Not Safe For Work wrote:I wouldn't have called that position 'faithist' - I would describe it as 'pro-religion Atheist'.
Which, incidentally, describes my own position.
Similar to Alain De Botton?
Advertisement
by Blouman Empire » Tue Oct 23, 2012 4:50 am
Not Safe For Work wrote:I wouldn't have called that position 'faithist' - I would describe it as 'pro-religion Atheist'.
Which, incidentally, describes my own position.
by Not Safe For Work » Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:04 am
by Not Safe For Work » Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:06 am
by Bluvil » Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:16 am
by Blouman Empire » Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:48 am
by Blouman Empire » Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:50 am
Not Safe For Work wrote:Blouman Empire wrote:
Which is only needed on NSG if talking generally theist and agnostic will do just fine
Well, no - realistically, the question of 'knowledge' rarely occurs outside of rarefied climates like our little debate forum.
Talking generally, it's the question of whether you do or don't believe that generally matters.
by Not Safe For Work » Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:01 am
Blouman Empire wrote:Not Safe For Work wrote:
Not yet having read "Religion for Atheists", I'm going to say 'maybe'... but based on some of the rest of his oeuvre... probably not.
I haven't read it either but I listened to a long interview about the book and what his message was and it seemed interesting, mainly saying that there is a lot to learn from world religions from morality to architecture and that we shouldn't be dismissing them simply because they come from religion.
What would your position be? As a pro-religion atheist?
by Not Safe For Work » Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:03 am
Blouman Empire wrote:Not Safe For Work wrote:
Well, no - realistically, the question of 'knowledge' rarely occurs outside of rarefied climates like our little debate forum.
Talking generally, it's the question of whether you do or don't believe that generally matters.
Generally yes but if someone said to me they were agnostic I wouldn't be going agnostic theist or agnostic atheist, I would know that they don't hold a belief but also that they aren't the Richard Dawkins type
by Ba Seng Se » Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:14 am
by Minarchist Territory of Pineland » Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:38 am
Kubrath wrote:Minarchist Territory of Pineland wrote:
And that's still a belief system. It's something you believe in. You believe metaphysics are bullshit, you believe you're not here for a reason, you've believe there's no higher purpose, and you believe that you just live and die.
Denying metaphysics, to eliminate competition, and give materialism more ground doesn't remove metaphysics being present, and it doesn't withdraw materialism from still being something people believe in.
Buddhist monks are a hell of a lot more wiser than most pretentious, stuck up western youths. And they will claim materialism is an illusion.
Isn't it great, how different philosophical doctrines, are present in the land of free information, to let people decide for themselves what they want to adhere to?
And scientists know a hell of a lot more about this universe than Buddhists. Thus far, no evidence for a metaphysical plane of existence, therefore no reason to believe it exists or even propose hypotheses on the grounds of its existence.
Also, let's define what we're talking about here - concepts or scientific theories? If it's theories, you don't really have a case.
Someone once asked me "Tell me, how do you define hypocrisy?".
And I said to him "Hypocrisy, for me, is a socialist preaching about the prestige and merit of an anti-capitalist comedian's message, praising his critical thought regarding commodity and exchange value, but then going out and buying his DVD."
While you're praising the message, that comedian is only using left wing agendas as a gimmick. While you're listing him as an inspiration, he's getting richer.
by Samuraikoku » Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:39 am
Minarchist Territory of Pineland wrote:You do know parapsychology has a whole academic focus, towards trying to explain things that materialism hasn't got two vague clues about, like reincarnation, and the mind-body problem?
by Minarchist Territory of Pineland » Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:41 am
Samuraikoku wrote:Minarchist Territory of Pineland wrote:You do know parapsychology has a whole academic focus, towards trying to explain things that materialism hasn't got two vague clues about, like reincarnation, and the mind-body problem?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology#Questionable_validity_of_parapsychology_research
Someone once asked me "Tell me, how do you define hypocrisy?".
And I said to him "Hypocrisy, for me, is a socialist preaching about the prestige and merit of an anti-capitalist comedian's message, praising his critical thought regarding commodity and exchange value, but then going out and buying his DVD."
While you're praising the message, that comedian is only using left wing agendas as a gimmick. While you're listing him as an inspiration, he's getting richer.
by The Realm of God » Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:59 am
Not Safe For Work wrote:Blouman Empire wrote:
I haven't read it either but I listened to a long interview about the book and what his message was and it seemed interesting, mainly saying that there is a lot to learn from world religions from morality to architecture and that we shouldn't be dismissing them simply because they come from religion.
What would your position be? As a pro-religion atheist?
I have a very low opinion of people, as a collective entity. I subscribe to that old adage that people in large numbers are dumb, panicky animals. Self-serving, (ironically also) self-destructive, selfish. aimless and mutually contradictory.
But over the years, we've come up with various ways to limit the excesses of our most major collective weaknesses - and religion is probably the most efficient of these various ways, at making people act as a collectively useful, altruistic and directed entity.
While I personally don't 'believe', I certainly see religion as one of the most useful tools we've ever invented for making our species not entirely pointless.
by The Realm of God » Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:02 am
Minarchist Territory of Pineland wrote:Kubrath wrote:
And scientists know a hell of a lot more about this universe than Buddhists. Thus far, no evidence for a metaphysical plane of existence, therefore no reason to believe it exists or even propose hypotheses on the grounds of its existence.
Also, let's define what we're talking about here - concepts or scientific theories? If it's theories, you don't really have a case.
You do know parapsychology has a whole academic focus, towards trying to explain things that materialism hasn't got two vague clues about, like reincarnation, and the mind-body problem?
Yes, reincarnation research. It actually exists. Phenomenon that atheism couldn't decipher to save it's life.
by Czechanada » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:44 am
Ravenstein wrote:I was raised Roman Catholic by my parents. My parents still go to church regularly. When I was younger I think I believed there was a god, but I no longer do. I quit going to church when I was about 13 or 14. I only go to church for weddings or funerals nowadays.
I still respect people who do believe in god although I do not share (some of) their beliefs like the belief in god. I do not share the views of creationism. I don't believe people go to heaven (or hell). I do believe in some of their values. I believe this life on earth is all we got and we have to make the best of it. When we die we will only live on in the memmory of others.
I also respect religion for giving people meaning in their lives and their values being a possible good for society.
I do not feel in any way better or smarter than people who are religious.
by Orcoa » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:55 am
Czechanada wrote:Ravenstein wrote:I was raised Roman Catholic by my parents. My parents still go to church regularly. When I was younger I think I believed there was a god, but I no longer do. I quit going to church when I was about 13 or 14. I only go to church for weddings or funerals nowadays.
I still respect people who do believe in god although I do not share (some of) their beliefs like the belief in god. I do not share the views of creationism. I don't believe people go to heaven (or hell). I do believe in some of their values. I believe this life on earth is all we got and we have to make the best of it. When we die we will only live on in the memmory of others.
I also respect religion for giving people meaning in their lives and their values being a possible good for society.
I do not feel in any way better or smarter than people who are religious.
Good sir, being an atheist does not mean that one is smarter than the religious. It simply means you are more rational.
by Orcoa » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:59 am
by Imsogone » Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:00 am
by Friede » Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:04 am
Chinamerica wrote:I'm a devout Christian and I've never understood how someone could happily live as an atheist who believes that they won't go to heaven. When I say atheists I don't mean Buddhists or anything, I mean the ones who think that death is the end.
Are you happy thinking that? Does it make you feel more intelligent? Would you LIKE there to be a God?
Personally if I was atheist I'd be depressed as hell going through life thinking like that. What are your opinions?
by Entaurii » Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:14 am
by AETEN II » Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:39 am
Bluvil wrote:I don't really like the idea of a heaven, obviously I don't believe in it's existence and would prefer to hell if either were proven to be true.
What bothers me about heaven is the thought of my friends and family who were sent to hell instead, I could be in paradise, but forever their suffering would linger on my mind.
Also, forever, that's a very, very long time, I could do everything I could have ever wanted to do in my life, maybe it would take a million years, after that, then what? After a million years, I'd have just been getting started on my time in heaven, I'd be there forever.
It would indeed be heaven, but in a way, it would slowly become a psychological hell.
I think that non-existence is better than eternal existence.
"Quod Vult, Valde Valt"
Excuse me, sir. Seeing as how the V.P. is such a V.I.P., shouldn't we keep the P.C. on the Q.T.? 'Cause if it leaks to the V.C. he could end up M.I.A., and then we'd all be put out in K.P.
Nationstatelandsville wrote:"Why'd the chicken cross the street?"
"Because your dad's a whore."
"...He died a week ago."
"Of syphilis, I bet."
by Blouman Empire » Tue Oct 23, 2012 4:03 pm
Not Safe For Work wrote:Blouman Empire wrote:
Generally yes but if someone said to me they were agnostic I wouldn't be going agnostic theist or agnostic atheist, I would know that they don't hold a belief but also that they aren't the Richard Dawkins type
Unfortunately, you'd be wrong. We have at least one admitted agnostic theist just in this small circle of friends we call Nationstates General.
If someone told you they were agnostic - that doesn't actually tell you anything about what they believe - on what their position is on the question of whether we can really 'know'.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: A m e n r i a, El Lazaro, Emotional Support Crocodile, Ethel mermania, Floofybit, Greater Sus, Hekp, Ifreann, Mardesurria, Pale Dawn, Schwessen-Hellfohen, Stellar Colonies, Vassenor, Yunity
Advertisement