This Sort of Thing Is Why I Speak Out Against Religion

a reply to: Tenebris

Well lets face it, twisting
religion is only one of the
nefarious methods used
to brainwash the unsuspecting
ignorant .

You don't really come across as one
who would blame religion itself.
For their is no blame in rituals
and honest belief themselves.

The focus should be aimed at those
who would seek to manipulate and
take advantage of others naivety
for dangerous or otherwise
personal gain.

Ignorance is Bliss

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: luthier

Just for clarification: Gnostic means knowing, agnostic means not knowing. Theism means believing in God, atheism means not believing in God.

Gnostic atheists claim to know that God doesn't exist. They hold an actual belief that there is no God. agnostic atheists say they don't know that there is no God but that they are not convinced that there is a God.

Most atheists are agnostic, so they say they don't know if there is a God but are not convinced to believe that there is a God.

Not all atheists believe in the scientific method of following evidence. There are solipsistic atheists. Spiritual atheists who believe in spirits but not gods, and many other types.

I understand what the words mean. I dont understand why you are clarifying.

I also didnt see a rebuttle.

These clasifications of atheism are accepted by who? Not all atheists thats for sure. Philosophy is full of these debates already and i don not believe you have shown a valid argument. If you dont know if god exists or not you are agnostic. I have the definitions of all you wrote already in previous posts both here and other atheist theist debates.

I do enjoy debating these things to help me solve my own logical fallacies. However you have not done this yet though i assume you have the ability to since it seems you have philosophical understanding.

An agnostic atheist is going by faith is he or she not that god does not exist? Are you not holding a belief you cant prove is true? Which is exactly what the atheists on this post have been saying i am wrong about.

Please dont bring up Russels teapot its been absolutlely destroyed and admittedly so by even other atheist philosophers.

I wonder what happens when people start calling people with those religious beliefs "Mental Illness" and "Abnormal Sub-Human" or the old fashion "Abomination sinner"

a reply to: luthier

An agnostic atheist is going by faith is he or she not that god does not exist?

No. Atheists do not have "faith" in a lack of belief in God, because that doesn't make sense. Faith is trusting in a belief being true, you cannot have faith in a belief you don't hold.

Not having a faith is not the same thing as having one.

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: luthier

An agnostic atheist is going by faith is he or she not that god does not exist?

No. Atheists do not have "faith" in a lack of belief in God, because that doesn't make sense. Faith is trusting in a belief being true, you cannot have faith in a belief you don't hold.

Not having a faith is not the same thing as having one.

It makes peefect sense. An agnostic atheist believes no god/gods exist while admitting they can not prove so. If there is no information to prove there is no god the belief is based on an assumption not a fact.

The problem many philosophers have with the phrase is we are taught to defend an argument. By taking both sides of the argument you are choosing not to defend your first one.

As an atheist by definition you don't believe there is a god or evidence of one will ever be found. You need to defend that argument but instead of doing so choose another argument which is the agnostic argument nothing can be proven or disproven relating to the nature of god.

The two are very different arguments philosophically. If you defend the argument there is no god and no evidence of a god can be found it is a contradiction to then argue there is no way to know if evidence of a god can be found. Its almost an antinomy to put the two together.

So while you may feel like an agnostic atheist philosophically there is a problem with the defense of the argument for there being no god by leaving open there could. Meaning there could be because you can't prove there isn't.

This is philosophical and not an attack on what anyone believes just an attempt to point out the argument has an oxymoron within it.

originally posted by: luthier
Really though if you look deeper into what I am saying just on ats you will see a lot of what i am talking about with atheisms often blind hatred for anyone religious.

I realize that some atheists hate religious people and some hate religion. And some religious people hate atheists and some hate atheism. No one is claiming that either "side" is without fault. But so what? It doesn't prove anything or really make any point to state that there are "haters" in every group of people: Cops, men, teachers, politicians, lawyers, business owners, religious people, mothers, firemen, etc... It doesn't make ANY real point to single out a group and state the obvious.

What is the op title? That seems to point towards a box i think.

