009 at 8:36pm

There is no physical evidence for God, just as there is no evidence against, him. Considering this is a hypothetical argument, stating that you know one to be true over the other would, be making a belief out of the unknown.

I can see, how one sees me as an Agnostic, however I have not chosen a path(of religion) to walk, however i have made a choice to wait(Like Buddhism).

Permalink Reply by Atheist Ninja on April 27, 2009 at 4:07pm

Disbelief in anything would be making a belief out of the unknown. However we still do it, as it's logical. There are a plethora of unknown things I could imagine that I'm sure you'd disbelieve.

If you don't run into the street right now and shout "I invented AIDS!" as loud as you can 13 times, your liver is going to shrivel up into a raisin.

Now you can't know for sure if the previous statement is true or untrue, since it's yet to happen. So you might as well run outside right now and start yelling.

If you're still reading this and you haven't already yelled about your invention of AIDS 13 times then you've just placed a belief in the unknown, congratulations!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave G on April 26, 2009 at 5:39pm

Most aggressive current religion, yes. Other religions in the past have been as or even more aggressive than fundamental Islam.

To use your attacking nation example, when presented with the statement 'There is reason to attack Nation B', Nation A's initial stance will be 'There is not reason to believe there is a reason to attack without supporting evidence'. Nation A will then look at what evidence there is on the subject. It will then either decide 'We believe there is a reason to attack', 'We believe there is not a reason to attack', or stay with disbelief until more evidence is presented. This is harder to discern, as disbelief and belief that there is no reason to attack both result in the same action, not attacking.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Guardian, past and present. on April 26, 2009 at 5:46pm

However, what did they have to do? Choose not to, they choose to take a path, in this case of the example, a path of non aggression. However, even then, one does not have to take either road.

When faced with two gunmen, and you are found to be holding a ballistic shield and a firearm. You seemingly have only two choices to fire, or hide behind the shield, however there is a third or even a fourth, where he could flee, mindlessly or run back to the squad car, requesting back up.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stacy B on April 27, 2009 at 12:23pm

Making the choice to not be convinced by religion does not therefore mean you are following a religion. Thoughts on the subject of god(s) do not immediate make them a religion. Atheism does not meet any of the necessary specifications to be considered a religion. To use your analogy, Nation X deciding it feels Nation Q is right and Nation Y is wrong does not make Nation X an aggressor.

Atheism deals with religion. It is not a religion.

Permalink Reply by Guardian, past and present. on April 27, 2009 at 2:48pm

Making a choice to believe in a said, belief becomes part of each individuals larger picture, or beliefs which make up the individuals religion being that each of the beliefs are unique to the person.

Atheism deals with a belief, in which it becomes a smaller part of the person beliefs which make up what guide their lives, their religion.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• Next ›
• Page