Philosophy from insane sources

Agnosticism isn't 'not knowing if there's a god', it's 'believing it's impossible to know if there's a God'. There's a major difference.

And no, I'm not Agnostic.

@Tomu:

My personal take is I think God is possible, but I don't think any earthly religion passes the rational tests needed to explain every facet of the world.

Ergo, even if God exists, he's unknowable unless he decides to make himself known.

edited 13th Aug '11 2:37:45 PM by Midgetsnowman

^^Touche, that's the Even More Exacting definition, and you are correct. But I was talking about midget.

edited 13th Aug '11 2:38:00 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Neither does anything else. Ever. (explain every facet of the world, that is. ninja edits, etc)

edited 13th Aug '11 2:38:44 PM by TheEarthSheep

And so the proper answer is Solipsism. Goodnight everybody!

No, the real issue about atheism v agnosticism v whatever is about consistency. It takes a certain amount of evidence for us to believe things about the world. The question is whether we require the same amount of evidence for issues pertaining to the existence of God, the nature of spirituality, etc, as we do for things about the world, like that the Earth is Flat.

edited 13th Aug '11 2:39:28 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

[[Agnosticism isn't 'not knowing if there's a god', it's 'believing it's impossible to know if there's a God'. There's a major difference. ]]

Thats still a weak form of Atheism.

edit: QQ, this is only time I'm bloody posting on this forum while drunk, too many wrong words and bad spelling :<

edited 13th Aug '11 2:39:19 PM by whaleofyournightmare

Yet.

edited 13th Aug '11 2:39:33 PM by Midgetsnowman

Wiki Article on Agnosticism. Weak agnosticism states that the existence of deities is currently unknown, but not necessarily impossible to find out.

Also, I will point this out because it has been implicit, not explicit, so far:

A person having an irrational belief regarding religion does not mean they are necessarily irrational in other matters. The majority of Christians are very rational people, except when it comes to the domain of their religion, and even then, a fair amount of them are rational on certain topics (for instance, a number of Christians believe things about Jesus that contradict dogma or the bible). Likewise, religion is not the only thing people are irrational about. A lot of people are irrational in the face of politics.

Now, it's easy to distill this into "So, if someone disagrees with you, they're irrational?" No, of course not. They either:

A.) Do not have all of the information

B.) Have different values or

C.) Have made an error of judgment.

This, of course, assumes that I am not the person in category A or category C. But until it is demonstrated that I am in category A or category C, I presume that I am correct-as, indeed, all people do.

No, the real issue about atheism v agnosticism v whatever is about consistency. It takes a certain amount of evidence for us to believe things about the world. The question is whether we require the same amount of evidence for issues pertaining to the existence of God, the nature of spirituality, etc, as we do for things about the world, like that the Earth is Flat.

GAH! You need to write your whole post, and then press the send button. Adding a huge amount of extra content via edit is like, my biggest pet peeve.

Either way, though, most religious people have proof (at least, enough for themselves) that their religion is true.

Fact is, some people feel that the reason their beliefs aren't universally accepted is that people are stupid and won't listen to your well-reasoned arguments. It's an easy thing to believe, and sure as hell makes it easier to convince yourself of something, like for example Atheism. This is a dangerous attitude. There are two legitimate sides to most debates, including this one. If either side was clearly better than the other, believe it or not most people would side with that. The debate would end. But that's not how things work. It's hard to admit, but I have to say that there is a case for Communism/Socialism, despite being a staunch Capitalist myself.

The thing we, as people, need to do, is pick a side, and if you believe strongly enough in it, you can debate it to try to show other people that your side is better. I try to 'convert' some of my friends who believe in Socialism every now and again. But the key is to be able to respect each other afterwards, and recognize that other people's beliefs are just as legitimate as yours, even if you can't understand them or think that they are irrational.

EDIT DUE TO NINJA: Why does one side have to be in error?

