You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 02:49:09 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Elliquian Atheists  (Read 35569 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SabbyTopic starter

Elliquian Atheists
« on: May 12, 2012, 03:45:26 AM »
Edit July 27, 2012 Okay guys, the topic has gotten fairly heated at points, so I'm going to clarify something.

Quote from: MasterMischief
I am somewhat confused.  Are we discussing faith or religion?

The answer to that is this is primarily about the organized, primary religions, right now. The topics of religion in history, philosophy and personal faith are all inescapable in discussing this, so go ahead and bring them up :) but please remember that this is about, for the most part, deeply embedded organizations.

/Edit


I've shared a lot of videos on Elliquiy regarding Religion and Atheist, and most are just for comedic purposes, less about religion and more about funny altercations. A few have been deeper, but for most part I've only ever been interested in the more one-sided debates (since they tend to be more entertaining) and I realize this may have painted me as a Militant Atheist :/ I really hope not, as Militant anything is kind of aggravating, especially for something that is supposed to be about reason and logic.

So to start, I apologize for any wrong impressions I may have given any member of Elliquiy.

Second, I know this topic is like a friggen single cell and will split in half every other second if I let it, so I'd KINDLY ask that we try to keep a lid on it. The usual suspects (Stem cells, First Amendment, gay marriage) have their own places on the P&R boards, please drag them kicking and screaming to them so they don't disrupt everyone else.

Third, and I know this is like asking the sun if it could please not rise today, PLEASE BE CIVIL. As Dawkins' so elegantly put it, you have a right to be offended, but this doesn't entitle you to a lawsuit. If you disagree with something someone has said, there are better ways to express that then insults, and if you can't keep a lid on your tempers, I WILL be locking the thread and waiting for you lot to cool off, 'kay?

Fourth and last, this is NOT an anti-religion debate. This is for Rationalism (yes, I'm capitalizing that because it needs to be a real term) and if someone questions your Church or your God, what they say, teach or do, it's (I hope) because we find fault with it and want to make sense of it. It is NOT an attack, it is a question, and please do not mistake your inability to answer as being under siege. The same goes BOTH ways guys, some elements of religion are just beyond reasoning by their definition, and it's okay to point this out, but repeatedly asking someone an unanswerable question is a low tactic. We can simply acknowledge the impassable crossroad and move on, but using the oxymoron to beat on someone won't be tolerated.

With all of that out of way, who here at Elliquiy is an Atheist, and how does this effect your (and others) lives?
« Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 09:11:19 PM by Sabby »

Online Silk

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2012, 04:31:25 AM »
I'm an Athiest and it affects me as much as not being a fan of football. Only time it matters is when a fan is trying to force me to take part.

Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2012, 04:34:54 AM »
I'm tempted to make a joke about Tim Tebow forcing legislation to have 'Hail Marys' in schools...

Offline vtboy

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2012, 07:33:21 AM »
Reason urges me to declare myself an atheist. Religion, however, posits a realm neither perceptible to mortal sense nor knowable through reason.  Skeptical as I am the realm exists, by definition it cannot be ruled out by application of these instruments. Atheism can thus be grounded no less in faith than is religious devotion. I am left adrift upon a limitless sea of agnostic doubt, without polestar to guide my voyage, if voyage it be.

I do fervently hope, however, Christians got the eternal hellfire and brimstone thing wrong. 
« Last Edit: May 12, 2012, 07:46:13 AM by vtboy »

Offline MasterMischief

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #4 on: May 12, 2012, 08:26:09 AM »
I consider myself an atheist, but like any label, it largely depends upon the agreed definition.  I have had to hide my non-belief as one surrounded by vocal believers who look down upon and feel an un-ignorable need to covert anyone who has not seen the light.

Quote from: vtboy
Atheism can thus be grounded no less in faith than is religious devotion.

We often see eye to eye on matters of faith, so I may misunderstand you here.  Is disbelief in The Flying Spaghetti Monster grounded no less in faith as well?  It seems to me there is an infinite number of things we could believe that can never be proven false, yet we easily dismiss them out of hand.  Disbelief is the default position.  Does it really require faith?

I apologize if I misunderstood your statement, vtboy and also if I am pushing this thread in a direction it was not meant to take.

