Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > Double-standards in religion
Reload this Page Reply to Thread
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Thread: Double-standards in religion Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Apr 24th, 2006 01:45 PM
kahljorn I was just thinking in terms of belief and religousity.

Agnostics don't believe there's a god.
Agnostics don't believe there's not a god.

Personally I think it's as neutral as you can get when it comes to religion. People who aren't religous obviously aren't religous, so the circumstance wouldn't really apply to them. If they were taking part in a religous debate how would they contribute? They couldn't, really, but I get your point.
I think alot of agnostics actually are irreligous, and are irreligous because they are agnostic. What's the point in thinking about it if nothing can/has been proved, after all?
Apr 24th, 2006 04:29 AM
pjalne
Quote:
Agnostics may claim that it isn't possible to have absolute or certain spiritual knowledge or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no such knowledge. In both cases, agnosticism involves some form of skepticism towards religious statements. This is different from the simple irreligion of those who give no thought to the subject.
Yeah, yeah, it's Wikipedia, but it works. An agnostic theist believes, but does not claim to know there is a god, like an agnostic atheist doesn't claim to know there is no god. Still, none of them are neutral on the subject of the existence of the divine.

But I think we've just got a definition thing going on here, where I was thinking of agnosticism as a gradation of another term describing one's take on theism (small-a), while I guess everybody else has standalone Agnosticism (big-A) in mind. It's a tricky word.
Apr 23rd, 2006 05:50 PM
kahljorn Agnostic is about as neutral as you can get in this circumstance. If you have another more neutral option to submit I'd be glad to hear it, because to me agnostic screams neutrality.

neu·tral (ntrl, ny-)
adj.

1. Belonging to neither kind; not one thing or the other; indifferent.
Apr 23rd, 2006 01:57 PM
Emu
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjalne
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu
No, that's true. The burden of proof lies on the asserter. But I think it's still better, if at least more respectable, to take a neutral position than a negative one. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
By "neutral", do you mean agnostic? Cause I think you're absolutely right, but neutral and agnostic are far from the same thing.
Neutral with respect to the statement "I believe that there is/is not a God."
Apr 23rd, 2006 01:46 PM
Kulturkampf Both sides feel discriminated against, honestly, and that is only because of the continuous venom inserted by the idiots on both sides (idiots like me).

We should just forget about it and chill out.

I do not think it even matters if there is a problem, because life itself is a series of problems that are not even resolved by our deaths.
Apr 23rd, 2006 08:59 AM
pjalne
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu
No, that's true. The burden of proof lies on the asserter. But I think it's still better, if at least more respectable, to take a neutral position than a negative one. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
By "neutral", do you mean agnostic? Cause I think you're absolutely right, but neutral and agnostic are far from the same thing.
Apr 22nd, 2006 08:33 PM
kahljorn I think in terms of social impact and other influences, not just faith, atheism is alot easier and has less of an effect mostly due to their interaction with the pop culture world. The decision to not believe in god isn't really an intellectual decision in their case, if it was they would be agnostic, but rather a decision to acclimate themselves to some social atmosphere. It's really the same either way, though, however the circumstance is generally much different.

Another thing to consider is that being a christian or any other 'faith' also incorporates alot of lifestyle changes. There's at least one or two things you'll change in your life when you become a christian(waking up at six in the morning on sundays), with atheists the ramifications would be nill or too variated to really correlate as there isn't really a unified Atheist lifestyle manual.

Making the decision to believe in something, in my opinion, is pointless unless it is accompanied by some kind of change in you or your perception of surroundings. Neutrality in this instance doesn't really require belief.
One thing I find particularly funny about this breed of Atheists is that in many cases it's accompanied by that frustration with christianity. I think somebody who makes a decision to escape something, especially an idealogy, while still under it's frustration is being ridiculous and is obviously still influenced by it. The ramifications of such a psychosis are obvious.

You are right that we could probably never prove there's no god, but that really depends on how you look at it. Within the perceptions of these people, I'd say you could never prove there's no god, but that's only because they have the wrong understanding of god and gods, I think. Unless you count dying and not going to heaven, but that's not so much a proving thing.

I love the new tool album ;( vicarious really isn't much next to the rest of it.
Apr 22nd, 2006 02:57 PM
pjalne I really don't get how adverse people in the US are to atheists. Sure, these guys are dicks, but that's from being frat boy versions of OAO.
Apr 22nd, 2006 02:35 PM
kahljorn "I thought about Buddhism relatively seriously for a while, but I don't wanna be a vegetarian."

You don't have to be a vegetarian. There are, however, a few good reasons for being one, besides health and such. This might sound kind of crazy but I'll try to present it in a normal way later maybe. The belief you shouldn't eat animals has been shared by many people, including pythagoras. Pythagoras declared that no judge should make a judgement after having eatten meat because it impairs the judgement. That's probably the best example of why buddhists don't eat meat-- it impairs judgement.
The idea behind it is that the animal itself had a type of soul or energy, and when you eat it you eat it's energy and everything it's eatten. Including the genetically modified corn feed and whatever else. Also, the energy of the beast interacts with your energy and can cause negative effects. Part of buddhism and yoga is taking a LOT of time to carefully balance and manage your energy so it's at the most balanced point, distributed evenly throughout the entire body. You get the idea! I'm hungover and have to go eat pizza.

