Grrr, my follow-up post was eaten and I don't have the energy to type it again. Normally posts don't get lost, but I was hit by a forum error and loss of my ISP simultaneously. :angry: :angry: :angry:
My next thread is on the way.
Printable View
Grrr, my follow-up post was eaten and I don't have the energy to type it again. Normally posts don't get lost, but I was hit by a forum error and loss of my ISP simultaneously. :angry: :angry: :angry:
My next thread is on the way.
I don't mind what you believe in, as long as your beliefs do not have an adverse effect on my lifestyle. I may think you are deluded, but that is my right and doesn't affect you at all.Quote:
Originally posted by Spider_dude@18 August 2003 - 15:22
god made himself, quite simply when you are an all powerful infallible being you will understand.
in·fal·li·ble
Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
Roman Catholic Church. Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals
not everything in this world cn be explained. faith is one of these things. some say faith is just a safety net to stop people going insane, either way people should be allowed to believe in what they want without fear of prejudice or persecution.
if people want to believe in god then let them but please don't mock our beliefs.
thanks
p.s i'll agree that there are some fucked up things about the church but to suggest that all priests are child molestors is completely absurd, and quite frankly utter bullshit.
But the 'Roman Catholic Church. Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals' ?
Get real. It has changed it's mind so many times it makes your head spin, so they can't all have been right.
And if I wish to mock your beliefs, I will do so, I don't believe in them so threats of eternal damnation mean nothing to me, my mockery only affects you if you are unsure of your belief in the first place. Equally you are free to mock my beliefs, but if you do, watch out for the boogie man.
Agnosticism takes no stance on the existence of gods. It is essentially saying "I do not know whether gods exist or not." It's about knowledge, whereas (a)theism is about belief. They are not mutually exclusive.Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes
An agnostic is one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god. So he accepts no God, be reserves the right to change is mind as new information is revealed.
So basically, "weak atheism" could also be called "agnostic atheism" - not believing in the existence of gods without claiming to have absolute knowledge on the matter
"Strong atheism" would then be "gnostic atheism" - claiming to know that gods don't exist
"Strong/gnostic theism" - claiming to know that gods do exist
And finally, "weak/agnostic theism" - believing that gods exist, but acknowledging the possibility that they may not
After writing this, I noticed that atheism.about.com has an article that makes the same categorization... Maybe I should've just quoted it. :P
taken from www.dictionary.com when checking up correct spelling of infallible.Quote:
in·fal·li·ble
Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
Roman Catholic Church. Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals
god didn't just make man, he made everything round us, if you think, it took him 6 days which in my opinion anything created in 6 days is gonna have certain flaws in the OS. this is what church(beta testing) is all about. making our lifes better. thank you and goodnight.
p.s. the bit about living without persecution was because for the most recent past the catholic church has been an easy target, when people get upset should you mock the jews/hindus/blacks, anti-sematic feeling and racism all fall into the same categorie as catholic-bashing, and are all wrong yet people feel its ok, its their right to say i'm off to the chinky. people have feelings.
thanks for listening/reading.
Agnosticism takes no stance on the existence of gods. It is essentially saying "I do not know whether gods exist or not." It's about knowledge, whereas (a)theism is about belief. They are not mutually exclusive.Quote:
Originally posted by Petri+19 August 2003 - 01:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Petri @ 19 August 2003 - 01:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
An agnostic is one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god. So he accepts no God, be reserves the right to change is mind as new information is revealed.
So basically, "weak atheism" could also be called "agnostic atheism" - not believing in the existence of gods without claiming to have absolute knowledge on the matter
"Strong atheism" would then be "gnostic atheism" - claiming to know that gods don't exist
"Strong/gnostic theism" - claiming to know that gods do exist
And finally, "weak/agnostic theism" - believing that gods exist, but acknowledging the possibility that they may not
[/b][/quote]
I like the 4 sub-divisions
1. I absolutely believe in a God
2. I'm not sure anymore
3. I don't think so, but maybe
4. Definitely no God
As you can see 1 and 4 are absolute and driven by faith
2&4 are people seeking answers and I would tend to clump them together under 1 category, as partials do not mix with absolutes.
If you insist on the 4 categories above, I would be a 3. Drunk at a party, I think 2's and 3's would have the best discussions, as they are both listening and seeking answers, not embedded in a truth they cannot know.
Here is my quandry. Looking at organized religions, I reject them without difficulty as manmade. Then I observe nature and see 1,000,000 army ants act as a single creature. It is amazing, awe inspiring. It looks planned, how it could have arisen spontaneously hurts my head to ponder. This is just 1 of thousands of examples which seem to demonstrate "planning".
But to credit a God as creating it all, it seems I would have to create something more complex than our universe in order to explain it. Makes no sense to imagine that something more complex than the universe came about from a vacuum, in order to explain our universe.
Yes, I know, God has always existed, he needs no creation. That makes no sense to me, either. I think it is a distortion of the concept of time, but at this point, I cannot explain further.
fixed typos
My last post (prior to this one) was not anti-catholic... it was at most anti-priest. <_<Quote:
Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - separate posts
I assume that Catholic bashing is considered acceptable here....
...titey's last comment was distinctly anti-catholic.
:D I did not make any reference to catholics in general.
Very illuminating! Now I have a question; is God an atheist or a theist?
I expect God believes in his own existence ... doesn' he? :huh:
What you said, Barbie. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by barbarossa@19 August 2003 - 11:12
I expect God believes in his own existence ... doesn' he? :huh:
As someone, or possibly more than one person, has said in other threads. There is a big difference between belief and knowledge.
My belief in God requires no external validation. Enough things have happened in my life to convince me that "there are more thing in heaven and earth Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy". I have had too many experiences that I cannot accept within my understanding of the physical world.
I am absolutely convinced that when man dies he, or at least his essential being (soul if you will) does not cease to exist. It merely moves to a different type of existence. I am absolutely convinced that the universe did not just pop into existence and that there has to be something which created it. Something which belongs outside of the rules of space, time, science etc.
I chose to understand this, based on my own experiences and studies, as their being a God. I also believe that there is some sort of "after-life". People often use emotive terms in an attempt to demean this. For example the big invisible man in the sky, or the comparisons to the tooth fairy Having heard it all before it no longer angers me.
I have no idea what God is. I have little understanding of the internal combustion engine, so to assume I would be able to understand and explain the Creator of the Universe is a bit optimistic. Neither do I understand what this after-life will consist of. But I very much look forward to the adventure.
I fully support everyone's right to view the Universe as they see fit and expect them to afford me the same courtesy. Like the chap said as long as the beliefs of others do not adversely affect my right to live that's ok. Believe in the Giant Turtle Great A'Tuin if you wish.