Offline vtboy

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #5 on: May 12, 2012, 01:10:49 PM »
I consider myself an atheist, but like any label, it largely depends upon the agreed definition.  I have had to hide my non-belief as one surrounded by vocal believers who look down upon and feel an un-ignorable need to covert anyone who has not seen the light.

We often see eye to eye on matters of faith, so I may misunderstand you here.  Is disbelief in The Flying Spaghetti Monster grounded no less in faith as well?  It seems to me there is an infinite number of things we could believe that can never be proven false, yet we easily dismiss them out of hand.  Disbelief is the default position.  Does it really require faith?

I apologize if I misunderstood your statement, vtboy and also if I am pushing this thread in a direction it was not meant to take.

No need to apologize.

Well, perhaps "faith" was not the most apt term. Perhaps "arbitrary choice" would have been better.

If the Flying Spaghetti Monster is supposed to be something of this world -- i.e., something knowable through sense and reason -- then perception and reason may be relied upon to exclude its existence. If the Flying Spaghetti Monster is part of a world which, by definition, lies beyond the reach of sense and reason, how can its existence be excluded by reason?

Making disbelief the "default position" is a rule of expedience and experience, not logic. Were truth rather than falsity the persumption, we would be forced to accept every non-falsifiable proposition, no matter how preposterous (for an extremely entertaining exploration of the consequences of belief as the default position, see the Rick Gervais movie, "The Invention of Lying"). And, to be clear, I am not in any way suggesting that because assertions about a transcendental world defy empirical falsification, they should be accepted. But, expedience does not necessarily establish truth, and I can think of no way to eliminate the possibility of an unknowable realm.

I hasten to add that, since our material world is perceptible and comprehensible, I reject any suggestion that it is any way affected by the imperceptible and unknowable.     

Offline MasterMischief

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2012, 04:00:57 PM »
Quote from: vtboy
Making disbelief the "default position" is a rule of expedience and experience, not logic.

Isn't experience empirical evidence?  Doesn't that mean it is not faith?  Or is it a matter of degree?  Going down this path, you could argue that people believe because of their own experiences and therefore not on faith.

Quote from: vtboy
But, expedience does not necessarily establish truth, and I can think of no way to eliminate the possibility of an unknowable realm.

Agreed.  But if we do not accept all of them, then we should reject all of them to at least be consistent.  Which, I think we are on the same page there.

So does it all boil down to everyone has faith in something, skeptics are just more consistent in their faith?

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #7 on: May 12, 2012, 08:31:07 PM »
     I'm somewhere between agnostic and pagan (with a small "p" because it's more philosophical than practice, and I don't commit to any particular regime).  I have a few sympathies with Buddhism that I'm not sure I completely understand.  Maybe I just trance to their rituals better.  Maybe it's just something I do to feel exotic and Asian, leave aside that I've studied the theory academically a tad.  I'm quite sure I don't understand all the Buddhist mysteries -- and I have an odd hunch that Buddhist congregations take more pride in not knowing everything -- but then it isn't always the point to 'know what's going on' in many religions.  Now with all that, not sure if I'm what quite what you're looking for really, but... 

    Am soooo sick of "God bless you" every time I turn around.  I actually find even the Pagan "Blessed Be" to just sound a little too much like a Christian service for my taste.  (Which came first, historically?  I have no idea.)  In the South, some Christians are in the habit of answering the conventional "how are you?" with "I'm blessed!" -- or closing a conversation with, "Have a Blessed day!"  (I feel like capitalizing for the "oh so special" tone it seems to gush out in.)  These tend to make me pause, gulp, and think: "Oh.  And what else am I going to be in for around this person."  And often enough, they notice I'm uncomfortable -- and now they're uncomfortable, too.  Lovely. 

     I just don't want the stress of the expectations I associate with all the dogma.  Philosophical expectations for which principles I will buy, lifestyle expectations for what I'll do with my body and who I'll have sex or merely touch with and how, political expectations for who I should vote for and which policies I should support. 

