P
PadawanBater
Guest
Yep, I believe that's the correct term for people with our view. No man-made god exists, but there could be something out there somewhere.
undertheice
Well-Known Member
i may be wrong, but it seems to me that there is a very definite line you must cross to travel from agnosticism to atheism. you must cease to believe that the existence of any of the gods of man is possible. however you reach that conclusion, it is that denial that defines atheism. if there is even a hint of doubt or a glimmer of belief that some sentient creature or self-aware energy may have had a hand in the creation of the cosmos, then you are still an agnostic. any true skeptic will never cross that line, it is a leap of faith that demands one abandon any suspicion that such a thing may be possible.
OregonMeds
Well-Known Member
No actually many atheists do believe in some remote possibility there could be some kind of god and are agnostic.
An athiest has to only have no doubt that "all religions on earth" are bullshit and fight them, but doesn't require complete certainty there is no god at all. The only difference between agnostic and atheist really is the fighting religion part.
The danger to societies is in organized religion where people can be manipulated in large numbers, not so much individual personal beliefs. I'd never try to argue a personal belief in a god away only a belief in an ancient demanding controlling judgmental killing machine type god or anything affiliated with that god including the watered down new testament version of that same god.
Anyone claiming to have answers 100% is lying or uninformed, we aren't saying we have the answers for sure, what we are saying is your answers are just dead wrong if you believe in the prepackaged pop tart gods of a cristian/muslim/jew/etc where someone has claimed to know anything about a god and especially when he's described as so flawed and really pathetic, childish, needy and petty. Just reading any of these texts seriously and questioning them at all will show you they are impossible. A god would have to be really quite intelligent to create all this and those gods are simply not up to snuff as described they have the mental capabilities of maybe a 12 year old really insecure boy at best. That is not the kind of being that could have created all this if you cling to the hope there may be some being.
If you just want the heaven idea I think you have to believe in a childish needy god. An athiest or agnostic probably has a more logical approach like maybe there is a god that started all this but that doesn't mean he gives one shit about you or that you would ever see him. Any being as intelligent as a creater of this universe couldn't stand to be around us ever. They would not create a heaven for you unless it was just to keep the annoying stupid humans away from him in the afterlife. At best we would be like pets or like ants to a being of that level. I use the term god loosely, my remote possibility would be just a more evolved being than us not really a "god" certainly nothing to be worshiped even if way more evolved than us or ever to be feared. Would you sit and judge the actions of an ant versus another? Would you squash one ant if he had sex before marriage or if it didn't worship you as it's master? Will you create even an ant cemetary to bury them individually let alone an ant heaven and hell if you could?
Logic should prevail when thinking about things not ancient stories and we fight so more people will just think. Nobody will change anyones mind but maybe some of you won't brainwash your children as much as your parents brainwashed you and maybe you too will encourange more thinking for them at least or give them more freedom to choose than you had. We would all be better off today if all nations gave up the idea of the gods in old story books and just thought of each other more equally.
An athiest has to only have no doubt that "all religions on earth" are bullshit and fight them, but doesn't require complete certainty there is no god at all. The only difference between agnostic and atheist really is the fighting religion part.
The danger to societies is in organized religion where people can be manipulated in large numbers, not so much individual personal beliefs. I'd never try to argue a personal belief in a god away only a belief in an ancient demanding controlling judgmental killing machine type god or anything affiliated with that god including the watered down new testament version of that same god.
Anyone claiming to have answers 100% is lying or uninformed, we aren't saying we have the answers for sure, what we are saying is your answers are just dead wrong if you believe in the prepackaged pop tart gods of a cristian/muslim/jew/etc where someone has claimed to know anything about a god and especially when he's described as so flawed and really pathetic, childish, needy and petty. Just reading any of these texts seriously and questioning them at all will show you they are impossible. A god would have to be really quite intelligent to create all this and those gods are simply not up to snuff as described they have the mental capabilities of maybe a 12 year old really insecure boy at best. That is not the kind of being that could have created all this if you cling to the hope there may be some being.
