News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Atheism and agnosticism

Started by Jannabear, January 23, 2016, 07:56:55 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Jannabear

They aren't fucking mutually exclusive.
All of the dumb asses who go around proudly announcing I'M AN AGNOSTIC TAKE THAT
You sound like a fucking retard.
Alright.
Get this into your head.
Atheism = Lack of belief in a god
Agnosticism = You don't claim to know for certain there is no god
I don't believe in a god, and I don't claim to know for certain there is no god.
I can't stand people who act smug because they say they're an agnostic.

Sal1981


aitm

A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust


Mike Cl

Quote from: Jannabear on January 23, 2016, 08:21:00 AM
How so?
Okay, Janna, I'll take a shot.  From my perspective, you come across as a raging angerholic.  Your point becomes  covered by your anger--whether or not I agree with your point, what I see first is raging anger.  After I take the time to subtract out the abusive language, the angry language, I can then see your point.  But by that time I am usually too tired to respond; emotionally, I just don't want to become involved.  I am not saying anger is not real, not productive, not justified--I am saying that when you lead off with it post after post, it does become very tiresome. 

I, too, hate smug people--people who are smug about anything.  When the opportunity is right for me, I love to wipe that smug look off their faces.  But I have found that anger does not work well to do that.  Anger makes them more smug.  Then can see that they have gotten your goat, and relish that and take it as a sign that they have won and are correct in their smugness after all.  Clear, unemotional statement of facts works best.  If they react to those facts (which prove their point is incorrect), smile knowingly at them and maybe raise your eyebrows.  Don't show them you are angry.  Not getting angry seems to make some of them angry--if so, you know you have won or at least rocked their boat a little. 

Anyway, Janna, I hope that makes a little sense to you.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Hijiri Byakuren

Preaching to the choir, mate.


Secretly a Warsie.
Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

stromboli

Quote from: Mike Cl on January 23, 2016, 09:01:12 AM
Okay, Janna, I'll take a shot.  From my perspective, you come across as a raging angerholic.  Your point becomes  covered by your anger--whether or not I agree with your point, what I see first is raging anger.  After I take the time to subtract out the abusive language, the angry language, I can then see your point.  But by that time I am usually too tired to respond; emotionally, I just don't want to become involved.  I am not saying anger is not real, not productive, not justified--I am saying that when you lead off with it post after post, it does become very tiresome. 

I, too, hate smug people--people who are smug about anything.  When the opportunity is right for me, I love to wipe that smug look off their faces.  But I have found that anger does not work well to do that.  Anger makes them more smug.  Then can see that they have gotten your goat, and relish that and take it as a sign that they have won and are correct in their smugness after all.  Clear, unemotional statement of facts works best.  If they react to those facts (which prove their point is incorrect), smile knowingly at them and maybe raise your eyebrows.  Don't show them you are angry.  Not getting angry seems to make some of them angry--if so, you know you have won or at least rocked their boat a little. 

Anyway, Janna, I hope that makes a little sense to you.

Right. The way you write your submissions is indicative of an emotional outburst, in that they lack arrangement in paragraph form and you could put an exclamation mark on every sentence, based on phrasing and content.

That is not a criticism. The clarity of your statement is lost because your statements are more like outbursts than rational thought.

This is not a complaint about what you post, because I think you really are seeking answers. But your posts to me are indicative of a scattered thought process. You are also an intelligent person and can contribute. And for fuck sakes, SEE A DOCTOR for your problems.

Shiranu

QuoteAll of the dumb asses who go around proudly announcing I'M AN AGNOSTIC TAKE THAT

I would think you of most people should realise the importance as people identifying as what they find most accurate.

Atheists and agnostics have different "cultures" and expectations on their behaviour and what they find important. Yes you can be (and are) both... but there is no point in saying "I am an atheist who frankly just doesn't know and don't overly care about if there is or isn't a god, as well as don't feel like getting involved in theological debates or the stigmas associated with declaring myself an atheist" instead of just saying "agnostic".

