|
Post by goz on Feb 14, 2018 3:00:11 GMT
When people say "there is no purpose," they're usually referring to the idea of an objective purpose. They're not saying that they don't sometimes have a purpose in mind for themselves. The reason they're pointing this out is that some people do believe that there is an objective purpose. Re God, I'm talking about something that resembles the conventional notion of gods in religions--a separately existing, conscious being who transcends at least the normal limits of the physical world in some manner, who has some control over the physical world and/or humans and their environment, etc. Sure, we could use the term "God" to refer to anything we like, and that's true of any word or set of words. Someone could respond to "There are no purple dinosaurs in Central Park" with "That's not true--though by 'purple dinosaur' I'm talking about elm trees." If we focus on the fact that anyone could have any arbitrary thing in mind with any term, then we'd not be able to say anything about anything, because we could never be sure what anyone is going to take any word to refer to. So I'm just referring to conventional connotations of "God," re that term's religious significance, etc. I don't really have set beliefs about God or what the concept of God is especially since it changes often, but one point I was trying to make is that whether someone believes that they have an objective purpose or subjective purpose is still an idea that they created based on how they perceive things around them. There is nothing about the universe we know of that would indicate that there is an objective purpose just the same as their isn't anything that would indicate that there isn't an objective purpose. Whatever you want to believe is all up to you depending on how you personally feel is benefiting to your own life. You could use the same argument on both sides that we are just living in a fantasy we made up. You seemed to claim you're against doing that or that only religious do that when it comes to their belief in the God, but we tend to do that with our beliefs or lack of beliefs a lot of the times including at times without realizing it. I see it also as a psychological thing we do, like when you choose to stay happy because you know it's benefitting for you to be happy in life. At times we train ourselves to think certain things or feel certain emotions that eventually becomes our own reality and truth to us whether it be positive or negative. There may not be any reason to why you should be happy even to someone else because of certain circumstances, but you can convince yourself to be happy long enough to make it true. I think it's same thing with God, whether it be the conventional connotation of God or philosophical concept of God etc. If our own view of God becomes fitting in our lives and helps us see the world the way we want or choose to see it then that becomes our own sense of truth even if it means being part of a religion where other people share the same sense of truth. For some people it's more benefitting for them to believe God doesn't exist and I see why, especially the Christian concept of God where God is somehow involved in our own lives. There really isn't a right or wrong here, but I do think it is highly important to be able to explain why you think the way you do and give examples supporting why you think that for your own purpose (and not someone else's). I can see why people can't take some religious people seriously because they some of the times don't even know why they "believe" what they claim to believe. It appears more as being brainwashed and not challenging their own beliefs which can be negative effect of being part of a religious community. The reason why I went away from Christianity is because I wasn't ever able to convince myself why I should be a Christian. I found no reason to be one at the time, but I still see the positive qualities to the Bible that I hold high regard to in a spiritual and symbolic sense. Not so much the literal. I agree with you in your more 'spiritual' approach to life which in my case is more agnostic atheist in not believing at all in God and not at all in the Bible which I find controversial condemnatory and contradictory. There are some pretty tales and some morality ones especially in the parables butt they are not universal and are mostly common sense evolutionary concepts so that society functions better and more individuals are happier...so not all bad. Then there are the appalling hypocritical parts that have been used to aggrandise the churches and their following to gain power and money.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 14, 2018 10:21:33 GMT
My thought is this: why don't we realize that generalizing about the behavior of demographic categorizations that pick out large numbers of people, as if there are simple, real types of unified behavior picked out by the term in question, is completely absurd? I suppose anywhere you go you'll find at least a few annoying people on either side of any question. It will depend much on location which are more annoying.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 14, 2018 11:56:04 GMT