If you just want the heaven idea I think you have to believe in a childish needy god. An athiest or agnostic probably has a more logical approach like maybe there is a god that started all this but that doesn't mean he gives one shit about you or that you would ever see him. Any being as intelligent as a creater of this universe couldn't stand to be around us ever. They would not create a heaven for you unless it was just to keep the annoying stupid humans away from him in the afterlife. At best we would be like pets or like ants to a being of that level. I use the term god loosely, my remote possibility would be just a more evolved being than us not really a "god" certainly nothing to be worshiped even if way more evolved than us or ever to be feared. Would you sit and judge the actions of an ant versus another? Would you squash one ant if he had sex before marriage or if it didn't worship you as it's master? Will you create even an ant cemetary to bury them individually let alone an ant heaven and hell if you could?
Logic should prevail when thinking about things not ancient stories and we fight so more people will just think. Nobody will change anyones mind but maybe some of you won't brainwash your children as much as your parents brainwashed you and maybe you too will encourange more thinking for them at least or give them more freedom to choose than you had. We would all be better off today if all nations gave up the idea of the gods in old story books and just thought of each other more equally.
doc111
Well-Known Member
What does the existence of a god have to do with religious dogma? You are attaching biblical symbolism and perhaps ancient superstition to god's existence. Many people believe in the existence of god but don't subscribe to the biblical definition of god. It's like the creation vs. evolution argument. Why can't god have created the universe to evolve? Bringing up the bible or the koran or the torah and some of the contradictions within doesn't do anything to strengthen the atheist position IMO.
OregonMeds
Well-Known Member
You misunderstand my post if you think I do anything but attack those stupid religions. I name those things to fight them.
doc111
Well-Known Member
I guess I don't understand your point then.
You seem pretty angry about religion and think the world would be better off without it. Like most atheists you seem to be fixated on all the negative things about religion and won't aknowledge the positive things. I am not religious and agree that organized religion has a lot of negative things about it. But by being closed minded about religion you have shut the door on anything positive (something the sober community has been doing to us potheads for a long time). Religion is not all about a bunch of hateful, judgemental, hypocrites. I don't seek to change your beliefs. Either there is a god or there isn't. Nothing you or I can do to change the reality. I realize that atheists have been persecuted by religious types and religion in general but how can you rise above all that shit if you do the same thing to them? Just something to think about. 
OregonMeds
Well-Known Member
We can only rise above them by putting them down over time. We can't let superstitions continue to rule the world and if you don't understand the danger and the need to destroy them, then you are completely blind to everything going on news wise in the world.
(And most of us are because we don't get any real world news without seeking it out on the internet these days.)
(And most of us are because we don't get any real world news without seeking it out on the internet these days.)
OregonMeds
Well-Known Member
We could be headed to disaster, world war 3 if we keep what you see as mostly positive religions around and continue to say they are ok.
doc111
Well-Known Member
I'm simply pointing out that you are only seeing one side of religion. A typical problem with humanity wouldn't you agree. The inability to empathize. You are fighting a losing battle since the vast majority of the world's population believe in a god. Religion is responsible for a lot of the problems in the world. But you fail to aknowledge the positive. It's something you obviously feel strongly about and I don't seek to change your beliefs but lack of empathy and lack of respect for one another's beliefs is the real problem. The very fact that you don't see anything good that religion does is testimony to that fact.
OregonMeds
Well-Known Member
I never said there wasn't good, but there is easily just as much bad and they aren't necessary any more all people need is an education. We will be past this eventually as we evolve if we don't kill each other off first. Ensuring ultimate survival and world stability for us all is way way way more important than a little good of community get togethers that could still be done without the evil controlling religions.
doc111
Well-Known Member
You see religion as the problem but I see human nature as the problem. Even if you got rid of religion today people are still going to have plenty of other reasons to disagree. If you believe that the problems of the world would magically disappear if religion vanished overnight.......................wouldn't it be nice if it were that simple?
OregonMeds
Well-Known Member
Of course, ok, we agree on enough not to need to argue anyway. Only time will work this out you are right I said we need to evolve further too, human nature is in our way it would be just one less thing in our way. I get your point though.