One of the big lessons I've learned while being a member of ATS is that titles are usually more sensational than representative of the OP. We need to read and understand the post (and sources) before getting the whole picture.

Tibetan and many budhists with all their superstitions have made incredible progress in counsciousness. The scientific studies on meditation are astounding they include permanent brain physical changes, the ability to change dna, the ability to control body temperature amongst other things.

If i were to speak out against religeon would I most likely disregard these types of things or do I just pick and choose.

To be honest, when most people "speak out against religion", they're not speaking of Buddhism. They're speaking about the more "imposing" religions whose apparent purpose of to make others behave according to their religions using legal means or violence. The girl in the video certainly isn't Buddhist. LOL!

I am having trouble putting the two definitions of agnostic and atheist together. What is the point? Why not say agnostic if you can or cant prove god exists?

arpgme explained that perfectly. Gnostic is pertaining to knowledge. Theism is pertaining to belief.

"I don't know, but I believe..." is a agnostic theist statement. I personally think we are ALL agnostic in matters of a god, because none of us really knows. But some of us believe and some of us don't. But if a theist tells me he's a gnostic theist (knows AND believes God exists) it would be disrespectful and imposing for me to push the point, so I don't.

I teter between agnostic and deist myself but I am not an agnostic deist. The two definition cancel each other out.

I disagree. Agnostic deist: Doesn't KNOW if there's a single creator of the Universe, but BELIEVES there is. But I will respect whatever you call yourself.

atheist says you make a claim.

The only claim is "I don't believe in gods".

originally posted by: luthier
I thought atheist only believe things they can prove or have evidence for?

Not true. Atheists only have one thing in common. They don't hold a belief in gods. In fact, I'll bet all atheists have beliefs in things they can't prove. I believe my husband loves me, I believe my dog understands my energy, I believe love is the most powerful force in the universe. I could go on all day. I even believe in the possibility of an afterlife (without gods).

If an atheist holds a belief that god does not exist but admits they can not prove it is that not having to rely on faith to prove your belief?

Faith is believe in something. It's too strong a word for my position on gods. There might be a god or gods (that's where the agnostic comes in. because I don't KNOW.) There might be angels, evil spirits, unicorns, aliens, an afterlife, fairies... mediums, fate, free will, intuition, karma, and the lochness monster... ALL of these things might be real. Some I believe are real and some I don't. The fact that I don't believe in unicorns doesn't require faith any more than the fact that I don't believe in gods does.

Does that make sense?

.

originally posted by: luthier
The problem many philosophers have with the phrase is we are taught to defend an argument. By taking both sides of the argument you are choosing not to defend your first one.

That's one of the BIGGEST problems with religion and religious beliefs. Making it into an argument that one feels compelled to defend. You will never see me defending my position on gods. I feel no need to defend it. It's mine, and I don't have any interest in convincing anyone else that I'm "right". I will explain my position as best I can, but I think beliefs are one thing we shouldn't have to defend, religious or not.

If we stopped defending our religious beliefs, and just practiced them in our own lives, a lot of the crappier stuff in the world would simply disappear, IMO.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: luthier
I thought atheist only believe things they can prove or have evidence for?

Not true. Atheists only have one thing in common. They don't hold a belief in gods. In fact, I'll bet all atheists have beliefs in things they can't prove. I believe my husband loves me, I believe my dog understands my energy, I believe love is the most powerful force in the universe. I could go on all day. I even believe in the possibility of an afterlife (without gods).

If an atheist holds a belief that god does not exist but admits they can not prove it is that not having to rely on faith to prove your belief?

Faith is believe in something. It's too strong a word for my position on gods. There might be a god or gods (that's where the agnostic comes in. because I don't KNOW.) There might be angels, evil spirits, unicorns, aliens, an afterlife, fairies... mediums, fate, free will, intuition, karma, and the lochness monster... ALL of these things might be real. Some I believe are real and some I don't. The fact that I don't believe in unicorns doesn't require faith any more than the fact that I don't believe in gods does.

