Who are neither theist nor atheist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-01-2013, 09:41 PM (This post was last modified: 12-01-2013 11:41 PM by Rahn127.)
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist?
When it comes to theism and atheism, everyone falls into one camp or the other whether they realize it or not.
You are A or you are not A. There is no other choice.

My only conclusion that I could come to after trying to read that mess is that you don't know what atheism is.
I would also argue that coherent thoughts are a mystery to you.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2013, 12:20 AM
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist?
(12-01-2013 09:41 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  When it comes to theism and atheism, everyone falls into one camp or the other whether they realize it or not.
You are A or you are not A. There is no other choice.

Everyone is an atheists, some just don't know it. Some theists claim A is true, and all other letters are false. Some claim B is true, and all other letters are false. Others claim C is true, or D, or E, and so on. Atheists have no reason to believe in any of the alphabet of beliefs, and everyone that professes a belief in just one letter, still doesn't believe all the others as well.

We're all atheists, de-facto atheists just take it one step further... Thumbsup

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2013, 12:42 AM
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist?
Okay people. Enough with the fancy words. We are all impressed with how smart you are. As is philosophy isn't already hard enough to follow.

NEW AND IMPROVED!
Twice the anger, Half the space!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2013, 12:49 AM
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist?
(11-01-2013 02:27 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I believe that if every single religious person died right this instant, religion would come back and eventually be just as strong again.

Bet you're glad there's no god to pull one of his "mysterious ways" jokes on you... it's kinda his style. Dodgy

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
13-01-2013, 04:50 AM
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist?
(13-01-2013 12:49 AM)kim Wrote:  
(11-01-2013 02:27 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I believe that if every single religious person died right this instant, religion would come back and eventually be just as strong again.

Bet you're glad there's no god to pull one of his "mysterious ways" jokes on you... it's kinda his style. Dodgy

I'm not sure what you mean.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2013, 05:03 AM
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist?
My guess would be that "if every single religious person died in an instant, there would be nobody to propagate the silliness that is religion, thus gawd would have to work one of It's mysterious ways to get religion to come back." Especially since we don't need it any more....

Lets not even get into the massive population loss...

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2013, 05:15 AM
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist?
(13-01-2013 05:03 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  My guess would be that "if every single religious person died in an instant, there would be nobody to propagate the silliness that is religion, thus gawd would have to work one of It's mysterious ways to get religion to come back." Especially since we don't need it any more....

Lets not even get into the massive population loss...

We don't need it any more?
Was there a time when we needed it?

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2013, 05:47 AM
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist?
Religions were likely needed and used during the development of early societies, serving with the duel benefit of being able to explain away hard questions, which at the time could not be answered, and acting as a uniting force within the primitive culture by giving the people within a common point of focus which added similarity between the smaller groups, giving greater reason to aid each other.

And of course it was later used as a highly effective excuse for atrocities.

We no longer need the feebal explanative power, and our cultures are interlinked enough to not need the common focus point either.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2013, 06:58 AM
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist?
(13-01-2013 05:47 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  Religions were likely needed and used during the development of early societies, serving with the duel benefit of being able to explain away hard questions, which at the time could not be answered, and acting as a uniting force within the primitive culture by giving the people within a common point of focus which added similarity between the smaller groups, giving greater reason to aid each other.

And of course it was later used as a highly effective excuse for atrocities.

We no longer need the feebal explanative power, and our cultures are interlinked enough to not need the common focus point either.

My position is that religion is not to blame for peoples atrocities, people are to be held accountible for that. Religion is simply an organized belief of what reality is and sometimes the way humans ought to behave. Some religions may teach things that harm others, and that is wrong, but I'm not going to blame the religion, I will instead blame the people that created that religion. As to the Morals, if they are harmful to innocent society, then I believe there is something wrong with the ideals within that religion.

What I think people on here will also disagree with me about is that I believe what we don't need is for humanity to completely disregard any notion of there being an existence of something that is not natural. It is the very core of thinking -outside the box-. In a world where the natural is the only accepted answer to any of life's questions, anyone who thinks outside of this box will then be turned into todays "Atheist".
I believe that Science is not the only method mankind learns of reality and truth, Science only covers that which mankind can observe with each of their senses. That is a limit since it does not cover anything that can be reasoned with pure logic and deductive reasoning.
Things that are not necessarily Empirically observable can also be deducted to be inferred as true with other methods. Limiting ourselves to only one biased source will do exactly what keeps humans from progress.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2013, 07:19 AM (This post was last modified: 13-01-2013 07:23 AM by Free Thought.)
RE: Who are neither theist nor atheist?
For the record, I just said religion was used as a highly effective excuse, not that it was the root cause of said atrocities. Of course humans are to blame for their use of it as a tool, not arguing with that.

Going on...

By what other method can people learn about reality and truths reliably? Religions have a horrible track record in that department as they are usually have all manner of falsehoods strewn about them, rarely imparting anything of factual use, and without prior knowledge it is impossible for one to decipher truth from ones own fiction through reflection or introspection alone if that might be the direction to which you lean.

How can one be justified in believing something which cannot be observed? If it cannot be observed there can't be evidence for it, if there is no evidence, or little evidence, the belief is unjustified or more weakly justified *respectively, when compared to beliefs which are based on evidence.


If something can affect the physical universe, where will be ripples of it's doings projecting outward, that would at least the a decent start in believing something non-physical or supernatural. To my knowledge, anything like that has yet to be seen though.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: