The great and all powerful religion thread!
- Thread starter cookiecutter
- Start date
This is the internet. If we got pissed off every time someone worded something poorly or gave a slightly incorrect definition for a word, we'd never get anywhere.
And V's usage is correct, imo, because we're not writing thesis papers, we're having an informal discussion on teh interwebs, and so the modern usage of the word will suffice.
And V's usage is correct, imo, because we're not writing thesis papers, we're having an informal discussion on teh interwebs, and so the modern usage of the word will suffice.
TheInsane
Member
The thing is if we look up the word the modern definition isnt anything other than "the denial of god(s) or dieties". That is the modern definition.
Prove me wrong!
Prove me wrong!
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
TheInsane
Member
In most cases thats true as in regards to an afterlife and such but not in all aspects. In occultism there are quite a few atheistic groups or "groups within groups" that are atheistic but they still believe in ritual magic for example. Thats something that they wouldnt believe in if they were true to your definition of the word atheist.
I wrote "the modern definition" because You and V kept taling about modern usage and such. Of course the word atheist has meant the the same since it was being used the first times. Its one of those words that has kept its meaning unlike very dynamic labels such as "christian", "heretic", "magician" or other terms related to religion.
Athiesm is the denial of god(s) and nothing more just as theism is the belief in god(s) and nothing more. Just because one is a theist doesnt mean he or she has to accept "all sub-tenets (of religion) intrinsically".
Einherjar86
Active Member
I just saw "Zeitgeist" last night!@!@!@! I thought it was great! I'm sure a lot of folks her have already seen it.
The religious portion of the video was excellent. It takes some liberties later on. For instance, the whole thing about the North American Union isn't entirely true. It was never signed, and it isn't as terrible as people are making it out to be.
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
and you missed my point... people who believe in totally DIFFERENT relgions than yours use the same exact justification as you and yet you arrive at totally different conclusions. thus you need more than just the bare claim of "oh it feels right and makes me feel all squishy and warm inside" otherwise there is no reason to take it even remotely seriously. now do you honestly think it is even remotely moral to condemn the majority of the human race to eternal hell for not believing in something for which there is no reason nor any evidence to do so and when every other religion uses the exact same excuse for their beliefs? its not merely 'not-rational' its NONSENSE.
think of it this way... if a doctor proposed the hypothesis that AIDS was caused by pink invisible unicorns floating in our bloodstream and the scientific community asked him "well what is your evidence for this" and his answer was "oh well i just have faith, it feels right". would anyone take him seriously? OF COURSE NOT. yet why is it when people say shit like "my god is real and if you dont believe in him you are going to go hell and i know this because it just feels right, etc." why should anyone take them seriously?
1. I'm an atheist, I thought I made that clear.
2. Those "completely different conclusions" are 90% the same, differing only in details.
3. No one would take him seriously because he can be proven wrong.
TheInsane
Member
The problem we have is really a philosophical one. Now most people, at least in Sweden, would agree that science has a bigger portion of truth to it than religion. I would agree with that because science is dynamic and does not have core beliefs that cannot be changed. It also tests things in a way religion does not. If we look at Christianity the importance is to have faith even though one is tested. One should always keep the core and believe to be happy and to be saved.
Now the problem we have is that we really cant prove anything beyond all doubt. We can always doubt everything we say much like Descartes did. He however was seriously flawed in most of his conclusions but thats another story. The thing is that whatever we say and however we say it people can doubt it with a "if".
Now I believe the world to be maya --> illusion. Not that it doesnt exist at all but what it isnt what it seems to be. That is things are not solid but rather dynamic forms of "energy" that appear solid. This is also what sub-atomic physics say. But what if this world does not really exists objectively at all. Lets say we do live in a computer program like The Matrix. Then that stone or that cow cant be objectively real so that we can touch it (as we experience it). Maybe its only in our or maybe just my head. And if the truth of all is beyond understanding one could easily doubt what oneself is as well.
What I want to say is that even though religion probabl came up as a way to explain the unexplained however far we come with science, however much we think we understand the world there will always be doubpt and there will always be religion that tries to preach its core tennets to be true.
Now the problem we have is that we really cant prove anything beyond all doubt. We can always doubt everything we say much like Descartes did. He however was seriously flawed in most of his conclusions but thats another story. The thing is that whatever we say and however we say it people can doubt it with a "if".
Now I believe the world to be maya --> illusion. Not that it doesnt exist at all but what it isnt what it seems to be. That is things are not solid but rather dynamic forms of "energy" that appear solid. This is also what sub-atomic physics say. But what if this world does not really exists objectively at all. Lets say we do live in a computer program like The Matrix. Then that stone or that cow cant be objectively real so that we can touch it (as we experience it). Maybe its only in our or maybe just my head. And if the truth of all is beyond understanding one could easily doubt what oneself is as well.
What I want to say is that even though religion probabl came up as a way to explain the unexplained however far we come with science, however much we think we understand the world there will always be doubpt and there will always be religion that tries to preach its core tennets to be true.
Winter.
Member
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
I agree with the above also.
TheInsane: is this the kind of stuff they teach you in Swedish univerisities...? wtf? What if this world isn't real? That takes more faith to believe than Christianity, and it's possibly even more irrational somehow.
TheInsane: is this the kind of stuff they teach you in Swedish univerisities...? wtf? What if this world isn't real? That takes more faith to believe than Christianity, and it's possibly even more irrational somehow.
Winter.
Member
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
1. I was unaware.
2. No they aren't. Hinduism is vastly different than Christianity or Islam or Mormonism or whatever other religious groups may utilize the "I have faith so screw evidence" cop-out. There are some vast differences between these religions. If the differences were miniscule then why do the members of these religions fight so passionately against other views they consider false if they are basically all the same? Obviously they are not small differences to them.
3. Yes that's right... it was simply an example. This however can be true of most people's beliefs who say "I have faith, etc." They can often be proven wrong yet it doesn't phase their Faith-Forcefield.
Winter.
Member
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
Winter.
Member
Good, apart from the fact it is starting to heat up. No more winter for another year
I shall maybe be on MSN later!
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
Good, apart from the fact it is starting to heat up. No more winter for another year
I shall maybe be on MSN later!
alright maybe i'll see you later then
