Originally Posted by Coca-Cola Man How I wish I had the 2nd post in this thread so it could read "Inb4 shitstorm"
To answer your question briefly, no I don't believe in god. It all boils down to this book full of fiction, and christians don't even follow it. (Fundamentalists do, don't get me started on them)
I don't know what is worse really, being hypocritical christian by not following the bible, or be a full christian and follow all the, quite honestly, idiotic things it says.
"Are you a christian? Have you ever depicted a human or animal? Oh wait according to this, you're going to hell!"
Just remembered creationism.... Have to cover it aswell:
I've heard that dinosaur fossiles are either planted by God to test our faith, or by Satan to ruin our faith.
I_MEAN_REALLY_?
One to each own though, as long as your religion don't affect people outside your religion.
(Like islamic extremists who think non-muslims aren't worth anything and free to kill)
You know, belief in God, or as the OP also stated "to put it a slightly different way, do you believe there is 'something else'" does not just apply to Christians.
And also, all extremists see outsiders that way, islamic extremists are no different to others.
@Fordom: Since you whine more than most babies, why don't you share these religious traditions instead of just being hateful, so people can decide for themselves. I have studied Ancient Scandinavian Religion, have you? Do you even know what you are talking about? If you're just here to toss in hateful OT comments please do leave this thread.
Yeah I was refering more to Christianity in my post (and Islam in the last lines)
Sorry that I didn't make that clear. However, the idea of one God (or "something else") comes from the Jews. Christians came from Jews. Jesus was Jewish. It's pretty much the same story except "No, you see there's also this: blahblah"
Although, the "higher power" thing isn't even really debateable. Either you're atheist or agnostic.
(It's really an agnostic who leans towards theism)
You're still just covering the three major Abrahamic religions. That's a classic, faulty, reductive perspective on the notion of religion.
How would you fit in, say, Hinduism into your equation?
And why is the "higher power" thing not debatable? Once again you reduce it in a way that is highly incorrect and reeks of modernist thought, might one assume that you yourself are an atheist/rationalist? Cause most people nowadays, that are actually really unfamiliar to the subject tend to answer in that way after reading some Dawkins/Hitchens or the ilk.
Don't try and explain something you are not familiar with.
And btw, did I ever mention Jacques Berlinerblau's second title to the book The Secular Bible? Kind of fits into this reply - Why nonbelievers must take religion seriously.
If you had read my post, you wouldn't be asking about Hinduism. Hinduism has loads of gods, you were talking about one higher power. The only reason I chose those three are because they're the most well-known religions that focus on one god.
You don't understand my post and go right into attack mode like any religious person I've encountered do when I question their faith. That's a classic, faulty, reductive perspective on the notion of atheism.
I say it's not debateable because you cannot possibly prove it or disprove it.
If you point at a cat and say "That cat has five legs", I can examine the cat and we can agree that no, it does indeed have four. However, if you say "Somewhere in the universe there's a cat with 5 legs." How could I possibly disprove that?
Your post makes me sick, the way you attack me makes we wonder if it's not possible to have a sensible conversation with a theist.
Originally Posted by Coca-Cola Man You don't understand my post and go right into attack mode like any religious person I've encountered do when I question their faith. That's a classic, faulty, reductive perspective on the notion of atheism.
How hypocritical of you. Especially since a few posts up you said:
Originally Posted by Coca-Cola Man I don't know what is worse really, being hypocritical christian by not following the bible, or be a full christian and follow all the, quite honestly, idiotic things it says.
I think you're just reading his post with the wrong tone, since you're reading it based on your own bias.
You're expecting someone to "attack" you so you read every post that disagrees with you that way.
I'd say based on his response that he understood your post quite clearly, whether you're talking about polytheism or monotheism. They are *all* forms of theism which is what you said in your post.
Originally Posted by Coca-Cola Man (It's really an agnostic who leans towards theism)
You have some valid statements presented in a sensible manner. However there is a distinct difference between me saying that the Bible contains things that most people (yes also theists and christians) would find absurd, like not to depict people or animals, and someone saying "No you're wrong" "You know nothing about religion" and especially "Don't try and explain something you are not familiar with. "
Any way, this is kinda pointless. The thread's title is "Do you believe in God?" And I answered that with ("no") and stated a few reasons why I do not in my post. I didn't mean to offend anyone (well not anyone I'd expect to find here anyway)
@Coca-Cola Man: As Urban said, you read my post in the wrong tone. I'm in no attack mode, but since you lay your opinion forth as something self-evident, I simply question your insight in the matter, and the grounds for it.
Originally Posted by Coca-Cola Man If you had read my post, you wouldn't be asking about Hinduism. Hinduism has loads of gods, you were talking about one higher power. The only reason I chose those three are because they're the most well-known religions that focus on one god.
