I see exactly what you're saying there. And wisdom may come from knowledge and experience. But that doesn't have to be its limits.
Just want to clear up something on how science works. It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, so evidence of god not existing will never be found. Atheists can relax on that topic. If someone makes an outrageous claim that something exists, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, not the skeptic. For instance, I can say there is an invisible leprechaun in my kitchen. Nobody can could possibly provide "proof" the invisible leprechaun isn't there but to convince anyone that it exists, I must prove it to be true. Personally, I think people invented religion to explain the natural world around them before scientific thinking existed. Science hasn't explained everything around us (yet) but that's no reason to continue with irrational explanations for things we don't understand. Until science has an answer to an unsolved question, I wish we were more comfortable with saying "I DON'T KNOW".
This is all true and I agree, but religion isn't just about the existence of a higher power; it's also about the afterlife, and what might occur therein. Because you cannot know what happens after you die unless you are dead, it's simply impossible to say, factually, that you go to heaven, or that you just cease to be. In that respect as well as god, atheism and religion both claim to know, and I think it's silly for either side to tightly cling to their beliefs because they're just that, beliefs. The fact that both sides are so adamant about these things when there's no proof either way? Hmm, it makes everything else they say go in one ear and out the other, because not only do I know that they don't know, deep down they know that they don't know either. And yet they're still so... well, fierce, about it. You don't know until you know, and to pretend you do is just... well, it's foolish, isn't it? Whether it's about god, or death, or even which papers are best to use when rolling. I dunno. PS: I'm very anti organized religion, as you can probably tell, but I think spirituality is fine, as long as you aren't claiming to actually KNOW anything as fact.
To me, the first problem people make in these kinds of debates is a failure to define God. Because people could be arguing over it and have compeltely different ideas about what they're talking about. Also, just consider this. How would you expect to have proof of 'God' delivered to you if only you can discover it for yourself? Also, say there was something that was by it's very own nature, immaterial. How would you prove it through material means? I believe that we humans have a perception than the orange exists. But to the universe, does that orange exist? What I'm saying is, we are viewing everything from the standpoint of a human. But true reality doesn't do that. So when you say, this orange exists, it only exists to us. Because we take that little sphere and separate it from everything else, and say this brightly covered ball is an orange. We pick out and identify objects in the same way we can pick out and identify holes in a net. The holes are actually no thing, but we can almost look at them as an object.
Actually no, Religion IS just about believing in and worshiping a higher power, that is literally the definition of the word...not all religions believe in an afterlife... re·li·gion riˈlijən/ noun noun: religion 1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. Also Agnostics can be Atheist and Theist (albeit less likely), me personally am an agnostic atheist, i don't hold a belief in god or gods but i don't rule out the possibility that there is god or gods Not all atheist are gnostic atheist (the ones that say THERE IS NO GOD!) on this board 99% of the atheist are agnostic atheist, not one of them is making a claim about god not existing, just that they do not currently believe in god And not all theists are gnostic, thats where that "faith" thing comes into play, there is no proof for it but they believe anyway because of faith...my own Grandmother always said she doesn't know if God is actually real but she modeled her life after it and she loves it regardless...thats faith, but she still made no claim to real or not
So in other words, you can't prove to me the orange doesn't exist. Like I said earlier, words are labels to describe. If you have a shampoo bottle and you peel off the label, the shampoo bottle is still there. If you take an orange and peel of the label of orange, it's still there, existing. I didn't ask for proof as to why something that exists shouldn't have a label on it to describe it's existence, I asked for proof for your claim that the orange doesn't exist. That brightly covered ball you referred to is the orange.. and the word orange is only our English word for it. Granted quite a few other languages use the word orange or a variation of it, some don't. If you're a Dane, that orange is an appelsin. To the Danish, appelsin doesn't mean orange.. it means appelsin. If you speak Spanish, that orange is a naranja. Naranja doesn't mean orange to them, it means naranja. Naranja means orange to us though.. Our complex language is one of the greatest gifts provided to us by nature and evolution, use it to describe the nature of reality rather than ignore it. I know I am doomed to eternal damnation at the South Pole for not believing, but he's just going to have to get in line to torture my heathen soul..
The orange itself exists. I'm not saying you're holding nothing. I'm saying that our concept of it doesn't exist. If the orange were not able to be taken apart from the tree would we call that tree an orange, or that orange a tree? Our minds can name anything, it doesn't mean it exists separate from anything else. I don't really know what the point of this part of the debate is anymore.
I don't know about all that.. But I do see the spirit of Santa every year, You can see it in the eyes of the children, in the faces of all the people that love Christmas, In all the folks including myself that choose to give presents to folks that are less fortunate. spreading what allot of folks call the spirit of Christmas. So in that sense id say Santa is real, whether or not this person exist in a manner we can see and touch doesn't really matter. As most folks celebrate what he stands for yearly. And in my opinion those who celebrate this occasion and say that he doesn't exist are fooling themselves.
Are you serious? Are you seriously serious? Am I seriously reading this as a seriously serious comment? If atheism is a religion then autism is too.
People can celebrate the occasion and embrace the act of selfless giving. They aren't necessarily fooling themselves just because they don't put a fictional name on it. As you said, Santa is real in spirit. The spirit of giving is real, but it isn't necessary for everyone to name it Santa. Just my opinion.
there are many things that are not necessary, we should embrace the things that bring happiness to people, Not squash them..
You tell me what the point is, you started it.. Was the point to just spew some random theory of yours? Or were you looking to actually debate what you brought to the table? Cause if you were, you of all people should be able to see the point.. That's assuming everyone assimilates Santa into their Christmas. Just like how you don't have to believe in Jesus Christ to celebrate Christmas, you don't have to believe in Santa or his spirit.. As a human being, you can take part in the spirit of giving to other human beings. It's even better when you do it more year round rather than waiting for a holiday or special occasion to do it.. Santa might stand for Christmas, but Christmas doesn't have to stand for Santa unless you want it to. When you're out and about, giving to those less fortunate, enjoying the time of the year and good tidings it brings.. how do you react when you come across someone who doesn't believe in Santa, yet still partaking? Are you really going to look at them as a fool or are you going to be happy that even though they don't believe, they're still taking part in the giving? Would you prefer they don't even join in if they don't believe? Cause if so, you'd probably drastically reduce the amount of people out there who help others in the spirit of the holiday. I have yet to tell someone they can't believe what they want to believe.. I've said it a few times, it's their personal belief, they can keep it. If my non-belief squashes their belief, than I would consider them weak willed. Not only that, but everyone has their own idea of happiness. If you went around and spent your time trying to make everyone you come into contact with happy, you'd run yourself ragged and still fail.. One thing that makes one person happy might upset another person. I could be happy about Christmas time with people helping other people even when I don't believe in something mystical behind it.. and you would have squashed that like an ant for saying I'd be fooling myself..
No. Actually no. Religious mean you follow a order of form. The religious persecuted jesus and hung him