37 replies to this topic

[ultimentra]

Overdose that was some pretty nice intellectual skills. When people ask me what I believe I just ask them if they want to stick around for a few hours and they usually say no. I tend to contradict myself alot, thats why. Even though disagree with your philosophy a little bit, I have still have to say well done on your powers of persuasion.

[Overdose]

Someone locked this thread without stating why and I can't see a reason why either. I've unlocked it.

[Alias]

Zero, on 30 Jan 2009, 0:52, said:

The Wandering Jew, on 28 Jan 2009, 4:30, said:

The word atheist became (overtime) a negative word. Just like the words knave and wench. An atheist is not supposed to be evil, ya know.

I agree.
Also, atheist does not neceseraly mean you do not believe in a god.

If I remember right:
A=No/Without
Theist=Comes from theism which is roughly religion/belief
Religion=Believe of a god, and is usually a system of worship of the said god by many people

Absolutely incorrect. The word Atheist is based on the Greek "atheos", which in turn means "without god" (a + theos)

Quote

atheism
/aythi-iz’m/
• noun the belief that God does not exist.
— DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective.
— ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

http://www.askoxford...atheism?view=uk

Zero, on 30 Jan 2009, 0:52, said:

I, for one, have nothing against religion-believe it or not. Actually, I do believe in god sometimes (although sometimes I don't, it can be dependent on the moment and my mood). The thing is, the reason why so many of my threads might seem anti-religious is curiosity (ex: Is Religion Necessary I actually came up with that after seeing Religilous and was curious). What I DO denounce is the worship of the said god (he does things that are pricky at times, although it seems it DOES do some things that are pretty nice). Also, should be noted, I do not believe in the normal version of god, I believe in a more...scientific one.

Even if you believe in a god "sometimes", that is still a type of theism so therefore you are not an atheist nor an agnostic.

I do think you should so some more research into this topic so you can formulate a more 'complete' belief system.

[Zero]

Alias, on 1 Feb 2009, 7:32, said:

Zero, on 30 Jan 2009, 0:52, said:

The Wandering Jew, on 28 Jan 2009, 4:30, said:

The word atheist became (overtime) a negative word. Just like the words knave and wench. An atheist is not supposed to be evil, ya know.

I agree.
Also, atheist does not neceseraly mean you do not believe in a god.

If I remember right:
A=No/Without
Theist=Comes from theism which is roughly religion/belief
Religion=Believe of a god, and is usually a system of worship of the said god by many people

Absolutely incorrect. The word Atheist is based on the Greek "atheos", which in turn means "without god" (a + theos)

Quote

atheism
/aythi-iz’m/
• noun the belief that God does not exist.
— DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective.
— ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

http://www.askoxford...atheism?view=uk

Zero, on 30 Jan 2009, 0:52, said:

I, for one, have nothing against religion-believe it or not. Actually, I do believe in god sometimes (although sometimes I don't, it can be dependent on the moment and my mood). The thing is, the reason why so many of my threads might seem anti-religious is curiosity (ex: Is Religion Necessary I actually came up with that after seeing Religilous and was curious). What I DO denounce is the worship of the said god (he does things that are pricky at times, although it seems it DOES do some things that are pretty nice). Also, should be noted, I do not believe in the normal version of god, I believe in a more...scientific one.

Even if you believe in a god "sometimes", that is still a type of theism so therefore you are not an atheist nor an agnostic.

I do think you should so some more research into this topic so you can formulate a more 'complete' belief system.

My bads...however, I have very few time on the PC (even less on the Internet) and I was going on some etymology I had picked up on (I happen to know one and the roots happened to come up).

However, belief of a god implies that it is a supreme being. Like I said, I believe in what I see as a more scientific version of a god, in other words, one that does not have the power to do EVERYTHING. I do retract my last statement, say what you will, I deserve it.

Expanding on my point of my own beliefs, the type of "god" I believe in is:
-Not "all-powerful"
-As selfish and cruel as any human when it wants to be and as nice as my puppy when it wishes to
-Definitely not all knowing (at least not by its own standards)
-Finally, like stated above, no Supreme Being. There is no intelligent Monad, as nothing can COME originally from a sentient being (or a living thing period), after all, they too need to made of something and have an origin, do they not?

In case it's still not clear, god is not god, but more of a VERY evolved being with power we cannot understand (like Luther said in Superman Returns). Oh, and last but not least, yes, it is Sci-Fi-ish.

-Now, if you'll excuse me, my 10 minutes are up.

Edited by Zero, 02 February 2009 - 01:30.

[WNxMastrefubu]

Zero, on 1 Feb 2009, 20:23, said:

Alias, on 1 Feb 2009, 7:32, said:

Zero, on 30 Jan 2009, 0:52, said:

The Wandering Jew, on 28 Jan 2009, 4:30, said:

The word atheist became (overtime) a negative word. Just like the words knave and wench. An atheist is not supposed to be evil, ya know.

I agree.
Also, atheist does not neceseraly mean you do not believe in a god.

If I remember right:
A=No/Without
Theist=Comes from theism which is roughly religion/belief
Religion=Believe of a god, and is usually a system of worship of the said god by many people

Absolutely incorrect. The word Atheist is based on the Greek "atheos", which in turn means "without god" (a + theos)

Quote

atheism
/aythi-iz’m/
• noun the belief that God does not exist.
— DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective.
— ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

http://www.askoxford...atheism?view=uk

Zero, on 30 Jan 2009, 0:52, said:

I, for one, have nothing against religion-believe it or not. Actually, I do believe in god sometimes (although sometimes I don't, it can be dependent on the moment and my mood). The thing is, the reason why so many of my threads might seem anti-religious is curiosity (ex: Is Religion Necessary I actually came up with that after seeing Religilous and was curious). What I DO denounce is the worship of the said god (he does things that are pricky at times, although it seems it DOES do some things that are pretty nice). Also, should be noted, I do not believe in the normal version of god, I believe in a more...scientific one.

Even if you believe in a god "sometimes", that is still a type of theism so therefore you are not an atheist nor an agnostic.

I do think you should so some more research into this topic so you can formulate a more 'complete' belief system.

My bads...however, I have very few time on the PC (even less on the Internet) and I was going on some etymology I had picked up on (I happen to know one and the roots happened to come up).

However, belief of a god implies that it is a supreme being. Like I said, I believe in what I see as a more scientific version of a god, in other words, one that does not have the power to do EVERYTHING. I do retract my last statement, say what you will, I deserve it.

Expanding on my point of my own beliefs, the type of "god" I believe in is:
-Not "all-powerful"
-As selfish and cruel as any human when it wants to be and as nice as my puppy when it wishes to
-Definitely not all knowing (at least not by its own standards)
-Finally, like stated above, no Supreme Being. There is no intelligent Monad, as nothing can COME originally from a sentient being (or a living thing period), after all, they too need to made of something and have an origin, do they not?

In case it's still not clear, god is not god, but more of a VERY evolved being with power we cannot understand (like Luther said in Superman Returns). Oh, and last but not least, yes, it is Sci-Fi-ish.

-Now, if you'll excuse me, my 10 minutes are up.

im with zero on this one, if u only beleive in god some times and dont think he's that all powerful u still should be considered an athiest

[NergiZed]

I'm an agnostic so I'm basically ok with the notion of 'I really don't know if there's a god or not'.

But personally, I don't like people who preach religion as if they are fact. Alias, you had mentioned before that 'believing' is different from 'knowing', but people who really believe in their religion preach it as if they know and that it is fact.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I really don't like the ignorance; I don't like those who are ignorant enough to claim that the earth is 6000 years old, and that early humans lived with dinosaurs. I also don't like people who can say that they know without a doubt that there isn't a higher being.

All this banter reminds me of a certain bus ad in London (that Richard Dawkins helped make possible) that says: "There probably isn't a god, so stop worrying about it and enjoy your life." The word 'probably' just makes that entire statment splendid.

[TehKiller]

Zero, on 2 Feb 2009, 2:23, said:

Expanding on my point of my own beliefs, the type of "god" I believe in is:
-Not "all-powerful"
-As selfish and cruel as any human when it wants to be and as nice as my puppy when it wishes to
-Definitely not all knowing (at least not by its own standards)
-Finally, like stated above, no Supreme Being. There is no intelligent Monad, as nothing can COME originally from a sentient being (or a living thing period), after all, they too need to made of something and have an origin, do they not?

In case it's still not clear, god is not god, but more of a VERY evolved being with power we cannot understand (like Luther said in Superman Returns). Oh, and last but not least, yes, it is Sci-Fi-ish.

-Now, if you'll excuse me, my 10 minutes are up.

What you just described is close to Scientology (at least from my knowledge)...

IIRC in Catholicism God is not a being as you describe it....he does not have a physical form but instead he exists as a spirit/councesness (never opened a dictionary neither will I open it now so idk how its spelled)

[Zero]

TehKiller, on 2 Feb 2009, 13:52, said:

Zero, on 2 Feb 2009, 2:23, said:

Expanding on my point of my own beliefs, the type of "god" I believe in is:
-Not "all-powerful"
-As selfish and cruel as any human when it wants to be and as nice as my puppy when it wishes to
-Definitely not all knowing (at least not by its own standards)
-Finally, like stated above, no Supreme Being. There is no intelligent Monad, as nothing can COME originally from a sentient being (or a living thing period), after all, they too need to made of something and have an origin, do they not?

In case it's still not clear, god is not god, but more of a VERY evolved being with power we cannot understand (like Luther said in Superman Returns). Oh, and last but not least, yes, it is Sci-Fi-ish.

-Now, if you'll excuse me, my 10 minutes are up.

What you just described is close to Scientology (at least from my knowledge)...

IIRC in Catholicism God is not a being as you describe it....he does not have a physical form but instead he exists as a spirit/councesness (never opened a dictionary neither will I open it now so idk how its spelled)

Scientology doesn't have a god (as far as I know). Also, I disagree with most Scientologist beliefs, because they seemed to have completely misunderstood science and made it into a fan-fic religion. Also, about the DC-8 Spaceships, I doubt spaceships, no matter how advanced a civlization, would use ANYTHING as primitive and inefficient as that as a design standard.

Also, if you want to see what I see as a god see Stargate SG-1, however, alter it and make it MUCH more powerful (in other words, somewhat like my book in which the gods are-dimensionally speaking- higher beings). One of those two seems much more possible (as if you can control spacetime, you can control EVERYTHING in the Universe pretty much)

And last but not least, I know how Catholicism works, I was one once, and a pretty devout one at that. However, the thing about the conciousness is that it would still need a vessel to exist in (Can you think without a brain? No. The brain is the vessel for thoughts, ideas, and information-not sure if I'm being clear enough).

Furthermore, about gods, I think it is unlikely there is only ONE god with ONE mind. Like in my book, there are probably many. Now, HOW they act may be impossible to understand. They may be have a Hive-Mentality (like the Borg, except that they can think individually, but ALL thoughts are pretty much shared), one being with many minds (think many conciousness squeesed into one being, like a computer of thoughts/person with mulitiple personality syndrome), or many gods working in the same kinds of systems we do (Monarchies, Capitalism, Democracies, or Communist-like societies).

The reason I believe god is not one being and am more willing to believe a more Greek/Roman-like approach to an ordered hierarchy of gods is this: Under my belief, if this were to happen, then it would mean that there is only ONE being left from an entire species, under ANY circumstances, I doubt that anything that advanced/powerful can be brought down to one. Why? Simply put, in the case of a Nuclear Winter, either billions will die and there will be a relatively small number of people left over, or everyone dies, the chance of anything limiting an entire species (an immortal one at that!) to only one, is nearly infinitely impossible.

Like Lex Luther said (not exact words, but best I can remember) "An ignorant man will see advanced technologies and call them magic," I feel religion is based somewhat on this (I do not really care what you say, miracles ARE magic). This may not be such an issue with me but the fact that religions almost dismiss any attempt to explain these miracles and claim that they are unexplainable and don't even bother looking into it. Now, if they actually ATTEMPTED to look into it and explain, and adopt science and not just go on blind faith, I'd be okay.

Now, why does blind faith like the church asks for bother me? Simply put, blind faith in a god will not save humanity from extinction (Meteor, Comet, Asteroid, Gamma-Wave Pulse, Sun Swallowing Earth, Planetary Colonization in order to get away from overpopulation...yadda, yadda, yadda). You can have your faith if you wish, I care not. However, I DO want you to attempt to not just say "God will protect us forever," get some of your people (as the Churches are full of brilliant, almost genius-like people who could do wonders for science-for example, the man who came up with the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic Bishop/Cardinal I believe) to help sciences as well, after all, if a god does exist, would it not want us to think for ourselves and try to expain the world around us? If not, why give us so much power to explain it?

And finally, to get to NergiZed, I agree with you on the facts of the world (dinosaur thing and planet). Evolution (in some shape or form) is undeniable now pretty much, it is absolute and pretty much proven that it exists, we see it gradually happen through mutations and Point-Shift (I believe they are called) mutations, and gradual mutations. Humans did NOT exist during the same time as dinosaurs, if we would have, we'd be extinct because we would NEVER stand a chance. The Earth is NOT 6000 years old, I only need to dig a few inches/feet and pull up a handful of dirt to prove that much.

I do not care if you believe the exact opposite of me, but do NOT go against what is proven and say "Well, the [insert holy book here] says that [insert event from aforementioned book here] is how is happened/is true, so that CAN'T be right!" Well, I have very well documented proof that says otherwise (I actually used this arguing with a VERY Christian person about Creationism). You can be agnostic, aethist, religious, or be religious and try to merge science and religion together (however, scientology is just an epic fail in this), but do NOT be a zealot, I HATE zealots (proof is proof, most beliefs can be pushed aside and merged with religion, but do NOT throw documented proof away like trash because you believe something).

BTW, I am not mad nor angry right now. Sorry if anyone feels offended. Ask any questions you have.

-Zero
Witch:Warlock

Edited by Zero, 03 February 2009 - 00:06.

[BeefJeRKy]

NergiZed, on 2 Feb 2009, 0:57, said:

I'm an agnostic so I'm basically ok with the notion of 'I really don't know if there's a god or not'.

But personally, I don't like people who preach religion as if they are fact. Alias, you had mentioned before that 'believing' is different from 'knowing', but people who really believe in their religion preach it as if they know and that it is fact.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I really don't like the ignorance; I don't like those who are ignorant enough to claim that the earth is 6000 years old, and that early humans lived with dinosaurs. I also don't like people who can say that they know without a doubt that there isn't a higher being.

All this banter reminds me of a certain bus ad in London (that Richard Dawkins helped make possible) that says: "There probably isn't a god, so stop worrying about it and enjoy your life." The word 'probably' just makes that entire statment splendid.

In my belief, all the scientific laws point to a higher intelligence that created them This higher intelligence might be a part of the universe or a separate being, I am unsure. Either way, I don't like believe that everything just happened by random chance.

I think religious beliefs should be kept personal i.e. I don't like anyone imposing his/her beliefs on me particularly if he doesn't give me valid arguments.

[Zero]

Scope, on 3 Feb 2009, 1:13, said:

In my belief, all the scientific laws point to a higher intelligence that created them This higher intelligence might be a part of the universe or a separate being, I am unsure. Either way, I don't like believe that everything just happened by random chance.

Well...at the most basic level, pretty much EVERYTHING happened by random chance. Also, as far as I can see, my logic dictates that even (gods not only as living things, but also sentient beings) MUST be made up of things that are more fundemental. It is more likely than not a part of this universe (even if in a higher plane/dimension) controlled by a different set of rules and laws.

Sadly, religion is something that can only be proved/disproved once EVERYTHING else is done. In other words, none of us will be around and we will ALL die ignorant.

-Zero
Witch:Warlock

Edited by Zero, 03 February 2009 - 01:42.

[TehKiller]

Quote

(Can you think without a brain? No. The brain is the vessel for thoughts, ideas, and information-not sure if I'm being clear enough).

A mind/spirit doesnt require any physical form to exist (not even a brain....the purpose of the brain is to control the body not the mind).

Quote

I do not care if you believe the exact opposite of me, but do NOT go against what is proven and say "Well, the [insert holy book here] says that [insert event from aforementioned book here] is how is happened/is true, so that CAN'T be right!" Well, I have very well documented proof that says otherwise (I actually used this arguing with a VERY Christian person about Creationism). You can be agnostic, aethist, religious, or be religious and try to merge science and religion together (however, scientology is just an epic fail in this), but do NOT be a zealot, I HATE zealots (proof is proof, most beliefs can be pushed aside and merged with religion, but do NOT throw documented proof away like trash because you believe something).

You see the problem is that you (by you I mean people like you) attack the religion first just so you could make a point and then get offended once people aint conviced as you have expected. And why wouldnt people throw away documents when all they do is claim that science/technology isnt advanced enough to explain [insert a miracolous event]. Documents like that are worth less than a blank paper

[Zero]

First of all, when I used the brain, it was just a human example. Humans cannot think without a brain, it is, simply put, a control center that stores memories and carries out things such as thought. Simply put, everything needs to be made of something, it requires a vessel, even energy (photons whichy carry the EM force and light; or in terms of matter, atoms which are made up of even smaller particles made up of even smaller quantum particles). If something is capable of thinking, it still must be made of something smaller (the universe is as infinitely small as it is large, at least that is what I've been told by some physicists I know, there might yet be things even smaller than quarks and leptons and whatnot)

TehKiller, on 3 Feb 2009, 14:51, said:

You see the problem is that you (by you I mean people like you) attack the religion first just so you could make a point and then get offended once people aint conviced as you have expected. And why wouldnt people throw away documents when all they do is claim that science/technology isnt advanced enough to explain [insert a miracolous event]. Documents like that are worth less than a blank paper

I think you misunderstood, however, I wasn't attacking religion nor miracles.

As for miracles, I meant that the church simply should investigate them, try to look into them and explore them. The church is full of great minds, scientific ones too, my priest (Father Ken) is pretty good with the sciences and he can crunch out equations that most people not familiar with college-level physics would even begin to understand. The thing with miracles is, that even if they are from a god, human curiosity should still push us to try to understand and explore it. In other words, they should take some more endeavor and not just say "this and this happened," they should try to explain what happened more in depth, after all, if EVERTYTHING that exists and happens is an act of god's will, then does it hurt them? No. In fact, it might HELP them, after all, I know some people who showed up with terminal cancer and were "cured" (not sure if that is the right word) a week from death (or the guy who had had cancer and shot himself to get it over with. He shot himself in the head but survived, the bullet actually destroyed the inoperable brain tumor and now he's cancer free and living a normal and productive life).

When I used documents as an example, I also didn't mean to offend anyone. The thing is, scientific FACT is that the Earth is billions of years old (no where near the thousands some religions say it is). When you take something from a religious book (as in the bible, torah, Q'ran, etc.) it is not meant to be so word-for-word (it's supposed to be more abstract and metaphorical), and even if it is, it is still open enough for you to be able to incorporate it into sciences. If humans and dinos had been around at the same time we'd gone extinct for very obvious reasons, and we it is unavoidable that they existed because we dig up their gigantic bones all the time. Using evidence from one of those books against proof we can confirm is simply ignorant and fanatical. Proof is proof, get over it, the early Catholic Church had problems with this (anyone remember the Spanish Inquisition? And what about what they did to Copernicus?) but they DID CHANGE, for the better. The modern church, while still trying to hold on to some beliefs, is now more willing to accept scientific proof than it was even 100 years ago. Religions, if they want to survive NEED to evolve and adapt more science as they grow on, because if not then it would leave people ignorant. Thankfully, most modern churches (and I use this to describe ALL religions in generals) HAVE done this, and it works. Why? Because when people have solid proof to go against something that is not confirmed and disproves it, we tend to choose the proof. Because of this, churches are no longer like they were a few hundred years ago, saying that what their bibles say are science, instead they try to incorporate the two and make a Great Theory of Everything with both science AND religion.
-If you do not believe me, look at the BB theory, it was made by a church bishop/cardinal
-Also, if you still don't, look at how the church no longer challenges things like astronomy or even
medicine and Earth Sciences as it once did

Finally, back to miracles, I don't care if it is solved or not. Like Roswell and the JFK assassination, there will always be two radically different sides (conspiracy theories even). I would just like to see some attempt to investigate it, to find out more about it than what is already documented. This merging of science and religion would not mean death for religion, but a new blossoming because it tries to explain the act of god. Religion, at its roots preaches enlightment and knowledge as much as it does good values, we should be curious and seek answers to these "acts of gods" because, if anything, would it not please a god that we take interest in it and what it does?

Again, not sure how clear I am, if you have any questions, just ask me.

-Zero
Witch:Warlock

Edited by Zero, 03 February 2009 - 15:23.

[Kerensky287]

I think that people declare religious beliefs because they want to be part of a community. By being religious, you can more easily identify with those who share your religion, and it follows that you'll want to try your best to spread your religion as much as possible to make it easier to identify with EVERYONE.

In my opinion though, it seems like a very, very small thing for people to get so worked up over it. There are MANY other ways for people to form communities, and there are a lot that don't stem from the shared visualization of one or more higher beings. Plus, if you envision a higher being that likes its followers more than non-followers, which will ALSO inevitably happen because people like to feel special, then you end up with religious wars, and nobody's happy after that.

For these reasons, I identify myself as strictly nontheist. Not atheist, not agnostic, just nontheist. If someone asks me about my beliefs though, I will generally either explain my position to them (so they don't get weirded out), or if I'm short on time, just say I'm a Pastafarian.