Here's the deal; I've come to the conclusion that most people's belief in their religion is an accident of birth. Not only in today's world, but from our knowledge of past history. That's been true whether the king claimed themselves a god or they worshipped some image or something they see in nature. Religion is religion whether it's called king, sun god, christian, jew, buddhist, hindu or anything else. Cultures and populations with religion have not shown to be an advantage when it came to the treatment of other humans or living things, no matter how much they devoted their lives to it. In some instances, religion made it worse. Just because an individual believed in the sun god or the king god with all his being, that doesn't prove he was right; it was a mistake IMHO. Nor are all the people of this planet today that believe in the many religions we have in existence. Gods are a manmade concepts for which many believe. That's their priviledge and human right. I also have the right not to accept any of those manmade religions or gods as I would not believe my wife to be a queen. It just doesn't do anything for me. I try to live my life in a moral and ethical way to the best of my abilities. I don't need religion to tell me what is good or bad. What I believe today is the result of my genes and my environment; it just differs with the majority on this planet, and that's okay by me.
I think that the a lot of believers are just like you say. They are born in a religion - they question nothing - and call it faith or worst knowledge.
I also think that the majority of athiests are not people who don't believe in God but are pissed at him.
Outside of these groups there are the enlightened faithful - on both sides.
Here is the part of your post I found most interesting in relation to my claim:
" I also have the right not to accept any of those manmade religions or gods."
This act of not accepting is as active as the act of accepting on the side of the faithful. I think both count as a sort of acceptence - or faith based on emperical beliefs.
TTF
In conclusion, agnostics do not know, but atheists reject religion, as they think it is ***** but they embrace philosophical beliefs and logic.
Seems close enough - if you define Atheists as the Anti-theist sort.
I'd like to see three kinds defined:
Athiests - All those without belief in gods
Agnostics - Those who don't know
Anti-theists - Those who believe there are no gods
yea, but the definitions are so close i find it hard to know which one i believe in. also, anti-theist makes it sound as if you are against theists.
I think the Agnostics on this board would disagree wiht the definition of Agnosticism Eorl.
I think they would say that Agnosticism is that you cannot know.
TTF
Eorl
Sorry but there is a 4th "dimension"
Those, like me, who think that the idea of god doesn't mean anything.
I'm beginning to think there could be as many ideas about "NOT GOD" as there are about "GOD"
although it makes us sound awfully clever to argue about this, i just want to ask what is the difference between the belief in no gods, nd the belief that thee are no gods? and also, does it actually matter?
It doesn't make you sound awfully clever to me.It makes you sound like you have nothing interesting to do.The debate so far is the same as the one that's been going on for thousands of years and not only without resolution but without the slightest prospect of any.
If,as you suggested earlier,you are destined for eternal damnation (as if anybody would go to the trouble of providing such a useless thing) it might be a good idea to read up on what it's like.The best description I know is the one in James Joyce's Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man.I would say that it exceeds the daftest mother's wildest fantasy and will cause one of two things-
1-A life of ascetic denial in sackcloth and ashes at the very least for what is 80 years compared to eternity.Or-
2-Uncontrollable laughter.A cure in other words.
Actually,good as he was,Mr Joyce missed out purgatory which is a place you only go to for,say 200,000 years,as penitence for minor misdemenours such as picking your nose,and where apprentice torturers seek to impress The Devil with novel skills enough to gain promotion.
thethinkfactory wrote:
I also think that the majority of athiests are not people who don't believe in God but are pissed at him.
TTF
This is not true, since those people are theists and infidels, even if they call themselves atheists.
Atheists do not believe in any gods...by pure definition.
Also, how do you back up this claim that the majority of atheists are theists? I would be very surprised if it were true. The notion of a god/gods is a very bizarre one that makes no sense at all...I see my position as a very common one. But then I don't live in a country chock-full of hardcore theists. But have a look around on A2K. There are plenty of atheists here who do not seem "pissed at god" to me.
More pissed at humans for having their heads up in that dark place that has no logic or fact. Faith is wonderful - to a point - depending on what you have faith about.
Yeah CI, that's more like it. Pissed at christians who can't even listen closely enough to understand your point of view because they are too scared to think that way!
There is a viewpoint which says that believing provides an evolutionary advantage.I think that those who subscribe to that would put it the other way round and say that non-believing is an evolutionary disadvantage.As all cultures up to now have had institutionalised belief systems there is no way to prove the proposition either way.When a scientific atheistic culture has lasted for a long time it may well prove that belief systems are a disadvantage.It is up to us to last longer than any other culture and we,on here,will not be there to see it if it happens.Arguing about it at this early stage is as pointless as arguing about which way a tossed coin will come down prior to the toss-up.
I am inclined to the view that we will make it but I am by no means convinced.That is an optimistic lean.
As religion,and nation,are war concepts the argument boils down to whether war is an evolutionary strengthening activity which some people believe it to be.
I think theists as a tribe would (long term) be at a disadvantage as they will continue to make decisions based on false or misleading information.
Earl:-
You are possibly right.But it has to be proved.The theistics do have unity of a sort but we have division and a money competition with all against all.It doesn't always matter if "false or misleading information" is being used.
Some horses are at an advantage on soft going and some on firm going.One can't say which type of ground is objectively better.The horse dislikes both and would rather not race at all.
Time will tell just who has fell and who's been left behind.We can't say.We can only guess and then bet on our choice.
Ya dig?
Yep totally understand and agree.
If there is one thing us atheists definately lack it is unity.
Earl:-
And don't forget that whichever choice we make somebody is going to benefit and you can't believe anything any of them say because of that.It's all self-serving advertising of which we are mere cash fodder in a battle between the elites of a multiplicity of cults.I'm sticking with the dafty goofers off.That neither drains the spirit or the pocket.
agreed. but spendius, if you say were only arguing on this cos we have nothing better to do, then why are you doing it? you must be sad also.