I did read your post, and that is exactly why I asked about Hinduism. If you are familiar to hinduism(atleast to the degree of looking it up in an encyclopedia before answering) you'd know that it is a hugh collection of different religions, stretching from polytheist to monotheist in belief(I wouldn't be surprised if you found atheist belief there too). It's such a pluralistic definition that there isn't even a consensus on what defines a hindu.
That's why I called you.
You don't understand my post and go right into attack mode like any religious person I've encountered do when I question their faith. That's a classic, faulty, reductive perspective on the notion of atheism.
No offence, but you haven't questioned my faith. If your post intended to, it was misdirected.
As I've shown, I did understand your post. And not to be mean, but I don't understand how you fit my questioning of your informaty on the subject with a reductive perspective on atheism.
A reductive perspective on atheism would rather be to say that "an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the Christian God", or in any other way reduce atheism to something that only distrusts certain beliefs, when rather - in our day - atheism is thought of as synonym to rationalism or secularism. A firm 'no-no' to any belief that is not supported by the scientific axiom.
Though rationalism nowadays usually includes a desire to see a world free of religion "and other superstitious beliefs", secularism focuses on a tolerance of religion as long as it is something contained in the private sphere of life.
I say it's not debateable because you cannot possibly prove it or disprove it.
Not to sound mean again, but do you by this statement claim that the abrahamic religions are more proveable than say, Sikhism?
One quality that stands as an inseparable partner of belief, is faith. All beliefs that does not - in a world biased towards the scientific method(no attack intended, just stating) - have rational(once again from the perspective of natural science) grounds rests on faith.
Beliefs that rest on faith is equally unprovable, wheter it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Santería or Wicca. Otherwise they wouldn't be associated with faith, rather, fact.
If you point at a cat and say "That cat has five legs", I can examine the cat and we can agree that no, it does indeed have four. However, if you say "Somewhere in the universe there's a cat with 5 legs." How could I possibly disprove that?
Sorry if I'm provoking you, but that statement is equally on par with post graduates of the 'Dawkins school'. You reduce faith-bound beliefs to the scrutiny of the scientific method, i.e 'show me the atoms that make up your superior, material entity formerly known as Prince er.. God!'
Faith seldomly works in that way. Most religious/believing persons won't agree that God or any other supra-material notion is applicable to scientific (dis)proving.
That's one of the main fit's between religion and rationalism. Religion speaks of 'out-of-this-world' ideas, rationalism demands that religion proves this via the scientific method, which is only applicable to 'in-this-world' ideas, i.e material, 3 dimensional manifestations.
Your post makes me sick, the way you attack me makes we wonder if it's not possible to have a sensible conversation with a theist.
I'm sorry if I made you sick, but as I've tried to explain, I did not intend to attack you. Rather question if you were answering in a routine non-believing fashion, or if your answers were grounded in an actual thinking process, unbiased and taking into consideration different perspectives on the matter.
If you have read some posts in this thread, you'd notice that my input in the discussion is far from biased towards any specific belief(be it theist or not), rather, I try as hard as possible to retain my educated opinion in discussions like this, even if it differs from my personal opinion on the same matter.
Like the example with Moses and the Torah. My educated opinion is that which I have stated in this thread, but personally my view on the subject differs from it quite drastically. But I'm not inclined to shove my personal opinion down your throats, I'd rather relay that which is evident when you take all sides in to consideration.
Sorry for my abuse of the word 'rather', but in my defense, it's a pretty word.
Again, your post is full of valid statements, however I don't really feel like replying to that wall of text with another wall of text. That's not who I am. I respect you for writing that much on this matter, you must really be devoted to it,
though I still think your posting is somewhat condescending.
I don't think this discussion would go anywhere even if I did write a post on 1000 words +, the whole idea of god or whatever you like to call it is just simply illogical to me. It bares no place in my life.
I do hope I don't need to post in this thread again.
Originally Posted by Coca-Cola Man Again, your post is full of valid statements, however I don't really feel like replying to that wall of text with another wall of text. That's not who I am. I respect you for writing that much on this matter, you must really be devoted to it,
I am, I've focused my last 7~8 years of education toward working with it.
though I still think your posting is somewhat condescending.
Yup, it sure is.
Though it's only in reply to the condescendance of your post, so nothing personal.
I don't think this discussion would go anywhere even if I did write a post on 1000 words +, the whole idea of god or whatever you like to call it is just simply illogical to me. It bares no place in my life.
Well actually, this thread has had some good momentum by sharing our own view's on the matter. Like for example, Silverfire showed us a good deal of Wicca from an inside-perspective(to bad he has stopped posting) and UrbanMonk has shown us the innerworkings of a devote Christian(regardless if our opinions were the same).
So by all means, please post your thoughts on the subject. I will surely not object, the only thing I ask for is a respectful tone towards oters beliefs, whaever they may be.
Advertisement
Post Reply
