Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Religion & Science: Both Agree (Agnosticism)

Wise_Fool
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 1:03:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
First, let me say that I do not profess to be a religious person. If anything, I am an Agnostic, an open-minded individual who has studied deeply.

I believe in using scientific theories (not all theories), constants which produce the same results every time, and pretty much anything which can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, at least through personal experience or physical hard evidence.

With that said, I believe in the notion of evolution, especially the concept of every living thing evolving from a single manna (lit. "what?"), like our RNA/DNA lineage. I believe in the process of natural selection, though I do not believe in chance or luck. I believe species evolve and go extinct for a greater reason, though I do not pretend to know what that reason is, apart from circumstances such as the enviroment and climate, survival of the fittest, and basic need.

I like to use Jewish Christian doctrines and Biblical anologies to illustrate my theories, only because it's easier for most people I've come across to understand things from a Christian perspective. But I am not what you would call the "Christian stereotype", since I have a more radical view of Biblical literature than you'd typically find in a church gathering. I've also researched and explored other world religions and belief systems. I've done some of my own digging into practices such as Shamanism, Hinduism, Paganism, Satanism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Humanism, Atheism, Agnosticism, Confucianism, Akhenatenism, Manichaeism, Egyptian, Norse, Greek, Mayan and other traditional mythologies and theories including Astrology, Philosophy, Theosophy and Scientology, even the religious beliefs of the African San Bushmen.

I believe all of the world's religions and belief systems are reflections of the same tale or story, which has been passed down to us in various ways, changing each time with the course of history and language it is echoed in. I believe proof of that connection is clearly evident in several different religious stories from around the globe, but one of the best examples I will share here is the golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". The golden rule is apparent in every religion from Catholicism to Satanism, believe it or not. I believe there is some whisper of truth, albiet vague, of the Tower of Babel story in the Holy Bible, I do believe we all come from one place, and that we are all one people. We are just teaching different versions of the same truth in different languages, and with slightly different variations.

I believe in the concept of heaven, and of a second and third heaven. What I mean to say is that I believe in the theory of the "multiverse", a primordial cosmic ocean or soap foam madeup entirely of bubbles (universes). I believe the multiverse is constantly changing. I believe 'big bangs' happen all the time when two universes collide, and I believe there may even be something out there that is even bigger and much wider than the common multiverse. I do believe in the notion that "something can come from nothing" if you believe that "nothing" still equals something (energy/matter). I believe the multiverse is probably an infinite self operated machine and that the universe is oscullating, meaning that our universe will eventually experience a "big crunch" and then another "big bang" repeatedly forever, in a never ending cycle that goes on indefinately.

Although the multiverse is now infinite due to being self-operated like a clever machine, it was not always self-propelled. I believe something created the multiverse at one time, perhaps by intelligent design, and that the multiverse was purposely engineered to work by itself without any further push or assistance. What did it? So far, there are hundreds of different theories to choose from. You might be polytheistic, henotheistic, monotheistic, or just plain atheistic. No matter what podium you stand on, however, nobody has the answer yet.

And since I don't have the answer either, I must profess to be Agnostic, at least for the time being.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 1:36:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Very interesting indeed. I can relate to much of what you posted though I am Christian and believe in Jesus. I know the scope of our vision even with the Bible and experiencing God is beyond what we can see. There are much out there and were are not the only creation. Though I can not agree with your long age tales that are no more validated than evolution. Though both are considered today prima facie. It is very interesting to note you claim the Babel story true because it is.
TheAsylum
Clash
Posts: 220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 1:51:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Although I don't agree with everything you said, I think it's interesting and very good written. Indeed, the best post I have read in a long time here. Seems like it's only nonsense which is being created in the forums lately... In my opinion at least.
Wise_Fool
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2012 12:59:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I do believe in what the Bible says. I have a slightly different way of interpreting the OT/NT scriptures, but I understand that the Bible itself has been interpreted and re-interpreted before, so I'm not the first one to take a radical approach. I believe it was King Solomon in Ecclesiastics who wrote that "nothing is new" and that "it has all been done before". So I believe that statement is true.

But because I do believe in what the Bible says, that means I also believe in those old tales - the Tower of Babel, the Flood and Noah's Ark, the Ten Commandments, the story of Adam and Eve, the words of such prophets as Solomon, Isaiah and Ezekiel - and of course, the birth and death of Jesus of Nazareth.