Drgreenz
Well-Known Member
you know, athieism is a religion. it has its own theory of creation.(random series of events slowly evolving into our modern world)
its own common beliefs and doctrine(Originally Posted by OregonMeds: An athiest has to only have no doubt that "all religions on earth" are bullshit and fight them, but doesn't require complete certainty there is no god at all) beliefe there is no god without certainty??? sounds like alot of faith to me.
that fits the bill for a certified religion. congrats now you can all start converting too.
its own common beliefs and doctrine(Originally Posted by OregonMeds: An athiest has to only have no doubt that "all religions on earth" are bullshit and fight them, but doesn't require complete certainty there is no god at all) beliefe there is no god without certainty??? sounds like alot of faith to me.
that fits the bill for a certified religion. congrats now you can all start converting too.
OregonMeds
Well-Known Member
A religion requires a belief in a supreme being and some silly scriptures with insane writings and false answers.
Saying "I know you don't know and neither do I or anyone else" is not the same as claiming "This is how it is and lets now pray".
We have answers to some things up to a point with science, that's as far as it goes it doesn't ever claim to answer it all, we are only in real "unproven theory territory" with things like string theory. We past the old books when we learned the earth was round and older than the books say with a long history before that we can prove with physical evidence.
Saying "I know you don't know and neither do I or anyone else" is not the same as claiming "This is how it is and lets now pray".
We have answers to some things up to a point with science, that's as far as it goes it doesn't ever claim to answer it all, we are only in real "unproven theory territory" with things like string theory. We past the old books when we learned the earth was round and older than the books say with a long history before that we can prove with physical evidence.
OregonMeds
Well-Known Member
No you don't understand faith is different from physical evidence, one has proof. We have already proven they are wrong and reading them shows they are silly beyond comprehension if given any thought at all. Religion is dead, proven wrong, people just haven't realized it yet.
elduece
Active Member
Calling me out as bullshitter or you're just full of yourself, padawan?
My input was impulsively off the cuff. Maybe I should've read the question again. Today I would've said xtianity itself is no more dangerous than cup of coffee with real sugar. Or maybe I would've said this entire thread/poll is just a waste of bandwidth if I felt like saying anything because the question is incomplete like: Xtianity, safe for what?.
My post was just an observation on religiion tiself without sounding opinionated. The "great" in my statement in mind was referring to neither good, bad, stupid but only for the magnitude of it. Get over yourself
Hobbes
Well-Known Member
.
Pope Sidious The First
“He would hurt all mankind just to save his own belief” - some dying African
Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret.
The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001. It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.
Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a 'clear obstruction of justice'.
The letter, 'concerning very grave sins', was sent from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office that once presided over the Inquisition and was overseen by Ratzinger.
The letter states that the church's jurisdiction 'begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age' and lasts for 10 years.
'Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,' Ratzinger's letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.
.
If you want documentation of this article just google "Pope protects child rapists so they can rape again." Probably several hundred articles for you to bone up on the love of the Catholic church.
.
What is different about these approaches?
By those who love us to death:
"While on a trip to Africa, the pope made news by saying that condom distribution doesn’t help the HIV problem, but in fact worsens it."
By those who will send their people to their deaths.
"Thai investigators examining the impact of condom use among the military reported that new infections dropped from 12.5 percent in 1993 to 6.7 percent in 1995. The number of new HIV infections in Thailand plummeted after the introduction of a “100-percent condom use” program."
By people who speak funny:
"The European Study Group on Heterosexual Transmission of HIV followed 124 discordant couples (in which only one of the pair is infected with HIV) who consistently used condoms. Over a two-year period and roughly 15,000 sexual acts, none of the HIV-negative partners contracted the virus.
.
We don't really need any examples of the love of Islam, I'm sure we can all come up with a couple.
.
The Mormon church, after achieving main stream recognition, went after the gays with a deceitful glee, and used their political pressure to curb bar openings in Utah. They just couldn't stay to themselves and they will be worse than the fundamentalist in years to come.
.
People are sometimes dangerous, religions are made up by sometimes dangerous people but in the end, regardless of the time, we can be sure of one thing - the church will look out for the church's interests: not it's followers' interests and certainly not the peoples' well being.
They forget the One Rule: Your rights stop where the next person's nose begins.
.
Pope Sidious The First
“He would hurt all mankind just to save his own belief” - some dying African
Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret.
The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001. It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.
Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a 'clear obstruction of justice'.