    It's also a choice of style/atmospherics and having experience that not buying in, makes you less likely to receive social support.  When I was young and pressed to attend them, Christian services generally struck me as either 1) too gloomy (the Methodists), 2) too much fire and brimstone/ damnation all around (the Pentacostal sermons), 3) too demanding of an emotional commitment (the more committed evangelists among both groups -- although the Pentacostals as a group built more of this into their routines), or 4) just formulaic to the point of seeming eccentric (the Presbyterians, I think, but only attended that once or twice -- and Methodists to a lesser degree).   
« Last Edit: May 12, 2012, 08:33:23 PM by kylie »

Offline KennethNoisewater

  • Deverified
  • Enchanted
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2012
  • Location: The Underbelly of the City
  • Gender: Male
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #8 on: May 12, 2012, 09:54:51 PM »
     I'm somewhere between agnostic and pagan (with a small "p" because it's more philosophical than practice, and I don't commit to any particular regime).  I have a few sympathies with Buddhism that I'm not sure I completely understand.  Maybe I just trance to their rituals better.  Maybe it's just something I do to feel exotic and Asian, leave aside that I've studied the theory academically a tad.  I'm quite sure I don't understand all the Buddhist mysteries -- and I have an odd hunch that Buddhist congregations take more pride in not knowing everything -- but then it isn't always the point to 'know what's going on' in many religions.  Now with all that, not sure if I'm what quite what you're looking for really, but... 

    Am soooo sick of "God bless you" every time I turn around.  I actually find even the Pagan "Blessed Be" to just sound a little too much like a Christian service for my taste.  (Which came first, historically?  I have no idea.)  In the South, some Christians are in the habit of answering the conventional "how are you?" with "I'm blessed!" -- or closing a conversation with, "Have a Blessed day!"  (I feel like capitalizing for the "oh so special" tone it seems to gush out in.)  These tend to make me pause, gulp, and think: "Oh.  And what else am I going to be in for around this person."  And often enough, they notice I'm uncomfortable -- and now they're uncomfortable, too.  Lovely. 

     I just don't want the stress of the expectations I associate with all the dogma.  Philosophical expectations for which principles I will buy, lifestyle expectations for what I'll do with my body and who I'll have sex or merely touch with and how, political expectations for who I should vote for and which policies I should support. 

    It's also a choice of style/atmospherics and having experience that not buying in, makes you less likely to receive social support.  When I was young and pressed to attend them, Christian services generally struck me as either 1) too gloomy (the Methodists), 2) too much fire and brimstone/ damnation all around (the Pentacostal sermons), 3) too demanding of an emotional commitment (the more committed evangelists among both groups -- although the Pentacostals as a group built more of this into their routines), or 4) just formulaic to the point of seeming eccentric (the Presbyterians, I think, but only attended that once or twice -- and Methodists to a lesser degree).

You couldn't have said it any better than in paragraph 2.  The statements of "I'm Blessed," "have a blessed day," and "god bless you" drive me absolutely insane.  I use to feel awkward when people said that to me when I moved down south.  But as I witness more and more hypocrisy and general bigotry from christian's I have pretty much been able to have no problem with telling someone not to tell me that or say that to me.  If they cant respect my boundaries of not wanting "god" or "blessings" being put upon me by random strangers, then I have gotten to a point where I cant even offer general politeness and find myself compelled to throw it back in their face.

Offline AndyZ

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #9 on: May 13, 2012, 01:16:27 AM »
I'm personally religious.  I realize not everyone is, and I don't expect to be able to convince others.  When it comes to matters of science, I'm as skeptical as anyone else is about religion.  I could go into detail and example, but it'd doubtlessly derail the thread.

Rather than go into some of the touchier subjects, I'll relate the issue of the special theory of relativity.  I don't believe that c is the speed limit of the universe or that time slows down the faster you go, I haven't for some time now, and have questioned teachers upon it since at least Freshman year in high school.  If you've read Einstein's book, the entire special theorem is an attempt to reconcile two theories which would otherwise cancel each other out, and until we had the neutrinos break c recently, people just thought I was nuts.

Of course, this seems to contradict my claim of religion, which confuses many people.  If asked why I believe, I'd probably give a few reasons, some of which don't fully follow rationality.

First, due to personal health issues which I don't really want to get into with random strangers, if I didn't believe in a higher power and some purpose to my existence, I would have killed myself many years ago.  If existence truly has no meaning, then it doesn't matter that I spend every hour of every day in perpetual agony, and even if the logical response would be suicide, it doesn't matter in an existence without purpose.