When people say "there is no purpose," they're usually referring to the idea of an objective purpose. They're not saying that they don't sometimes have a purpose in mind for themselves. The reason they're pointing this out is that some people do believe that there is an objective purpose. Re God, I'm talking about something that resembles the conventional notion of gods in religions--a separately existing, conscious being who transcends at least the normal limits of the physical world in some manner, who has some control over the physical world and/or humans and their environment, etc. Sure, we could use the term "God" to refer to anything we like, and that's true of any word or set of words. Someone could respond to "There are no purple dinosaurs in Central Park" with "That's not true--though by 'purple dinosaur' I'm talking about elm trees." If we focus on the fact that anyone could have any arbitrary thing in mind with any term, then we'd not be able to say anything about anything, because we could never be sure what anyone is going to take any word to refer to. So I'm just referring to conventional connotations of "God," re that term's religious significance, etc. I don't really have set beliefs about God or what the concept of God is especially since it changes often, but one point I was trying to make is that whether someone believes that they have an objective purpose or subjective purpose is still an idea that they created based on how they perceive things around them. There is nothing about the universe we know of that would indicate that there is an objective purpose just the same as their isn't anything that would indicate that there isn't an objective purpose. Whatever you want to believe is all up to you depending on how you personally feel is benefiting to your own life. You could use the same argument on both sides that we are just living in a fantasy we made up. You seemed to claim you're against doing that or that only religious do that when it comes to their belief in the God, but we tend to do that with our beliefs or lack of beliefs a lot of the times including at times without realizing it. I see it also as a psychological thing we do, like when you choose to stay happy because you know it's benefitting for you to be happy in life. At times we train ourselves to think certain things or feel certain emotions that eventually becomes our own reality and truth to us whether it be positive or negative. There may not be any reason to why you should be happy even to someone else because of certain circumstances, but you can convince yourself to be happy long enough to make it true. I think it's same thing with God, whether it be the conventional connotation of God or philosophical concept of God etc. If our own view of God becomes fitting in our lives and helps us see the world the way we want or choose to see it then that becomes our own sense of truth even if it means being part of a religion where other people share the same sense of truth. For some people it's more benefitting for them to believe God doesn't exist and I see why, especially the Christian concept of God where God is somehow involved in our own lives. There really isn't a right or wrong here, but I do think it is highly important to be able to explain why you think the way you do and give examples supporting why you think that for your own purpose (and not someone else's). I can see why people can't take some religious people seriously because they some of the times don't even know why they "believe" what they claim to believe. It appears more as being brainwashed and not challenging their own beliefs which can be negative effect of being part of a religious community. The reason why I went away from Christianity is because I wasn't ever able to convince myself why I should be a Christian. I found no reason to be one at the time, but I still see the positive qualities to the Bible that I hold high regard to in a spiritual and symbolic sense. Not so much the literal. But everything points to there being no objective purpose. First, there's not even a way to really make sense of the conventional concept of purpose without it being a mental phenomenon, without it involving intentionality (in the "aboutness" sense), which is "the mark of the mental." But even assuming we could make sense of purpose as something non-mental, everywhere we look--and we've looked plenty of places and examined plenty of properties, there is nothing that would count as purpose, except for in the activity of (at least human) brains. That makes everything point to there being no objective purpose, but only subjective purpose. "You could use the same argument on both sides that we are just living in a fantasy we made up."--someone could say that, but you can't accept it just because they say it. You have to query whether there are good reasons to believe that over alternatives. In general, you should be believing things because there are good reasons to believe them versus believing alternatives. "You seemed to claim you're against doing that or that only religious do that when it comes to their belief in the God, " I didn't say that "we're living in a fantasy." I said that religious beliefs are a fantasy. In other words, they're a fiction we've created, just like we created the fiction of Sherlock Holmes. That doesn't imply that "we're living in a fantasy" with respect to Sherlock Holmes. But if you believe that Sherlock Holmes was a person in the actual world rather than a fiction, rather than a fantasy that we invented, you'd be believing something that you have no good reasons to believe (whereas there are plenty of good reasons to believe that he was a fiction, including that we have knowledge of Arthur Conan Doyle as the author talking about creating a fiction, the complete absence of evidence of Holmes as a historical person, etc.)
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 14, 2018 11:58:31 GMT
Atheists. They are way too confident, not that they are wrong about religion though.