The letter, 'concerning very grave sins', was sent from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office that once presided over the Inquisition and was overseen by Ratzinger.
The letter states that the church's jurisdiction 'begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age' and lasts for 10 years.
'Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,' Ratzinger's letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.
.
If you want documentation of this article just google "Pope protects child rapists so they can rape again." Probably several hundred articles for you to bone up on the love of the Catholic church.
.
What is different about these approaches?
By those who love us to death:
"While on a trip to Africa, the pope made news by saying that condom distribution doesn’t help the HIV problem, but in fact worsens it."
By those who will send their people to their deaths.
"Thai investigators examining the impact of condom use among the military reported that new infections dropped from 12.5 percent in 1993 to 6.7 percent in 1995. The number of new HIV infections in Thailand plummeted after the introduction of a “100-percent condom use” program."
By people who speak funny:
"The European Study Group on Heterosexual Transmission of HIV followed 124 discordant couples (in which only one of the pair is infected with HIV) who consistently used condoms. Over a two-year period and roughly 15,000 sexual acts, none of the HIV-negative partners contracted the virus.
.
We don't really need any examples of the love of Islam, I'm sure we can all come up with a couple.
.
The Mormon church, after achieving main stream recognition, went after the gays with a deceitful glee, and used their political pressure to curb bar openings in Utah. They just couldn't stay to themselves and they will be worse than the fundamentalist in years to come.
.
People are sometimes dangerous, religions are made up by sometimes dangerous people but in the end, regardless of the time, we can be sure of one thing - the church will look out for the church's interests: not it's followers' interests and certainly not the peoples' well being.
They forget the One Rule: Your rights stop where the next person's nose begins.
.
undertheice
Well-Known Member
isn't is odd how we can change the meaning of words just to suit our own bias. i'm sorry, but a simple perusal of webster's or any other dictionary that strikes your fancy will give you adequate definitions of both atheism and agnosticism and i think you'll find that neither of them has the slightest thing to do with fighting anything. all you are describing is your own anti-religious fanaticism or, more specifically, your hatred of the abrahamic creeds.
sure, many atheists feel the need to crusade against the inherent elitism of religion and the damage it can do to the fabric of society, but that is just a by-product of their belief system. that's all atheism really is, a belief system that denies the existence of a sentient force behind creation and the workings of the universe. an atheist that believes there may be some god, just that man has not yet been able to define that god, either does not understand the simple definition of atheism or has failed to comprehend what a god really is. the gods of mankind are self-aware creatures or forces that may or may not be subject to the laws of nature, but are most certainly responsible for creating them. atheism, like all of man's religions, is an absolute.
belief that gods either exist or do not exist is a 100% sort of thing, all else is mere skepticism. it's not about answers, but beliefs. we can never know the answer to the question of god, so the atheist makes the choice to to deny its existence.
ignorance (the atheist must believe in the ignorance of the faithful) is never destroyed by "putting down" the beliefs of the ignorant. insult or violence only strengthens the resolve of those with deep seated belief and shows the attacker to be intolerant, weakening his credibility. if there is a duty in atheism, it is to teach by example that morality is not the sole domain of religion and to educate by pointing out the obvious fallacies of religious dogma. merely railing against the real and imagined dangers of religion is counterproductive and a fatuous waste of time and energy.
claiming that religion is dangerous or that it should be abolished is just another example of the hubris of fanatical atheists. religion has been a powerful force for good throughout history as well as evil and its value cannot be entirely discounted merely because of its rather infantile nature. in times of calamity and utter despair, faith is often all that stands between a patient wait for the return of normalcy and the total breakdown of society into lawlessness. those same causes that men will go to war for can also engender acts of bravery and self-sacrifice, the same belief systems that created the inquisition and persecuted those who pushed the limits of scientific knowledge also kept learning alive during civilization's darker periods and helped to spread the benefits of that education throughout the world. that religion should die out so that man and his society can expand and evolve may be obvious, but to press for anything more than its gentle decline is even more dangerous than religion itself.
undertheice
Well-Known Member
no, you don't understand. there is no proof, no evidence that gods do not exist. though much of man's religious ignorance may be disproved, the essential question can never be answered. claiming otherwise is just so much childish hubris.