Does that make sense?

.

Yes its fine if you have a soft viewpoint however, we are talking about others who have willingly entered a philosophical debate about their beliefs as you have here by defending them.

I am going to make fun of myself here but when you willingly enter an argument with a crazy person in public you run the risk of people observing not knowing who is who.

There is certainly a difference from people arguing about hate and nonsense then there is arguing for the sake of epistemology.

You are using russels teapot argument. Which is a fallacy when referring to unicorns. There is no evidence for those. Where as there have been different forms of evidence presented for god. If you choose to refute those you have entered the debate and should uphold the same standards you have for your opponent in the debate which is offering a support of your argument. The one I happen to think holds up is the finely tuned universe (which christians missuse it really is more like jasper's interpretation of spinozaism). The bible while i dont adhere to has historical facts within it which christians, jews, and muslims can use as evidence. Its imo not a valid arguement but it is more sound than the locke ness monster. For instance can you prove george washington existed using your same theory? No you can not. You have no observational right to that claim yet you can still sort through the historical writings to make a rational conclusion.

The unicorn is a straw man.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: luthier
The problem many philosophers have with the phrase is we are taught to defend an argument. By taking both sides of the argument you are choosing not to defend your first one.

That's one of the BIGGEST problems with religion and religious beliefs. Making it into an argument that one feels compelled to defend. You will never see me defending my position on gods. I feel no need to defend it. It's mine, and I don't have any interest in convincing anyone else that I'm "right". I will explain my position as best I can, but I think beliefs are one thing we shouldn't have to defend, religious or not.

If we stopped defending our religious beliefs, and just practiced them in our own lives, a lot of the crappier stuff in the world would simply disappear, IMO.

That is your opinion. The entire subject of philosophy is useless if you dont defend your beliefs.

originally posted by: luthier
You are using russels teapot argument. Which is a fallacy when referring to unicorns. There is no evidence for those. Where as there have been different forms of evidence presented for god.

Really? Actual evidence? Or something someone interpreted as evidence?

Never heard of Russel's Teapot. But then, I'm just a regular person, not trying to argue or prove anything, not a philosophical scholar wanna-be and I don't don't get any jollies from proving why I believe or don't believe a certain way and I have no interest in proving others "wrong".

There is no more reason to believe in gods than there is to believe in aliens, angels, ghosts, mediums, astrology or Nessie. The bible is a book written by man with an imagination and a need to explain the world around him, and is no more "sound" than any other book or form of "evidence".

The bible while i dont adhere to has historical facts within it which christians, jews, and muslims can use as evidence. Its imo not a valid arguement but it is more sound than the locke ness monster.

There are pictures of Nessie! (IMO, they're not valid, but more sound than a book written by man who didn't have access to science).

For instance can you prove george washington existed using your same theory?

There are actual pictures of George Washington (not drawings) and history books that were written at the time of his life. I can't PROVE he existed, but the evidence there is also more sound than a book written by man who didn't have access to science.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: luthier
You are using russels teapot argument. Which is a fallacy when referring to unicorns. There is no evidence for those. Where as there have been different forms of evidence presented for god.

Really? Actual evidence? Or something someone interpreted as evidence?

Never heard of Russel's Teapot. But then, I'm just a regular person, not trying to argue or prove anything, not a philosophical scholar wanna-be and I don't don't get any jollies from proving why I believe or don't believe a certain way and I have no interest in proving others "wrong".

There is no more reason to believe in gods than there is to believe in aliens, angels, ghosts, mediums, astrology or Nessie. The bible is a book written by man with an imagination and a need to explain the world around him, and is no more "sound" than any other book or form of "evidence".

The bible while i dont adhere to has historical facts within it which christians, jews, and muslims can use as evidence. Its imo not a valid arguement but it is more sound than the locke ness monster.

There are pictures of Nessie! (IMO, they're not valid, but more sound than a book written by man who didn't have access to science).

For instance can you prove george washington existed using your same theory?

