|
God
Aug 12, 2006 3:07:06 GMT -4
Post by lunatic on Aug 12, 2006 3:07:06 GMT -4
In Thailand they have women of the second kind, they are actually men wearing ladies clothing.
Do Atheist of the second kind were knickers too?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
God
Aug 14, 2006 10:48:46 GMT -4
Post by Jason on Aug 14, 2006 10:48:46 GMT -4
Uh, what?
|
|
|
God
Oct 31, 2006 1:30:43 GMT -4
Post by Bill Thompson on Oct 31, 2006 1:30:43 GMT -4
Yikes! I love this forum. I would hate to be banned.
Anyway, I wanted to jot down this thought before I forget it in my old age.
I was browsing a skeptics website. They seem to pride themselves on being sure that atheism is the way to go. That doesn't make sense to me. If there is something that is infinitely greater than ourselves, then even a skeptic has no more authority that it is not real as a plumber or a handyman. And it doesn't matter how many errors any religious text has and it does not matter how many cults can be debunked.
|
|
|
God
Oct 31, 2006 10:03:10 GMT -4
Post by echnaton on Oct 31, 2006 10:03:10 GMT -4
I have noticed that the more strident atheist are really fundamentalist that pretty much do the same thing as the more pushy Christian fundamentalist. People are just people whether they believe in God or not. We are prone to believe things without reason and to hold to group norms by our desire to associate with others.
Learning how to question and test one beliefs is a hard thing to learn. The ability to differentiate between beliefs and objective knowledge, something that is required to question in the first place, is even harder. Or at least it is for many, for some it comes more easily.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
God
Oct 31, 2006 11:39:34 GMT -4
Post by Jason on Oct 31, 2006 11:39:34 GMT -4
I believe there are really very few people who can be accurately described as atheists. There are a lot of people who don't believe any organized religion or traditional view of God has any validity, but if you talk to them they tend to take a more agnostic approach to things like the existence of God (or a Goddess/life force/karmic fate) or an afterlife.
|
|
|
God
Nov 1, 2006 20:30:25 GMT -4
Post by gillianren on Nov 1, 2006 20:30:25 GMT -4
We had a "devout agnostic" (he believes there is a God of some kind, but he himself can't ever define it, not being God himself) at our Samhain ritual last night. He participated even though he doesn't really hold to our faith, because he sees it as no better or worse than any other belief structure. That's the kind of attitude I like. (Samhain honours the dead, and then we went around the Circle with our prayers for the New Year--which it is, for Pagans.)
|
|
|
God
Nov 1, 2006 22:47:09 GMT -4
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 1, 2006 22:47:09 GMT -4
We had a good discussion this weekend about The Nature of God. To me, without God there would be Nothing. Existance itself would be impossible.
So the bottom line is that athiesm to me nutty.
I am not promoting any religion by saying that.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
God
Nov 2, 2006 12:15:14 GMT -4
Post by Jason on Nov 2, 2006 12:15:14 GMT -4
We had a "devout agnostic" (he believes there is a God of some kind, but he himself can't ever define it, not being God himself) at our Samhain ritual last night. He participated even though he doesn't really hold to our faith, because he sees it as no better or worse than any other belief structure. That's the kind of attitude I like. (Samhain honours the dead, and then we went around the Circle with our prayers for the New Year--which it is, for Pagans.) Interesting. So which do you think is more important? Belief in what is being celebrated, or participation in the ritual? That is, was he doing his own soul any good by participating in something he didn't really believe in?
|
|
|
God
Nov 3, 2006 7:21:51 GMT -4
Post by gillianren on Nov 3, 2006 7:21:51 GMT -4
I don't believe he was doing any harm, at any rate. Any more so than if he were invited to attend a wedding in a church. He doesn't disbelieve in the Goddess, he just doesn't particularly believe in her, either. He was sharing a joyous--and solemn--moment with us. He certainly could have chosen not to; we didn't twist his arm. I don't think his participation in the ritual was particularly important, and I don't think he really believes in what we were celebrating, though again, he doesn't disbelieve it, either. But he respected our beliefs, and, as a guest in my house, elected to share in them. I don't consider him at all devoted to Her, because he isn't.
Then again, my roommate has opened the door for Elijah, sung in a church choir, and a couple of other things--and she was raised Pagan. It's part of her learning experience that helped her know that Paganism was right for her. And besides, we don't have restrictions against who can participate and who can't. We don't require that you believe in order to share our ritual; we just require that you don't conciously desecrate it.
|
|
|
God
Nov 3, 2006 8:06:00 GMT -4
Post by RAF on Nov 3, 2006 8:06:00 GMT -4
We had a good discussion this weekend about The Nature of God. To me, without God there would be Nothing. Existance itself would be impossible. I have no problem with you believing anything you want. I do have a problem with your characterization of others as "nutty" simply because they require evidence before belief. ...but what do I know, I'm "nutty".
|
|
|
God
Nov 3, 2006 12:23:16 GMT -4
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 3, 2006 12:23:16 GMT -4
I've become deeply agnostic since I started reading here. Hoax believer nonsense has really pointed out to me how many goofy things we all just accept as part of our personal belief systems. I've come to question my religious, philisophical and political beliefs, and have tried to replace them with well-informed knowledge.
To me, it seems just as "nutty" to disbelieve utterly in the existence of some kind of divine entity as it does to believe fully in any one of the various mutually contradictory versions. I "believe" the Big Bang theory, but so far nobody has ponied up with a good explanation for what set it off other than "let there be light."
I guess I could be described as "agnostic zen buddhist with pagan tendencies," which won't fit on the "religious preference" line of a dogtag very well. I like the mental focus and personal psychology of buddhism, but I can't get into the reincarnation thing. Seems like another crutch. I like candles and incense, and they appeal to my "belief" in gravity and thermodynamics.
I've mentioned before that I'm joining the National Guard. It's looking pretty good for me to get a job as "Chaplain's Assistant." I'm a lot more excited about that than I would be about an admin or human resources job. (I'm colorblind, so I have very few options.) My Agnostic approach means that I can understand the importance everyone puts on their own spirituality, without thinking that any one faith or another is "wrong" or "right." It may be challenging, but that's part of what agnosticism is about - throwing off the simple comforts of blind belief.
The Chaplain's Assistant job is essentially armed secretary that can "set the table", plus interface with the troops on a more face-to-face and off-the-record basis than the Chaplain. That means that I get to serve the troops, and help the Chaplain serve God. It also means I might get deployed, unlike the admin job.
That's scary.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
God
Nov 3, 2006 12:49:51 GMT -4
Post by Jason on Nov 3, 2006 12:49:51 GMT -4
I generally agree with your views, gillanren. Visitors to LDS chapels certainly do no harm to themselves or us in being there, and they are allowed to participate in the services as much as they are willing to, including partaking of the sacrament or even (during a testamony meeting) taking the podium to express their religious views. They probably will not benefit as much from the service if it's not something they themselves believe, but we have no problem with them participating.
I have sat in on services in other churches as well, and felt just fine about doing so.
|
|
|
God
Nov 19, 2006 16:28:10 GMT -4
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 19, 2006 16:28:10 GMT -4
Atheists seem to be instigators of the same logical fallacies that they accuse their detractors of. For instance, they use observational selection when they fail to admit that Darwin was not an atheist while they hold him up as their model. Also they fail to recognize that debunking any religion is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel and yet they are self-congratulatory in promoting this as a great achievement. Also they contradict themselves. Here is an example: "Nature did not select anything. Everything came about through a process of natural selection". P.S. I can think of a couple of more logical fallacies. - Argument from Authority: "I am a (some professional or scientific profession) and I have special knowledge that suggests there is no God".
- Non Sequitur: "Every religion does not stand up to scientific scrutiny and so there is no God"
It seems more likely to me that many atheist are more interested in promoting themselves as some pseudo-god-like entity that others should follow and respect rather than really doing themselves or others any good.
|
|
|
God
Nov 25, 2006 22:22:07 GMT -4
Post by ouloncollouphid on Nov 25, 2006 22:22:07 GMT -4
Atheists seem to be instigators of the same logical fallacies that they accuse their detractors of. For instance, they use observational selection when they fail to admit that Darwin was not an atheist while they hold him up as their model. Also they fail to recognize that debunking any religion is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel and yet they are self-congratulatory in promoting this as a great achievement. Also they contradict themselves. Here is an example: "Nature did not select anything. Everything came about through a process of natural selection". P.S. I can think of a couple of more logical fallacies. - Argument from Authority: "I am a (some professional or scientific profession) and I have special knowledge that suggests there is no God".
- Non Sequitur: "Every religion does not stand up to scientific scrutiny and so there is no God"
It seems more likely to me that many atheist are more interested in promoting themselves as some pseudo-god-like entity that others should follow and respect rather than really doing themselves or others any good. This is a bizarre little rant. Since when is Darwin the Atheist's 'model'? Who has 'failed to admit' Darwin was not an atheist? Who are these 'self-congratulatory' debunkers of religions? As for the rest: 'Straw Man'.
|
|
|
God
Nov 27, 2006 10:53:29 GMT -4
Post by echnaton on Nov 27, 2006 10:53:29 GMT -4
It seems more likely to me that many atheist are more interested in promoting themselves as some pseudo-god-like entity that others should follow and respect rather than really doing themselves or others any good.
One of my atheist friends is among the most thoughtful and gentle people that I know. I have also known some very belligerent religious people. There are fundamentalist among both the religious and atheist. Setting ones self up as a demi-god is a human trait that is not limited to atheist or believers in religion.
|
|