You cant complain about people who call themselves feminist because you dislike one interpretation of what that word means, then say that the popular interpretation of agnostic is wrong because only one meaning is the "true" meaning.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Johan

Quote from: Jannabear on January 23, 2016, 08:21:00 AM
How so?
Well for one thing, you cannot seem to go more than a few minutes at a time without angrily labelling someone or something as fucking retarded. It must suck being that angry and frustrated all the time.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful

Solomon Zorn

Quote from: JannabearThey aren't fucking mutually exclusive.
This is fucking correct.


Quote from: JannabearAll of the dumb asses who go around proudly announcing I'M AN AGNOSTIC TAKE THAT
You sound like a fucking retard.
Shiranu already answered this statement.
Quote from: ShiranuI would think you of most people should realize the importance as people identifying as what they find most accurate.


Quote from: JannabearAlright.
Get this into your head.
Atheism = Lack of belief in a god
Agnosticism = You don't claim to know for certain there is no god
Correct. See the chart above.


Quote from: JannabearI don't believe in a god, and I don't claim to know for certain there is no god.
I am confident that none of the gods worshiped by mankind exist. But certainty about a creator, one way or the other, is probably dishonest.


Quote from: JannabearI can't stand people who act smug because they say they're an agnostic.
How very smug.

Agnosticism is a subject that has been discussed here so many times before, that many people are probably disinterested. But if you want to get people to talk to you, about these kinds of things, I think you need to dial back the outrage. :34:
If God Exists, Why Does He Pretend Not to Exist?
Poetry and Proverbs of the Uneducated Hick

http://www.solomonzorn.com

Jannabear

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on January 23, 2016, 06:09:31 PM
This is fucking correct.

Shiranu already answered this statement.
Correct. See the chart above.

I am confident that none of the gods worshiped by mankind exist. But certainty about a creator, one way or the other, is probably dishonest.

How very smug.

Agnosticism is a subject that has been discussed here so many times before, that many people are probably disinterested. But if you want to get people to talk to you, about these kinds of things, I think you need to dial back the outrage. :34:
What makes you think there's a creator?

dtq123

I'm gnostic. It's because my mind can't handle god ^_^
A dark cloud looms over.
Festive cheer does not help much.
What is this, "Justice?"

Baruch

I put metaphysics above physics ... I put holism above reductionism.  It is a choice.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Solomon Zorn

Quote from: Jannabear on January 23, 2016, 08:54:23 PM
What makes you think there's a creator?
I think you misunderstood me. I don't think there is a creator. Not at all. But to profess certainty, as to there being no creator, would be dishonest. So in that respect I am agnostic. As for the Gods of men, I am as near certain as I can be, that they are myths. So I would consider myself functionally gnostic in that area.
If God Exists, Why Does He Pretend Not to Exist?
Poetry and Proverbs of the Uneducated Hick

http://www.solomonzorn.com

drunkenshoe

#14
Objection!

We do possess the knowledge that proves that a creator cannot exist. It's called linguistics.

There is a reason why it took so long a time for the concept of any deity; any creator evolving into a transcendental god that came up with Abrahamic religions. Because it is an abstract concept and abstract concepts cannot exist without written culture. (This is also the explanation both why Abrahamic religions rose from the same region and why they are different and yet the same in many sense, besides the narrative they dictate. Why it started with ancient Hebrew and Arabic very easily fel linto the same line...)

Simply the idea of a god; any god, gods or deities are all one and it is completely based on human desires apart from the delusion itself. There is not a definition or a description of a god in human history that exists out of that profile. There can't be. Because there is no other narrative for god out of the profile of an absentee landlord. It's human, its as various as humans and its desires.  Therefore there is no such thing as the slightest possibility of some evidence for existence of a creator. It's invalid. It's fantasy of a fantasy. Any evidence anyone would try to imagine as 'what if' would have to be in the limits of describing some sort of a super MAN. Not some unimaginable supreme entity that mortals cannot fathom. Humans only constantly developed the language to describe it and with the sufficient accumulation of written culture they finally reached to a transcendental creator. They invented imaginary concepts, powers they liked to have- to tell those stories attached to it, but narrative has always been the same. Like children playing make belief. Because gods and religions are functional. It has always, but always been beneficial and profitable. It's trade, its politics. It's a means to desired ends played itself out.