Second, too much of my life follows a demonstrable pattern.  Whether blessed or lucky, there are too many things that simply become improbable if they are not directed by forces beyond our control.

Third, while the Big Bang is entirely possible (and it's possible that things were created with outward momentum and created at some point after when the Big Bang is believed to have taken place), it requires some sort of cause.  Entropy shows that the universe must have an end, and therefore cannot be cyclical in nature, and therefore must have a beginning.  Even if you go back to the very beginning of the universe, there must be some sort of constant which can perpetuate matter.

I've heard the theory of all of the universe falling back in on itself, forming the circumstances for the Big Bang to reoccur and create a new universe all over again repeatedly.  It seems less likely than the concept of a sentient, eternal universal force, in my perspective.

This very quickly gets into questions about the very nature of the universe, though, for which we have no concrete answers.  Must something exist?  Does it make more sense that there would be something than nothing?  It quickly gets to semantics and meaningless sophism.

Next would be the question, of all possible faiths, why pick one?  The simple answer is that I open my heart, rationalize and philosophize, and consider the various options. 

One thing which seems clear to me: in a world which is governed by a higher power and a guided destiny, the faith of a loving and caring deity would be easy to find among the available options.  If we were created by Mistress Zuta of the Ramaras, and after all the Ramaras were dead, Mistress Zuta turned her face from Earth and accepted no more children, it wouldn't really matter what we did.

Some things never fully made sense to me.  Why would Jesus have to come to Earth and be crucified in order to redeem the sins of humanity?  I should note that I consider a better definition of the word "sin" to be "imperfection."  I don't think it's so much that we're all sinful beings in a term which denotes evil, so much as that we're all imperfect, a term which seems often synonymous with human.

I think I rambled enough for one post, though I'll continue if people want me to.

Offline vtboy

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #10 on: May 13, 2012, 10:07:58 AM »
Isn't experience empirical evidence?  Doesn't that mean it is not faith?  Or is it a matter of degree?  Going down this path, you could argue that people believe because of their own experiences and therefore not on faith.

I suppose I should have asked this earlier but in your previous post, by "disbelief," were you referring to the withholding of belief in a proposition, or to acceptance of a proposition's converse? If you meant the former, I agree that the "default position" is a rule born of experience ("I have profited more frequently by withholding belief in a thing unproved or incapable of proof than I have by its acceptance"). If, however, by "disbelief," you meant acceptance of the proposition's converse, I think we are on shaky ground.

There is a difference that is more than semantic between the statements, "I don't believe in the existence of god" and "I believe god does not exist" (or its more confident variant, "god does not exist"). The former posits nothing, expresses no conviction on the matter, and is consistent with the "default position" of withholding belief in a thing not proved. The latter, in contrast, propounds a fact and affirmatively expresses conviction in its truth, notwithstanding the absence of proof. Since the subject of the statement is not capable of empirical verification or falsification, the statement's premise must necessarily be that that which is not empirically testable is untrue. The premise is self-violating fiat.

Again, I am not suggesting we should accept the truth of statements which cannot be tested, much less that we should use them as navigational aids in the world we know. I am only saying that we should acknowledge that the truth of certain propositions is unknowable.

Quote
Agreed.  But if we do not accept all of them, then we should reject all of them to at least be consistent.  Which, I think we are on the same page there.

So does it all boil down to everyone has faith in something, skeptics are just more consistent in their faith?

Not to go on flailing semantic horses but if, by "reject," you mean withhold belief (e.g., "I do not believe god exists"), I agree we should reject all propositions about realms which lie beyond sense and reason. I don't view this conclusion as so much a product of faith, as an acknowledgment of the boundaries of what is knowable. I also agree that those who are skeptical about everything are more consistent, at least as a matter of practice if not of faith, than are those who choose to believe in god but not in pixies.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 12:35:36 PM by vtboy »

Offline Sasquatch421

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #11 on: May 13, 2012, 10:58:00 AM »
I'm undecided, but really only practice Shamanism...

On one hand I do believe that there could be someone upstairs, but with all the different religions down here which one would be right? Take a look just at the Christians... They've split how many different ways with at least 3 versions of the same book. Then again I think the thing I really never liked about it was that if you don't believe you are automatically damned no matter how good a person you are.