I am a naturalist and a pantheist which is an option atheists dismiss too easily.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Feb 14, 2018 12:00:52 GMT
6 pages later and you are both more annoying than jock itch.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Feb 14, 2018 12:11:57 GMT
My thought is this: why don't we realize that generalizing about the behavior of demographic categorizations that pick out large numbers of people, as if there are simple, real types of unified behavior picked out by the term in question, is completely absurd? I suppose anywhere you go you'll find at least a few annoying people on either side of any question. It will depend much on location which are more annoying. Patagonian pagans piss me off!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2018 19:11:33 GMT
I don't really have set beliefs about God or what the concept of God is especially since it changes often, but one point I was trying to make is that whether someone believes that they have an objective purpose or subjective purpose is still an idea that they created based on how they perceive things around them. There is nothing about the universe we know of that would indicate that there is an objective purpose just the same as their isn't anything that would indicate that there isn't an objective purpose. Whatever you want to believe is all up to you depending on how you personally feel is benefiting to your own life. You could use the same argument on both sides that we are just living in a fantasy we made up. You seemed to claim you're against doing that or that only religious do that when it comes to their belief in the God, but we tend to do that with our beliefs or lack of beliefs a lot of the times including at times without realizing it. I see it also as a psychological thing we do, like when you choose to stay happy because you know it's benefitting for you to be happy in life. At times we train ourselves to think certain things or feel certain emotions that eventually becomes our own reality and truth to us whether it be positive or negative. There may not be any reason to why you should be happy even to someone else because of certain circumstances, but you can convince yourself to be happy long enough to make it true. I think it's same thing with God, whether it be the conventional connotation of God or philosophical concept of God etc. If our own view of God becomes fitting in our lives and helps us see the world the way we want or choose to see it then that becomes our own sense of truth even if it means being part of a religion where other people share the same sense of truth. For some people it's more benefitting for them to believe God doesn't exist and I see why, especially the Christian concept of God where God is somehow involved in our own lives. There really isn't a right or wrong here, but I do think it is highly important to be able to explain why you think the way you do and give examples supporting why you think that for your own purpose (and not someone else's). I can see why people can't take some religious people seriously because they some of the times don't even know why they "believe" what they claim to believe. It appears more as being brainwashed and not challenging their own beliefs which can be negative effect of being part of a religious community. The reason why I went away from Christianity is because I wasn't ever able to convince myself why I should be a Christian. I found no reason to be one at the time, but I still see the positive qualities to the Bible that I hold high regard to in a spiritual and symbolic sense. Not so much the literal. But everything points to there being no objective purpose. First, there's not even a way to really make sense of the conventional concept of purpose without it being a mental phenomenon, without it involving intentionality (in the "aboutness" sense), which is "the mark of the mental." But even assuming we could make sense of purpose as something non-mental, everywhere we look--and we've looked plenty of places and examined plenty of properties, there is nothing that would count as purpose, except for in the activity of (at least human) brains. That makes everything point to there being no objective purpose, but only subjective purpose. Assuming there is no objective purpose, wouldn't any belief or lack of belief be considered a subjective concept no matter which way you see it and wouldn't either atheist or theist have to admit that they are only going by their own subjective meaning and purpose? This goes back to where I said that there is was no way of claiming to know for a fact that there isn't a God and especially since everything we think is subjective. Everything may point to no objective purpose, but that is also based off the limited knowledge we even know about the universe and it doesn't seem like we are meant to know everything about it. So then it does make sense to say there's no objective purpose but I don't think that it's ever going to be known as a fact based off our lack of understanding of the origins of the universe. God could just represent the unknown and that our objective purpose is that we aren't meant to know what our objective purpose is? 😂 Which I would think goes back to where I said "Whatever you want to believe is all up to you depending on how you personally feel is benefiting to your own life" It may not even make sense to someone else, but it is more important if you can identify why you think and believe certain things for your own benefit. You made it seem like religious beliefs are negative because of them being a fantasy but they're may not be anything wrong with believing in a fantasy if it helps you as a functioning person individually. If part of your fantasy is to convert other people (which not all do) into the same fantasy than I do agree that is negative, but that type of converting or manipulating is not only done by religious people. It could be just the belief that "men are better than woman" which can be manipulated by men and and even woman to believe as some fact. And I have more reasoning into thinking that the "men are better than woman" argument isn't really influenced by religion but that the religion is just used as an excuse to support that way of thinking. I think pride and arrogance or even low self esteem is the real influence for believing one gender is better than the other. People with religious beliefs or other beliefs revolve their lives around these beliefs , so "living in a fantasy" would be indicating the same or very close to same meaning here. You live you're life according to what you believe or are accustomed to whether or not there is an objective purpose. We also created societies and languages and many other things that only exist because we made them up. I do think that would imply we are living in a fantasy in that aspect. We create society based on how we think we are supposed to live but the idea our society is based upon may not even be most accurate or correct. Fantasy also makes things more interesting, which almost all people crave in their lives to find it more fulfilling. I don't always see it as negative, but it depends on how the fantasy you believe is affecting yourself and people around you. Religion can affect many people in a positive way as well as negative. I think the religious extremists represent more of the negative, but those types of people don't even make up the majority of other religious people and ironically even represent their own religion anyway.
|
|
|
Post by DanaShelbyChancey on Feb 19, 2018 15:17:47 GMT
Here is a thought: There are so many ways that religious people can be annoying and over the top in their beliefs. As many ways as there are beliefs.