God is an anthropomorphic figure that has developed into some abstract make up -transcendence which cannot exist without written culture- and all religions are anthropocentric in their nature. The idea of god does not come from a creator of the universe. It evolved to be the creator of the universe in time. It comes from fearing the thunder and lightening, fire, earthquake, floods, hurricanes, the mighty ocean, the mighty mountains and the powerful wild animals, famine, bad winter that threatened their lives. Everything human faces on the planet in nature.

Humans did not start 'believing' in a god because they thought some supreme being 'created' them. They arrived an understanding of a god that did the creating from mortal fears and simple daily needs. Because they worried about their own lives. Famine, hard winter, disease, fear of death. Why do we die? Why do we feel pain? Why do we get sick? Why do we starve? Human fear of its own nature. It's always 'what happened to me' or 'what is happening to me' or 'what will happen to me? Now and after I die'. It's first person, all about the human itself, first defined in the individual level, then for a society because we are social animals and cannot survive alone; we have to live together.

The idea of the creator of universe, esp. the universe as we undertsand now, today, is a last phase of a series of 'upgrades' and 'updates' of that primitive idea, adapted and modified in time. By development of language. Linguistics. First 'the universe' is the clan, then the village....then the cities, countries and what's around it. As the map starts to open, gradually the 'universe' has become the planet, then finally it has becaome the universe as we know today. Adaptation. Religions and gods get keep adapted by humans because they are functional. So they survive. Basic principle. As the general scale got larger, the scale of god followed it. But it is the same absentee landlord. Doesn't matter how or with what high language or concepts you decsribe it. It's human.

God is the rejection of nature because of mortal fear. That's why in all Abrahamic religions human is defined with something supernatural, an immortal element called soul. It's a symbolic way of refusing to die. It's why in all those religions human is defined as something proud and more than animals, first in the center of the world and that world as in center of the universe. Me, me, me, me, I, I, I, I.

This is not a belief or trust into some supreme being. It's only the BELIEF IN ONESELF in a twisted collective way; SIMPLE TRIBALISM and any other way of believing in a god cannot exist, exactly because of this reason. People who claim to believe in some god, actually believe in themselves, their special place.

And that god is not even a monotheistic god. It can't be. It's sum of fears of death, fears of pain and hoping to be rewarded above all whatever happens. It's 'I don't wanna die! I'm above nature, I have a precious soul, I refuse to die'. It's not trusting in some omnipotent divinity. It's not a belief, it's a claim, it's a wish rising from a make believe has gone so long, it is a fucking category. The whole thing is just a resentful pray; a painful wish.

Guys, there is NOTHING in human history that humans DID because they BELIEVED in some god. Everything, but everything that has been DONE has a REAL LIFE FUNCTION behind it, because humans believe in themselves above all and nothing else. The very reason they imagined gods an deities is this. This is how our cognitive process evolved and also why it actually doesn't allow some genuine belief in god. Otherwise, we couldn't have survived. Because whatever happens, human will act, consciously or unconsciously according to what functions for him. Rest is politics, literature, fantasy to carry this along time.


Infact, I am going to go further and claim that it's actually impossible to believe in a creator and that actually noone does.

Because god is also a still born concept, because the moment a hominid developed the ability to think and speak;describe any experience he had stepping out that reality he experienced it; voice what's in his mind about a possible creator, imagined stories of it, rather than just feel, love, fear, live and die with it, the idea of god died there at that moment. Because he alienated and seperated himself from that supposed omnipotent nature of that idea of supreme being and its supposed existence. He existed outside of it. He developed the consciousness regarding to his own existence apart from the nature. Process of intelligence. The kind of self awareness and consciousness only one animal on the planet that we know evolved to possess. The cognitive process we developed makes the idea of god impossible. Yes, I said impossible.

If any of you can imagine a god outside the presented category, please come forward explain and then I'll reconsider that thinking/claiming that god cannot exist is dishonest. However, categories of human narrative doesn't change, because we are just simple animals with simple fixed needs and we don't have any need or use for another category of a god, that's why we invented it this way in the first place . Because there isn't one, there can't be and hence the fantasy needed to be maintained.


Even if one day we manage to colonise the galaxy, we will always be a bunch of apes that wants to feel safe sitting around a fire nestling to each other. Take that up to the space, bring it down to a cave, it doesn't matter, because it doesn't change. Can't. If it does, we'd go extinct. 










"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp