Conquer Club

I'm making this thread for the discussion of agnosticism and the dissection of other beliefs in general.

Agnosticism to me me is the only logical belief system as all other beliefs require faith to maintain, including atheism (I can't wait to be challenged on that one!) To me, accepting the possibility of all beliefs yet adhering to none makes sense in that nothing can be proven. I include scientific belief in that statement.

My personal agnosticism is mixed with a healthy dose of existentialism. The existentialist thoughts are what really lead me to believe that absolutely nothing can be proven, and thus leave the possibilities of everything. (I find it a shame that brilliant existentialists like Nietzsche found nihilism instead and went mad because of it, but that is neither here nor there).

Anyway, I invite open discussion on this, and I hope that this thread can remain logical and won't resort to something that belongs in flame wars.

i would like to respond here, but i'm not sure if this thread actually exists.....

bart ehrman: "i'm an agnostic"

steven colbert: "isn't that just an atheist without balls?"

Nephilim wrote:i would like to respond here, but i'm not sure if this thread actually exists.....

Nephilim wrote:bart ehrman: "i'm an agnostic"

steven colbert: "isn't that just an atheist without balls?"

Do you share these thoughts?

I'm certainly not agnostic, I shall follow Odin and my other deity's into the great halls of valhalla, and when the time comes battle to the death in ragnarok


"Kringlaugd wierd, ein spadi for qvoki ne skeifr drpr munni ne svinhqfdi!"

(Gaze upon thy destiny, with this sword I will cleave your lying maggot mouth from your swine head!)

Norse wrote:I'm certainly not agnostic, I shall follow Odin and my other deity's into the great halls of valhalla, and when the time comes battle to the death in ragnarok


"Kringlaugd wierd, ein spadi for qvoki ne skeifr drpr munni ne svinhqfdi!"

(Gaze upon thy destiny, with this sword I will cleave your lying maggot mouth from your swine head!)

Won't you need to die in battle to go to Valhalla?

I think he would have to do that. Maybe a heart attack while playing CC will do, too.
But we digress. So, Riao, what do you want us to dissect first?

I don't know. Really we're all thinking the same thing, "What the f*ck is wrong with this bitch's hair". You know what I'm saying?

Riao wrote:...as all other beliefs require faith to maintain, including atheism (I can't wait to be challenged on that one!)

Okay, I'll rise to it.
Atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. I don't believe there is no God(s). I have no faith in religion. I don't accept the concept of the supernatural or divine therefore I am an atheist.
All children are atheists until introduced by society to the idea of the supernatural/divine (although I have had interesting debates about this point with both luns and Crazy Anglican who argue quite elegantly to opposite).

MeDeFe wrote:I think he would have to do that. Maybe a heart attack while playing CC will do, too.
But we digress. So, Riao, what do you want us to dissect first?

Well to tell the absolute truth, when I made this thread I was wondering to myself why Christianity pops into nearly every discussion here, and why people feel the need to validate their beliefs so vehemently. Atheists attacking Christians and vice versa.

So the question is: why the animosity? Why can't people just have their beliefs and leave it at that? I understand polite discussion, but it nearly always degenerates into name-calling and condescension unlike other topics. Why do you suppose this is?

Riao wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:I think he would have to do that. Maybe a heart attack while playing CC will do, too.
But we digress. So, Riao, what do you want us to dissect first?

Well to tell the absolute truth, when I made this thread I was wondering to myself why Christianity pops into nearly every discussion here, and why people feel the need to validate their beliefs so vehemently. Atheists attacking Christians and vice versa.

Christianity is the main, and has been the main, religion for a few centuries, and doubtless at least everybody in the developed countries (as most are Christian nations) know about Christianity. It's the one most people can debate with, as it is the most well known. Also, we have quite a few Christians here, and not many other people from different religions, so it's the one that does pop up the most.

flashleg8 wrote:

Riao wrote:...as all other beliefs require faith to maintain, including atheism (I can't wait to be challenged on that one!)

Okay, I'll rise to it.
Atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. I don't believe there is no God(s). I have no faith in religion. I don't accept the concept of the supernatural or divine therefore I am an atheist.
All children are atheists until introduced by society to the idea of the supernatural/divine (although I have had interesting debates about this point with both luns and Crazy Anglican who argue quite elegantly to opposite).

To me faith is the belief in something that cannot be proven. When you believe something that cannot be proven, then you take it on faith that it is so. There is no way to prove the existence of a supernatural being one way or the other. You take it on faith that supernatural entities do not exist. You take it on faith that the various religions of the world are incorrect.

Skittles! wrote:

Riao wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:I think he would have to do that. Maybe a heart attack while playing CC will do, too.
But we digress. So, Riao, what do you want us to dissect first?

Well to tell the absolute truth, when I made this thread I was wondering to myself why Christianity pops into nearly every discussion here, and why people feel the need to validate their beliefs so vehemently. Atheists attacking Christians and vice versa.

Christianity is the main, and has been the main, religion for a few centuries, and doubtless at least everybody in the developed countries (as most are Christian nations) know about Christianity. It's the one most people can debate with, as it is the most well known. Also, we have quite a few Christians here, and not many other people from different religions, so it's the one that does pop up the most.

Okay, I understand that, but what I'm getting at is the anger associated with it. Like I said I understand discussing one's personal beliefs, but why is it that verbal wars always seem to be the result?

Riao wrote:

flashleg8 wrote:

Riao wrote:...as all other beliefs require faith to maintain, including atheism (I can't wait to be challenged on that one!)

Okay, I'll rise to it.
Atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. I don't believe there is no God(s). I have no faith in religion. I don't accept the concept of the supernatural or divine therefore I am an atheist.
All children are atheists until introduced by society to the idea of the supernatural/divine (although I have had interesting debates about this point with both luns and Crazy Anglican who argue quite elegantly to opposite).

To me faith is the belief in something that cannot be proven. When you believe something that cannot be proven, then you take it on faith that it is so. There is no way to prove the existence of a supernatural being one way or the other. You take it on faith that supernatural entities do not exist. You take it on faith that the various religions of the world are incorrect.

I see where you’re coming from, but I disagree. The burden of proof should be on the believer to convince the non-believer. I do not accept that there should be a presumption that the supernatural/divine exists and in needs to be disproved. This is not how science/law acts - why should this be a special case?
For a good example of an extension of your argument to the ridiculous, look into the other thread "Pastafarians" where they examine the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Another famous philosophical example of this is Russell’s tea pot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

@ flashleg8:

Sorry I have to go to work right now, but I will answer this when I get back.

Riao wrote:

Skittles! wrote:

Riao wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:I think he would have to do that. Maybe a heart attack while playing CC will do, too.
But we digress. So, Riao, what do you want us to dissect first?

Well to tell the absolute truth, when I made this thread I was wondering to myself why Christianity pops into nearly every discussion here, and why people feel the need to validate their beliefs so vehemently. Atheists attacking Christians and vice versa.

Christianity is the main, and has been the main, religion for a few centuries, and doubtless at least everybody in the developed countries (as most are Christian nations) know about Christianity. It's the one most people can debate with, as it is the most well known. Also, we have quite a few Christians here, and not many other people from different religions, so it's the one that does pop up the most.

Okay, I understand that, but what I'm getting at is the anger associated with it. Like I said I understand discussing one's personal beliefs, but why is it that verbal wars always seem to be the result?

Because people don't want to be proved wrong. People don't want to have their beliefs bashed about and then pulled down. It's the way it's been, it's the way it'll always be.

I feel most comfortable with agnosticism. I am against religion of any type, as it is man made, but not against the probability of the existence of a higher force. Be it a "god" or a big bang, or anything else that is beyond our mortal perception. I am against any act of ritual or worshiping, as I believe that if such sentient god existed they would have wanted us to focus our efforts in ourselves and our surroundings rather than in worshiping their existence (to presume that a "god" cares whether a mortal being acknowledges their existence is self centric and pretentious).

flashleg8 wrote:

Riao wrote:...as all other beliefs require faith to maintain, including atheism (I can't wait to be challenged on that one!)

Okay, I'll rise to it.
Atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. I don't believe there is no God(s). I have no faith in religion. I don't accept the concept of the supernatural or divine therefore I am an atheist.
All children are atheists until introduced by society to the idea of the supernatural/divine (although I have had interesting debates about this point with both luns and Crazy Anglican who argue quite elegantly to opposite).

Umm....

Atheism: a) : a disbelief in the existence of deity. b) : the doctrine that there is no deity
Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Both of these are from Merriam-Webster, but the doctrine thing throws me because....

Doctrine: a) : something that is taught b) : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief

To me, to take a literal translation, it means a teaching (whether self taught, or otherwise) you've learned and put a belief into, on the non- believing of a god or deity.

Pico wrote:

flashleg8 wrote:

Riao wrote:...as all other beliefs require faith to maintain, including atheism (I can't wait to be challenged on that one!)

Okay, I'll rise to it.
Atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. I don't believe there is no God(s). I have no faith in religion. I don't accept the concept of the supernatural or divine therefore I am an atheist.
All children are atheists until introduced by society to the idea of the supernatural/divine (although I have had interesting debates about this point with both luns and Crazy Anglican who argue quite elegantly to opposite).

Umm....

Atheism: a) : a disbelief in the existence of deity. b) : the doctrine that there is no deity
Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Both of these are from Merriam-Webster, but the doctrine thing throws me because....

Doctrine: a) : something that is taught b) : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief

I don’t see how your definition disproves my assertion. I take you are referring to definition a)? In which case where does this disprove me? Do you purport that "disbelief" equates with "belief"?!
For definition b) I disagree with the definition. Your dictionary is defining the word as it is colloquially used in some cases. This is why it is often incorrect to quote dictionary definitions in defense of arguments. It is frankly not scientific.

Edit: typos

flashleg8 wrote:(although I have had interesting debates about this point with both luns and Crazy Anglican who argue quite elegantly to opposite).

Thank you, I've enjoyed them as well. But .... um .... happy debating, I'll be off now.

Ok lets see......your "Belief" is a non-"belief" in a deity or god.

What I'm saying, is Atheism is a belief. You said you cannot accept the construct of a super-entity. Therefore, you do not believe they are possible or exist.

And I don't care whatever your "Belief system" is. Just don't push it on anyone (not saying you are) and I'm ok with it.

flashleg8, do you think (almost used "believe" here) that humans are nothing but flesh and bones? Does one's consciousness is the mere presence of neurons that reside in the brain?
I believe that the range of ideas and principles that science cannot explain is vast, and one would have to be a fool or blind to not accept the mere possibility of the existence of powers that are beyond our grasp.

A nice anecdote that I've heard says that a bird cannot perceive the meaning of human language, is it so impossible that humans cannot perceive the mysteries of life?

Aegnor wrote:flashleg8, do you think (almost used "believe" here) that humans are nothing but flesh and bones? Does one's consciousness is the mere presence of neurons that reside in the brain?
I believe that the range of ideas and principles that science cannot explain is vast, and one would have to be a fool or blind to not accept the mere possibility of the existence of powers that are beyond our grasp.

A nice anecdote that I've heard says that a bird cannot perceive the meaning of human language, is it so impossible that humans cannot perceive the mysteries of life?

Well first I would like to say that, yes I do believe humans are "nothing but flesh and bones" in the sense that we do not have a soul (immortal or otherwise), and our consciousness is indeed a product of brain function (in the same way all animal life is).
I don't accept that there are ideas and principles that science (meaning the scientific method) cannot explain. I accept that there are many things we still have to discover and we may have to alter or adapt our current understanding, but I don't believe any new discoveries will cause us to abandon the scientific framework.
If indeed "the mysteries of life" were perceived - they would no longer be "supernatural" but "natural".
A nice quote in return to you...
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." (one of Arthur C. Clarke's "laws" of prediction)

Riao wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:I think he would have to do that. Maybe a heart attack while playing CC will do, too.
But we digress. So, Riao, what do you want us to dissect first?

Well to tell the absolute truth, when I made this thread I was wondering to myself why Christianity pops into nearly every discussion here, and why people feel the need to validate their beliefs so vehemently. Atheists attacking Christians and vice versa.

So the question is: why the animosity? Why can't people just have their beliefs and leave it at that? I understand polite discussion, but it nearly always degenerates into name-calling and condescension unlike other topics. Why do you suppose this is?

I think the animosity has to do with the fact that both groups are coming from completely different viewpoints. If you Believe (in whatever religion), there is no more important thing period. and if you Believe wouldnt you want to help out those who are ignorant of the Truth? In doing so you might be a bit overbearing and condescending in your methods (after all you are doing it for their benefit and you do know the Ultimate Truth).

Those who do not Believe may understandably resent the way they are told that they should live there lives in such a way as to conform to a particular belief structure (which they dont share). Plus, the Beliefs that they are told to Believe with all their being or suffer the consequences, are illogical, often self conflicting, have no credible evidence backing them up, and come with a bunch of rules that again dont make much sense.

Therefore these unbelievers often strike back at the Believers with their own condescencion and ridicule. The Believers dont like to have the Beliefs (remember they are the ultimate Truth) ridiculed and treated like some crazy nonsensical garbage.

Result- even the most well intentioned civilized discussion will suffer an everpresent underlying animosity. But if it can be kept to a minumum, the discussions can be very good and informative and as I am sure is evidenced throughout history-very enlightening to some