In atheists, there is only one. They don't believe. They can go on about it, never shut up, but there is only one point to their tirades: they don't believe in anything.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Feb 20, 2018 20:37:45 GMT
is total nonsense. Of course one person can be irritating to twelve and vice versa. The only thing that is "nonsense" is what you just stated. It's completely "raving lunatic" and the problem with American culture that 12 bullies think 1 person can "annoy" the twelve. That is demonic to the max, and only the most demon possessed maniac will even pretend to believe it makes sense.
One person can't annoy twelve, because the twelve outnumber the one. If Donald Trump and eleven of his clones are in the room with one person, and he claims the one person does something to annoy him, I don't buy it. Same with Hillary and eleven of her clones. Not unless the one is some Kal-El or super being that can decimate the twelve.
I'll grant that if twelve bedridden handicapped people are in a home with one Nurse Ratched who torments them, then it is possible for one to annoy twelve. Something along these lines. Otherwise, it can't be done.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Feb 27, 2018 4:02:37 GMT
Gee, what could give me that idea? Could it be the part where he poured money into religious programs? Could it be the religious quotes, including one in his final letter before death when he had no reason to lie? Could it be that your sources - a blanket statement that he "hated Shiites but was totes secular" and a freaking Wikipedia page - don't require much disproving? And aren't you that guy who refused to believe Get Out was about liberal racism no matter how many times I quoted Jordan Peele? Yeah, I can already tell this is gonna be as pointless as an actual religious debate. I literally gave you two links stating that he was not religious -and could easily find more because it's a well-known fact he was a secular leader – but hey my sources don't count and yours do because they are your sources. Fuck outta here with that nonsense. Then do so, because I don't think anyone other than a complete and utter imbecile would consider Wikipedia as countable a source as Saddam's actual policies and his final godd***ed letter before hanging.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Feb 27, 2018 14:57:37 GMT
I literally gave you two links stating that he was not religious -and could easily find more because it's a well-known fact he was a secular leader – but hey my sources don't count and yours do because they are your sources. Fuck outta here with that nonsense. Then do so, because I don't think anyone other than a complete and utter imbecile would consider Wikipedia as countable a source as Saddam's actual policies and his final godd***ed letter before hanging. I literally gave you two links stating that he was not religious -and could easily find more because it's a well-known fact he was a secular leader – but hey my sources don't count and yours do because they are your sources. Fuck outta here with that nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Feb 28, 2018 0:50:27 GMT
Both are very annoying. But I'm going to have to go with religious people. They are generally far more evil and dangerous. Atheists may be fools but they are harmless for the most part. Thoughts? I don't know that many atheists. The few I know aren't annoying. Maybe you should find better people to hang out with.
|
|
|
Post by Roberto on May 29, 2018 7:15:55 GMT
Both are very annoying. But I'm going to have to go with religious people. They are generally far more evil and dangerous. Atheists may be fools but they are harmless for the most part. Thoughts? I don't know that many atheists. The few I know aren't annoying. Maybe you should find better people to hang out with. When did I ever say I was hanging out with such people?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 29, 2018 9:44:05 GMT
When comparing atheists to "religious" people, the faithful usually perform better.
When comparing atheists to "Christians," the atheists often perform better. Christianity is different from every other "religion" in that it is a "large tent" that accepts almost anyone. It's acceptance of sinners has led to large numbers of rather shameless members. Their understanding of membership is often problematic. They are the ones who press you to join their group and mindlessly repeat its narrative rather than explaining the benefits of better lifestyles, the problems with government, and so on.
Just as amateurs in religion can be annoying, amateurish atheists can be even more annoying. Most annoying is their belief that atheism is a "lack" of belief. A "lack" of belief is what agnostics have. Pardon me for mincing words too, but I have explained on this board many times that when you join a debate, it's because you believe something. No, they are not joining just to see what everyone is wearing. They join debates because they "believe" there is no god. Those then are not agnostics who lack belief. Whatever they call themselves doesn't matter, they obviously believe there is no god, but want to be considered more intelligent than that belief deserves.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 29, 2018 14:19:58 GMT
Just as amateurs in religion can be annoying, amateurish atheists can be even more annoying. Most annoying is their belief that atheism is a "lack" of belief. A "lack" of belief is what agnostics have. Pardon me for mincing words too, but I have explained on this board many times that when you join a debate, it's because you believe something. No, they are not joining just to see what everyone is wearing. They join debates because they "believe" there is no god. Those then are not agnostics who lack belief. Whatever they call themselves doesn't matter, they obviously believe there is no god, but want to be considered more intelligent than that belief deserves. As has been patiently explained to Arlon before, atheism (at least in the modern form) is not all or nothing. That is, a lack of belief in the deliberate supernatural is not necessarily contingent on the idea that it does not exist, although a 'hard' atheist is considered one who lacks belief and then goes on to make such a positive assertion (a separate step and into belief, by definition). Not everyone joins a board like this with a firm belief about a god, one way or another, despite the claim above. They may just be naturally wary of dogmatism, looking for a way to answers or at least to confirm the boundaries of knowledge. For instance I lack belief and yet know that the deliberate supernatural might yet exist - and always have a firm idea of the sort of things which would instantly compel conversion to belief (if not worship) in a god. And, agnosticism is merely the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. Hence, yes, while an agnostic might lack belief in god since it is thought the final answer is unknowable one could, alternatively, believe in God - still not knowing whether one exists or not for sure, in a leap of faith say.