There are actual pictures of George Washington (not drawings) and history books that were written at the time of his life. I can't PROVE he existed, but the evidence there is also more sound than a book written by man who didn't have access to science.

Oh ok insult me. You win

Did you ever think maybe i was trying to see if my own beliefs were valid? That is the purpose of debate for me.

Sorry I offended you. My purpose was to have a debate based on the principles of epistemolgy and the not hate and fallacy.

If we were to go over your response i could point out logical falacy and where you have misrepresented my argument but I feel we are probably done here as you were offended enough to insult me and I never meant to insult you. If i did i am sorry.

a reply to: luthier

Dude! I didn't insult you. You didn't insult me. You didn't offend me. And I'm not offended by anything you said. I don't know why you're being sensitive or what you're going after, but I'm not interested in arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm not going to debate beliefs. They're just ideas about concepts. We all have them and they're all valid.

I'm sorry if I said something that offended you, but it wasn't my intention.

I enjoyed our discussion.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: luthier

Dude! I didn't insult you. You didn't insult me. You didn't offend me. And I'm not offended by anything you said. I don't know why you're being sensitive or what you're going after, but I'm not interested in arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm not going to debate beliefs. They're just ideas about concepts. We all have them and they're all valid.

I'm sorry if I said something that offended you, but it wasn't my intention.

I enjoyed our discussion.

Maybe reread your second paragraph where you talk about having never heard of russels teapot then explain how that wasnt directed at me.

a reply to: Tenebris

If you want to defy ignorance maybe you shouldn't let the actions of people judge the validity of the Bibles claims. This girl is a bit of her rocker, but posting this and acting like its some shining reason to speak out against religion is insane.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

If you want to defy ignorance maybe you shouldn't let the actions of people judge the validity of the Bibles claims.

But the girl's claims are right on with the Bible as far as Moody Church Media Ministry is concerned.

God and Natural Disasters

The Bible explicitly traces natural disasters to the hand of God. Who sent the rain during the time of Noah? Who caused the darkness during the plagues? Who sent the earthquake that swallowed the rebellious sons of Korah? Who sent the storm that caught the attention of Jonah? And, who stilled the fierce wind on Galilee?
. . .
But we have some rather clear teaching in the Scriptures about what natural disasters should teach us. Let me say simply that what happened in Southeast Asia is consistent with the God of the Bible, who is both powerful and loving.
. . .
Second, in the Scripture, natural disasters are seen as a picture of coming judgment; Jesus not only predicted earthquakes but said of the eighteen men who died accidentally at the tower of Siloam, “Unless you repent, you shall likewise perish.” Read the book of Revelation, where worldwide natural disasters are a part of the final judgment.

Third, as mentioned, we must repent. Some of these dear survivors are seeking God and do not know where to find Him. We in America should also be seeking God and tell people how He can be found in the person of Jesus.

Genesis 6:6-7 - And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Genesis 7:17-20 - And the flood was forty days upon the earth;
Exodus 9:22-27 - And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch forth thine hand toward heaven, that there may be hail in all the land of Egypt, upon man, and upon beast, and upon every herb of the field, throughout the land of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 11:17 then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you, and he will shut up the heavens, so that there will be no rain, and the land will yield no fruit, and you will perish quickly off the good land that the Lord is giving you.
Isaiah 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].
James 5:17 Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth.

a reply to: pthena

But the girl's claims are right on with the Bible as far as Moody Church Media Ministry is concerned.

I never said God didn't create natural disasters. He will cause quite a few in the 70th week of Daniel. The girls prayer and random application of the prayer to an earthquake is silly imo. Seems more like self fulfilling prophecy to me.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The girl seemed to take it as a sign.

But then Pat Robertson goes around trying to give interpretations for disasters too. He's a CEO of a university, chairman of CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network), etc.

If you want to defy ignorance maybe you shouldn't let the actions of people judge the validity of the Bibles claims

Please, explain how biblical claims have validity. And no, I'm not being arrogant. I simply wish to see the evidence for your claim.

a reply to: pthena

Christians can be crazy just like atheist can be crazy or muslims or anyone else.