maybe i should just start thinking of myself as an agnostic atheist or atheistic agnostic and give up this battle no matter what i am, my tendencies are highly atheistic.
to answer as broadly as possible.. i find the notion of god humorous. and detrimental on a global scale. lol
Agnostic atheism would be appropriate that's essentially where I stand, or a little closer to truth I would be a tooth fairy agnostic Urban Dictionary 1. tooth fairy agnostic a person who believes that the existence of god is as likely as the existence of the tooth fairy I can't prove or disprove god but the likelyhood that he does exist is so small that i am a tooth fairy agnostic.
"God" is definitely a daunting person to accept.. however, have you tried to erase a preconceived notion of a common know, religious god, and focus on what YOU believe to have happened for us to enjoy this wonderful thing called life? I realise god can be seen as this rather impossible being but please consider this.. Is life itself not an amazing concept in itself? Imagine for one second a rock had a brain, but no sign of "life". Would he not find the concept of life rather absurd? I mean how do you even explain life to it (assume it had ears).. My point is use reason, but it doesnt hurt to accept that some things the brain just cant comprehend. Also, I'm curious what you mean by detrimental on a global scale? One Love to all
ive entertained pretty much every concept of god that there is to entertain.. and the only ones that dont seem completely absurd to me are the ones that really shouldn't be defined as god at all as far as im concerned.
I know where your coming from. It's funny how many people will bring up semantics just to describe some unimaginable being. I like to stick with the idea of creator just to get the god concept across.
I thought this song may add to the discussion. If you choose to listen, please also read the lyrics. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh-M9c4PDZA]YouTube - Right in Two by Tool w/ lyrics[/ame] If you do choose to listen, please post your interpretation.
whats even more ridiculous is when people group them together based off of non-beliefs an atheist does not claim god exist, thats all it is to me
The whole debate is so ridiculous. One who rejects "God" rejects the notions of God he has considered. One who accepts "God" accepts the notion of God that he has come up with. The truth, what could rightly be called God if you so choose, is the source of all of these concepts
yeah.. this seems to be where TheJourney's skepticism and open-mindedness come to an abrupt halt. i got nothing against you Journey, i commend you for thinking the way you do because you think far more critically than the majority. but there's some fundamental hypocrisy in a lot of what you say and if you don't intend it to be there, you need to word your sentences better.
It doesnt have to always be a debate though.. it is possible to bounce ideas of creation off one another to further your concept of creation. To me, a debate requires arguments over facts and truths. That is what normally happens, however we all know there are no known facts and truths to this argument, only what you have learned to grasp as reality. I do agree with your last statement, which is why I always like to ask people of their belief. It's interesting to here new ideas and spins to the equation, and they can always make you realise that when speaking about god, MANY things are possible. As I said earlier though, I like to consider god as the creator for concept purposes, So the we are all god concept would not represent a god to me, but possibley a shared consciousness. Like I said, that is my belief. If you disagree, please explain why.
describe this source to me, what is it a source for, how does it operate, or is it unknowable? For me yes we have a source or "soul" but its made up of thousand of tiny robots, its a machine called the brain that is the source, feel free to call it god, allah, thor, whatever makes no difference. There is no supernatural, and think about that term, ideas in our head that people put faith in are somehow super or superior to the natural, I think not! Name one supernatural claim that can be tested and probed without it falling to pieces, you can't and that is why we have disbelief, it just isn't probable and all the social and cultural baggage that comes with spiritual people is a drain on our society as a whole, we need more anti theists in the world who will stand up and call religion and spiritual dogmas what they are POISON.
Atheism: a belief in the constancy and supremeness of nature. Theism: a belief in the intervening, supernatural god.
Interesting argument... I ask you, is life not supernatural in itself though? It's not as if we can just create a life.. Sure we can clone, but that requires a living organism. Yes we can reproduce, but that requires 2 living organisms. So I ask you, where did we begin? If the brain is your source, what created that source? Like I've said before, religions have certainly done some terrible things to society, but not all. Take buddhism. This religion has created a lot of enlightened thinkers. Now without religions that allow open thinking, I guarantee you this world would be very different, including the way we think today. Let's not forget that religion also allowed us to have certain unalienable rights constitutionally. I know you want to argue that we don't really get to exercise these rights, but consider who is in power right now.. Religion is not what motivates these leaders, but money, greed and power. My point being, I don't think religions should take the blame. People have certain intentions and not everyone will agree with them.. but the world goes around, regardless
why does it have to be a "who"? i'm inclined to think it's a "what?" not to mention, nothing is supernatural. if it IS, it's natural.
Politics and freedom are another topic altogether I am sure we will have at some point! The source for the brain, evolution. To give life a supernatural label because we don't fully understand the mechanisms in the first instances of life is simply an argument from ignorance (not talkin crap so no hard feelings). The source of everything looks like the Higgs Boson.
Can I not argue the same for a creator then? Just because we don't have all the "facts", doesn't make it wrong. This mechanism, what do YOU believe it to be? I realise life doesn't seem supernatural, but imagine the first human being.. I wonder how he felt? I am not familiar with Higgs Boson. Can you explain?
Thinking about my first human thought, I came up with a question. If you believe we evolved from monkeys, why do you think some would stay apes, and some would turn human? Seems illogical to me.. what's your take on this?