Going on this what happened with say the American Indians, Mayans or any other race that lived in the new world before the first missionaries came over? They never had the chance to learn or believe, but by christian teachings they are automatically going to hell.

In a crazy notion what if all the gods that the different religions believe in are actually the same person? Or say that we are just creations of an alien race as some ultimate bioweapon? That would definitely throw a wrench in some beliefs wouldn't it?

Going back to me, I'll just let my good deeds speak for me. If I'm damned for not picking a religion, so be it I'll deal with it when I'm gone...

Offline Hemingway

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #12 on: May 13, 2012, 12:38:47 PM »
I'm an atheist, and I suspect that I never could be anything else. I was never given any form of religious instruction growing up. Today I just know too much about how our minds work, about science, and about how little we actually know, to even consider the supposed evidence presented by certain religious people. Basically, I have neither the need for any god or gods in my world view ( that is to say that nothing appears to me fundamentally impossible to explain without presupposing a god ), and nothing I've ever seen has ever led me to suspect that a god or gods may exist. In fact, even if I did have some sort of profound spiritual experience, I'd probably have come up with a long list of rational explanations before even considering the possibility of divine intervention.

Rather than go into some of the touchier subjects, I'll relate the issue of the special theory of relativity.  I don't believe that c is the speed limit of the universe or that time slows down the faster you go, I haven't for some time now, and have questioned teachers upon it since at least Freshman year in high school.  If you've read Einstein's book, the entire special theorem is an attempt to reconcile two theories which would otherwise cancel each other out, and until we had the neutrinos break c recently, people just thought I was nuts.

I'd hate to see this sort of thing get a free pass. I'd like to point out first that when you make a claim like "neutrinos break c", it's a good idea to have sources. Good, reliable sources. Because we're not talking about some sort of irrelevant scientific theory here. Relativity isn't something you deal with personally on a day-to-day basis, but you still benefit from its discovery. The example that's generally used is that of GPS satellites, which rely on relativity to function properly and accurately.

So, as I see it, declaring that you don't believe in relativity is just as bad as saying you don't believe in evolution, or you think abortions should be illegal, or what have you. It's pointless, and it damages respect for science, in essence.

Third, while the Big Bang is entirely possible (and it's possible that things were created with outward momentum and created at some point after when the Big Bang is believed to have taken place), it requires some sort of cause.  Entropy shows that the universe must have an end, and therefore cannot be cyclical in nature, and therefore must have a beginning.  Even if you go back to the very beginning of the universe, there must be some sort of constant which can perpetuate matter.

Read Lawrence M. Krauss' A Universe From Nothing. Or look up the lectures he's given on Youtube. Basically, do research, in all things, before making up your mind. I don't care if people want to believe for personal reasons, so long as they don't try to impose their views and their morality on others without their consent, or at a very early age. But I care about science and truth.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #13 on: May 13, 2012, 12:46:51 PM »
I'd hate to see this sort of thing get a free pass. I'd like to point out first that when you make a claim like "neutrinos break c", it's a good idea to have sources. Good, reliable sources. Because we're not talking about some sort of irrelevant scientific theory here. Relativity isn't something you deal with personally on a day-to-day basis, but you still benefit from its discovery. The example that's generally used is that of GPS satellites, which rely on relativity to function properly and accurately.

This would have to be referring to the recent CERN experiment - and they think they tracked that down to a measurement error   (http://public.web.cern.ch/press/pressreleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html)

Offline Hemingway

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #14 on: May 13, 2012, 12:48:56 PM »
This would have to be referring to the recent CERN experiment - and they think they tracked that down to a measurement error   (http://public.web.cern.ch/press/pressreleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html)

That was my point, Oniya. :P

Offline AndyZ

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #15 on: May 13, 2012, 03:02:36 PM »
This would have to be referring to the recent CERN experiment - and they think they tracked that down to a measurement error   (http://public.web.cern.ch/press/pressreleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html)

Thank you, Oniya.  I hadn't heard that they disproved this; good to know.

Hemingway, thanks for the name Lawrence M. Krauss.  Since you don't consider Albert Einstein to be a reliable source on the theory of relativity, who would you recommend reading up on for it?

Offline Hemingway

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #16 on: May 13, 2012, 07:04:16 PM »
Thank you, Oniya.  I hadn't heard that they disproved this; good to know.