But Arlon won't listen to such distinctions this time round, either.
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on May 29, 2018 14:48:30 GMT
i usually lean towards the religious institution(s) sporting the widest collection of torture devices. for they, more often than not, have the most fascinating things to hide.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 29, 2018 23:15:13 GMT
Just as amateurs in religion can be annoying, amateurish atheists can be even more annoying. Most annoying is their belief that atheism is a "lack" of belief. A "lack" of belief is what agnostics have. Pardon me for mincing words too, but I have explained on this board many times that when you join a debate, it's because you believe something. No, they are not joining just to see what everyone is wearing. They join debates because they "believe" there is no god. Those then are not agnostics who lack belief. Whatever they call themselves doesn't matter, they obviously believe there is no god, but want to be considered more intelligent than that belief deserves. As has been patiently explained to Arlon before, atheism (at least in the modern form) is not all or nothing. That is, a lack of belief in the deliberate supernatural is not necessarily contingent on the idea that it does not exist, although a 'hard' atheist is considered one who lacks belief and then goes on to make such a positive assertion (a separate step and into belief, by definition). Not everyone joins a board like this with a firm belief about a god, one way or another, despite the claim above. They may just be naturally wary of dogmatism, looking for a way to answers or at least to confirm the boundaries of knowledge. For instance I lack belief and yet know that the deliberate supernatural might yet exist - and always have a firm idea of the sort of things which would instantly compel conversion to belief (if not worship) in a god. And, agnosticism is merely the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. Hence, yes, while an agnostic might lack belief in god since it is thought the final answer is unknowable one could, alternatively, believe in God - still not knowing whether one exists or not for sure, in a leap of faith say.
But Arlon won't listen to such distinctions this time round, either.
I am fully aware that there are people who "lack" belief in a god. They have traditionally been called "agnostics" for lack of a better term. I find that use of terms useful enough myself. I do not impose definitions. My point here is that there are people who believe quite strongly there is no god. We know this because they join debates on the side of those who believe there is no god. The traditional term for such people was "atheist." I also find that use of terms useful. I still do not impose definitions. What is annoying to me is not what people believe or not or lack belief in either way. You are entitled to your opinions. What really annoys me are the people who obviously believe there is no god and yet claim to "lack" belief. They are either dishonest or stupid. Too many have no idea what they believe or why. They wander the grounds haphazardly. They self identify in ways that only show how confused they are about it all.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 30, 2018 9:31:40 GMT
My point here is that there are people who believe quite strongly there is no god. We know this because they join debates on the side of those who believe there is no god. The traditional term for such people was "atheist." I also find that use of terms useful. I still do not impose definitions. In which case you ought to have no issue with my points. Logical distinctions within atheism have been made (and widely accepted) for some decades now even since they were introduced by Antony Flew back in the day. The equivalent would be to assume that all Christians are fundamentalists when a belief in god is not contingent on assuming the literal nature of scripture. For once we can agree. Since the existence of any deity cannot be evidenced (as you have demonstrated, lately - to the point of claiming that positive evidence is "just as difficult" to find as is the negative sort) then any assertion about a god can never be a matter of sure knowledge. But there is a distinction to be made between the credulity required in whole-heartedly (and often un-critically) believing in the objectively un-evidenced, and the reasonable belief that something which has never been shown or proved, and which in addition demands a whole new level of magical reality, is most likely non-existent to the point that one can assume this is the case. Unlike Carroll's White Queen, one does not typically believe in several impossible things before breakfast. In other words the belief in the un-evidenced is not the same type of belief as the conviction that not everything which is possible, or sincerely thought of, must be cherished as true. Negative assumption, or the idea that most things which just might be are probably not, are by far the widespread (excluding some cosmological theories) and also are much easier to defend logically. It is a good job then that they have such a guide as you present yourself as.
|
|