Sorry if this comes off as preachy, but I feel strongly about this.

edited 13th Aug '11 2:56:27 PM by TheEarthSheep

The argument is that the amount of proof that they require to believe in their religion is remarkably lower, comparatively speaking, than the amount of proof they require to believe anything else. That's the irrationality, basically.

EDIT: Why does one side have to be in error? Barring the whole "different values" thing (that is, working towards different goals etc), it's because there's such a thing as Objective Truth, and you can't have two contradictory objective truths.

EDITING AGAIN: I don't respect irrational beliefs. It's important to call BS when you see BS. The fact that someone is able to believe something does not make it rational. If some of the things people believed were not religions, would you really hold them in the same context of "Oh we must respect their beliefs?" Why is it that religion is unquestionable, but people who believe the earth is flat are questionable?

edited 13th Aug '11 2:58:55 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

I don't try to convert people.

I may think some of my friends are stupid for being religious, yes. But for the most part as long as they dont try to convert me, I don't rightly give a damn. I just get riled when they try to push their religious dogma onto the world as though its fair to do so.

if you believe in god, great. But I don't believe I'm mistaken for not doing so, nor do I wish to watch you attempt to force your religion alone into prominence via monuments or preaching in the media.

One side has to be in error, because logically speaking, two opposite opinions cannot both be factually correct. Religion doesnt really factor in for subjective truth. Nor does atheism

edited 13th Aug '11 2:57:53 PM by Midgetsnowman

That's not always true, and in my experience is in fact almost never true.

Like I said, most people have enough proof for themselves.

It's your call, but I personally believe debate within a society is ideal. There's a reason Greek and Roman culture thrived, they had forums where anyone (technically anyone in the upper class, but hey, it wasn't a perfect society) could get up and start debating their opinions. It's sad to me that this doesn't happen so often in today's world, especially between people. A lot of people think it's weird that I'm always trying to argue something, which I think is too bad.

Point is: Respectful debate drives both sides' intellect forward, pretty much always.

RESPONSE TO NINJA EDIT: People who believe the world is flat are universally idiots. Show me anyone with a Doctorate who believes that, and I'll lend it credence. I personally know several Christians with Doctorates, and so I give their beliefs respect.

edited 13th Aug '11 3:04:52 PM by TheEarthSheep

It is, by definition, that two contradictory statements cannot both simultaneously be true in the same context.

Either the sky is blue, or the sky is not blue. It is by definition impossible for both of those statements to be true. That's what contradiction means.

^ Or one of us is colorblind.

Rerailing: I do think that a major religion has both the right and the obligation to sever ties with sects that have gone completely out of control (like how the Mormons no longer acknowledge Warren Jeffs.) Granted, this may sometimes result in the ostracism of a group that's doing things I agree with, but I think such groups might actually be better off separated from a more hateful majority.

edited 13th Aug '11 3:04:30 PM by feotakahari

agreed. But its my experience with most of my religious friends they dont want respectful debate. they want to couch condescending appeals to emotion into respectful sounding statements and get offended if I cal them on it.

edited 13th Aug '11 3:04:58 PM by Midgetsnowman

How is that any more on-topic than the rest of this?

But you're right, this is off-topic. Should we make a new thread?

edited 13th Aug '11 3:07:43 PM by TheEarthSheep

Or, usually, not talk about it at all. Which would be fine with me-as long as a person's irrational beliefs aren't dangerous, I don't much care that they have them, ESPECIALLY if their irrational beliefs aren't indicative of their beliefs on other subjects (for instance, as I said before, most Christians don't act irrationally on most other matters).

It's more when people who believe something try and force that belief on others, such as through imposing their religion through the government, that I tend to get annoyed.

To be honest, I don't know that there really is a topic. The thread should probably be locked, and all conversation moved to an identical thread with an explicit topic. No idea WTF that would be, however.

edited 13th Aug '11 3:08:18 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Yep, It's become a bashing /counterbashing religion thread. I don't know why I thought it wouldn't.

Locking.

edited 13th Aug '11 3:31:06 PM by Madrugada