Hemingway, thanks for the name Lawrence M. Krauss.  Since you don't consider Albert Einstein to be a reliable source on the theory of relativity, who would you recommend reading up on for it?

If you'd refrain from putting words in my mouth, I'd appreciate that. As to what to read, I suggest a google search for evidence of relativity, or experiments in support of relativity. What you'll find is that while advances are continuously made in science, special relativity is that it's consistent in its predictions, and supported by mountains of evidence. If you still want to question it, based on nothing but your gut feeling, I can't stop you, but that's not science, and that doesn't make it so.

Incidentally, and not directly related to what Andy said, I did a google search for evidence against relativity, and to absolutely nobody's surprise, the top results are from such sites as Conservapedia. Which is not, in case you were wondering, a respected scientific journal.

Offline MasterMischief

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #17 on: May 15, 2012, 08:50:25 PM »
Quote from: vtboy
I suppose I should have asked this earlier but in your previous post, by "disbelief," were you referring to the withholding of belief in a proposition, or to acceptance of a proposition's converse?

Quite right.  Withholding of belief in a proposition.  There is also the matter of what is at stake.  If you tell me you have a dollar in your pocket, I am willing to go along with that.  If you tell me that dollar told you to kill someone, I am disinclined to believe you.

Offline Hemingway

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #18 on: May 16, 2012, 02:43:52 AM »
Quite right.  Withholding of belief in a proposition.  There is also the matter of what is at stake.  If you tell me you have a dollar in your pocket, I am willing to go along with that.  If you tell me that dollar told you to kill someone, I am disinclined to believe you.

There are two quotes which I think are appropriate here. The first one is of uncertain origin, but popularized by Carl Sagan, and goes: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

The second, by Christopher Hitchens, goes: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

I think the latter one in particular gets across the difference between disbelieving in a god for reasons so and so, and not believing for lack of evidence.

Offline vtboy

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #19 on: May 16, 2012, 09:00:42 AM »
Quite right.  Withholding of belief in a proposition.  There is also the matter of what is at stake.  If you tell me you have a dollar in your pocket, I am willing to go along with that.  If you tell me that dollar told you to kill someone, I am disinclined to believe you.
As I imagine you have had experience with dollars and none has spoken to you, your disbelief is well- grounded in empiricism. I have never taken instructions from dollars either, but do know some Republicans who seem to.

Offline MercyfulFate

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #20 on: May 17, 2012, 01:49:20 PM »
I was raised Catholic, and am kind of an agnostic now, although I hate labels.

I feel, personally, that it's silly to believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islam's version of god based on the writings of primitive man.

However, I also feel it's arrogant to say no heaven/higher being could possibly exist.

So I just say, I don't know, and leave it at that.

Offline Silverfyre

  • Mr. Fyre, or if you're slightly more daring, oh Silver my Silver.
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2010
  • Location: Affixed to a Star
  • Gender: Male
  • Once more, with gusto.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #21 on: May 17, 2012, 01:58:17 PM »
Let's not label such beliefs as "silly", please.

Offline MercyfulFate

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #22 on: May 17, 2012, 02:03:31 PM »
Let's not label such beliefs as "silly", please.

"I feel that it's silly" not "It is silly", two different things. Plus ignoring the calling of staunch atheism "arrogant" is kind of one sided, yeah?

I wrote it as absolutely non-confrontational as I could, so back off please. I don't like being told how to speak.

Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #23 on: May 17, 2012, 02:33:18 PM »
However, I also feel it's arrogant to say no heaven/higher being could possibly exist.

To steal some of the Atheist Experience's wonderful wording, "You make a claim, and you haven't substantiated it, there for, you do not meet the burden of proof, and I cannot accept your claim"

Offline MercyfulFate

Re: Elliquian Atheists
« Reply #24 on: May 17, 2012, 02:35:28 PM »
To steal some of the Atheist Experience's wonderful wording, "You make a claim, and you haven't substantiated it, there for, you do not meet the burden of proof, and I cannot accept your claim"

Well, yes. However if we're talking about the abstract idea of a "god" and not one said to exist by a religion, then no one is claiming it exists or doesn't exist.

It's like saying Mars could never have possibly held life. Possible, but the arrogance inherent in saying "I know for sure" irks me.