So it's not really that you can't eat meat, it's more that you shouldn't because it interferes with your 'inner balance'. Any buddhist, especially a zen buddhist, who tells you to follow the rules isn't much of a buddhist.
Apr 22nd, 2006 11:57 AM
Emu
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Blanco
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
Atheism requires more faith than theism. You cannot prove God does not exist. It may be possible some day to conclusively observe a being fantastically superior to any living being we've observed thus far. A god, or gods, if you will.

But you can never prove such a creature (regardless of whether any religion has accurately described it) does not exist, especially if the universe really is infinite. It takes Faith to say that.
If we are looking at this from a logical stand point, you don't have to. The burden is on us who claim the positive ie there is a God.

Then again, I never really dug philosophy, so I could be completly fucking that up.
No, that's true. The burden of proof lies on the asserter. But I think it's still better, if at least more respectable, to take a neutral position than a negative one. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Apr 22nd, 2006 11:26 AM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
I've given thought to joining some sort of cult to fill the empty void that is my social life since I moved to Texas. Trying to make friends at bars/clubs/loud parties doesn't seem to work, maybe cuz I'm just not feeling that scene anymore.
What about a unitarian universalist church? We had one across th street from us in NY. Their masses wer basically religious lectures that varied every week, and then there was pound cake!
Apr 22nd, 2006 10:50 AM
El Blanco
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
Atheism requires more faith than theism. You cannot prove God does not exist. It may be possible some day to conclusively observe a being fantastically superior to any living being we've observed thus far. A god, or gods, if you will.

But you can never prove such a creature (regardless of whether any religion has accurately described it) does not exist, especially if the universe really is infinite. It takes Faith to say that.
If we are looking at this from a logical stand point, you don't have to. The burden is on us who claim the positive ie there is a God.

Then again, I never really dug philosophy, so I could be completly fucking that up.
Apr 22nd, 2006 03:10 AM
Big Papa Goat I'll tell you one thing, it's definitely better to be agnostic then it is to be a gnostic.
Apr 22nd, 2006 02:24 AM
ItalianStereotype
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fathom Zero
So basically, someone somewhere at sometime somehow created someone. Doesn't take any faith for me to say that.
because that's EXACTLY what we were talking about. did kahl not get the point across?
Apr 22nd, 2006 01:49 AM
ziggytrix Especially if you're a total douchbag, pussy, faggot, etc.
Apr 22nd, 2006 01:42 AM
The One and Only... Agnosticism is the way to go in all things religious, metaphysical, moral, etc.
Apr 22nd, 2006 01:22 AM
ziggytrix I've given thought to joining some sort of cult to fill the empty void that is my social life since I moved to Texas. Trying to make friends at bars/clubs/loud parties doesn't seem to work, maybe cuz I'm just not feeling that scene anymore.

But Scientology sounds WAY too expensive, and I've been agnostic too long to take any of the name-brand faiths very seriously.

I thought about Buddhism relatively seriously for a while, but I don't wanna be a vegetarian. Plus I never can remember whether it's spelled 'Bhudda' or 'Buddha', and that could be embarrassing.

There's a Zen Center that has "meetings" every other Sunday at 11 less than 2 miles down the street from my house, while the Unitarians are halfway across Dallas in a much more affluent part of town.
Apr 22nd, 2006 01:04 AM
Emu Even adult atheists are generally stupid assholes and hate on Christians for no particular reason. That's why I declared myself agnostic. I couldn't stand those people.
Apr 22nd, 2006 12:53 AM
Fathom Zero So basically, someone somewhere at sometime somehow created someone. Doesn't take any faith for me to say that. But I do despise atheists, it's the in thing at my school to be an emo-homo and an atheist. I'm sure that scientology will become the new fad next year, though. People are way too impressionable by psychotic celebrities.
Whatever floats their boat.
Apr 22nd, 2006 12:22 AM
ItalianStereotype exactly. fucking exactly. whenever I try to explain that to people, I always get a blank stare and a "JESUS LOL." fucking stupid atheists.
Apr 22nd, 2006 12:01 AM
ziggytrix Atheism requires more faith than theism. You cannot prove God does not exist. It may be possible some day to conclusively observe a being fantastically superior to any living being we've observed thus far. A god, or gods, if you will.

But you can never prove such a creature (regardless of whether any religion has accurately described it) does not exist, especially if the universe really is infinite. It takes Faith to say that.
Apr 21st, 2006 08:31 PM
kahljorn lol sorry fathom
Apr 21st, 2006 08:19 PM
Fathom Zero I SENSE SARCASM.
Oh well, everytime I put my 2 cents in...
Apr 21st, 2006 07:48 PM
kahljorn MYSTERIOUS PRETENTIOUS FELLOW, OH HOW WE RESPECT THEE.
Apr 21st, 2006 06:24 PM
Fathom Zero They do it because it's easy.
I on the other hand will never reveal my stands on religion.
Just let the damn people believe whatever they choose to.
I wouldn't want to hear someone preach their science at me.
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:44 AM.

I-Mockery.com - Archive - Top

© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.