These are all true stories, albiet not original, but still considered truthful. Many of those same stories can be found in alternate variations in Hinduism, Islam, Egyptian mythology, Greek mythology, Babylonianism, and other ancient religious texts. I am actually quite fond of Taoism, which proclaims that "the Tao which can be named is not the eternal Tao". Tao is the Way, literally, and it is probably the only word I could find in the human language which accurately describes the process by which the multiverse was created. It was created by the Tao, the Way.

Created from what? I like to use the Biblical term, "manna", which has no real meaning in our English language. The Hebrew word sounds almost like a question, "what is it?" but it is not written as a question. Rather, it is written as a statement or exclamation: "what". The multiverse was created from manna (what), the physical substance of our creator, though this view is taken somewhat differently by most Jews and Christians - But I like the idea that everything is held together by the creator, and that we ourselves are madeup of this same "manna", being that we are all descendants of the creator.

Who is this creator? I have yet to find a word in the human language which accurately describes my own beliefs. Some people refer to the Brahman of Hinduism, who is said to be able to assume all forms, and comes down to us through different variations and manifestations. However, I like to use a different word for our creator. I chose the Hebrew word, "Hashem".

Hashem means "The Name", literally. That is the name of our creator, the one who designed the multiverse and set forth all things. Hashem is so divine in our own minds that I dare not address my creator by name, therefore I call the creator "Hashem" out of respect. Hashem is without form, without image, without gender, without shape. Hashem is both male and female, both human and animal, both plants and elements, sky and earth, sun and moon, rain and fire. Hashem is the creator, our god or goddess, who manifests in different ways, sometimes more than once.

Hashem is the one Lao-tze was refering to when he spoke of the Tao in Taoism, and Hashem is the eternal soul in Buddhism, the oneness and emptiness, the one all human souls eventually return to once they reach a state of nirvana. Hashem is the lion and the snake, the praying mantis and the caterpiller. It was Hashem that came down to earth in the form of Jesus on the cross, or Krishna, or Kaang, among other names and faces. These are all avatars of Hashem, ways in which Hashem develops a relationship with human beings. Hashem is both god and goddess, the one who has been revered since prehistoric times. Hashem is so pure that no image or form of Hashem would be accurate. Rather, Hashem uses images and forms as a way of developing a connection with us so that we might understand.

The term "Hashem" can be found in different places throughout the Bible, but the notion of Hashem can be found in almost every religion around the globe.
realatheist
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 5:23:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Agnostic is not a position in the theist vs atheist debate. Let me show why by asking 5 simple yes or no questions:

Do you believe in Dogs? yes or no

Do you believe in fairies? yes or no

Do you believe in trolls? yes or no

Do you believe in cars? yes or no

Do you believe in god? yes or no

Now we will all agree that the first 4 are simple yes/no questions, but for god we have a group of people who are too stupid to understand that the 5th question is yes or no. You can't circle the or. If you circle yes you are a theist, that does not mean you are certain their is a god. If you circle no that means you are an atheist. That does not mean you are sure their is no god. It just means you don't believe it. Now, let me explain if you have the numbers 1 to 1,000 in a hat, I don't believe you are going to pick 57 out of the hat, that does not mean you are certain and everyone understands this. Why do agnostics not understand the diference between knowledge and believe.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 9:45:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 5:23:19 PM, realatheist wrote:
Why do agnostics not understand the diference between knowledge and believe.
It's not just agnostics: there's TONS of theists and atheists that don't get it either. How about those idiots that keep pushing "lack of belief in God/gods" as opposed to "belief that God/gods do not exist" as the definition for atheist? Since when is a lack of belief, a belief? Sheer idiocy!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 11:54:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 9:45:20 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/22/2012 5:23:19 PM, realatheist wrote:
Why do agnostics not understand the diference between knowledge and believe.
It's not just agnostics: there's TONS of theists and atheists that don't get it either. How about those idiots that keep pushing "lack of belief in God/gods" as opposed to "belief that God/gods do not exist" as the definition for atheist? Since when is a lack of belief, a belief? Sheer idiocy!

Myth:
Lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position. You see, if they say they have no position, by saying they lack belief, then their position is not open to attack and examination and they can quietly remain atheists.

Response:
I've written a number of articles about how religious theists, but especially Christians, try to argue against the broad definition of atheism as simply the absence of belief in gods. This myth explains why this is so important to some theists: if atheism is just the absence of belief in gods, then it's not making any claims that all atheists must defend, and therefore the only burden of proof lies with religious theists themselves.

Few theists are prepared to carry this burden, so they desperately seek out some way to shift it to atheists. One of the keys to understanding how and why this myth goes so wrong is to note the fallacy of Begging the Question: it attempts to argue that atheists should not define atheism broadly by assuming the truth of the narrow definition which religious theists would prefer. This fallacy occurs in the phrase "avoid facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position."

The "problems" in the "atheistic position" are those which religious theists attribute to a narrow definition of atheism which they find convenient to use. The idea that this narrow definition is the most appropriate one is, however, precisely the issue being debated. It is not legitimate to argue that something is wrong by assuming that the alternative which you favor is correct. Doing so only indicates that one probably doesn't have any valid arguments to offer and is thus just grasping at straws in an attempt to come up with something to say.

It's true that with the broad definition of atheism, there is little to attack — but why are religious theists so eager to have something to attack? Rather than seeking out some opposition to attack, they should focus on defending, supporting, and justifying their own assertions. The burden of proof, or at least the burden of support if there is nothing to prove, lies with whomever is making the positive claim. In context of atheism and theism, this burden of proof lies primarily or entirely with the theist because this is the person who is claiming that at least one of some sort of being they call a god exists.

Atheists are simply those who do not accept the truth of this claim — they may deny it out right, they may find it too vague or incomprehensible to evaluate properly, they may be waiting to hear support for the claim, or they may simply not have heard about it yet. This is a broad and diverse category and there is no particular counter-claim made by all atheists. As someone who doesn't agree with the theist, the atheist doesn't have any particular position, claim, or belief to defend. It's the theist who has something to defend, and if they didn't want to be put in such a position they should have refrained from making a claim in the first place.

It might thus be fairly said that the entire attempt to deny the definition of atheism as simply a "lack of belief in gods" is an attempt by religious theists to avoid facing and defending their own theistic position. You see, if they can claim that atheists are making their own assertions, then perhaps the theistic claims will fade into the background and not be subject to the critical examination, questions, and critique they deserve. These people can thus quietly remain theists without having to do any of the work necessary to justify it.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 1:31:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 11:58:28 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Myth:
Lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position. You see, if they say they have no position, by saying they lack belief, then their position is not open to attack and examination and they can quietly remain atheists.
That's so NOT a Myth it isn't even funny! There may be additional reasons, but that is pretty much the crux of it.

Response:
I've written a number of articles about how religious theists, but especially Christians, try to argue against the broad definition of atheism as simply the absence of belief in gods.
And of course, said theists would be wrong. Shouldn't have based your definitions on the thinking of some flawed theists!

This myth explains why this is so important to some theists: if atheism is just the absence of belief in gods, then it's not making any claims that all atheists must defend, and therefore the only burden of proof lies with religious theists themselves.
Actually, the BOP lies with whomever makes a claim.

Few theists are prepared to carry this burden, so they desperately seek out some way to shift it to atheists. One of the keys to understanding how and why this myth goes so wrong is to note the fallacy of Begging the Question: it attempts to argue that atheists should not define atheism broadly by assuming the truth of the narrow definition which religious theists would prefer. This fallacy occurs in the phrase "avoid facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position."
Or maybe the BOP simply lies with whomever makes a claim.

The "problems" in the "atheistic position" are those which religious theists attribute to a narrow definition of atheism which they find convenient to use. The idea that this narrow definition is the most appropriate one is, however, precisely the issue being debated. It is not legitimate to argue that something is wrong by assuming that the alternative which you favor is correct. Doing so only indicates that one probably doesn't have any valid arguments to offer and is thus just grasping at straws in an attempt to come up with something to say.
That is correct. The reason that it's wrong is that said definition is a logical absurdity.

It's true that with the broad definition of atheism, there is little to attack — but why are religious theists so eager to have something to attack? Rather than seeking out some opposition to attack, they should focus on defending, supporting, and justifying their own assertions.
How about a meaningless meaning? A "not a belief" belief! Lol!

The burden of proof, or at least the burden of support if there is nothing to prove, lies with whomever is making the positive claim. In context of atheism and theism, this burden of proof lies primarily or entirely with the theist because this is the person who is claiming that at least one of some sort of being they call a god exists.
BOP lies with the claim maker, whether it's a positive claim, negative claim, or "weak claim!"

Atheists are simply those who do not accept the truth of this claim — they may deny it out right, they may find it too vague or incomprehensible to evaluate properly, they may be waiting to hear support for the claim, or they may simply not have heard about it yet. This is a broad and diverse category and there is no particular counter-claim made by all atheists.
No, just the weak ones!

As someone who doesn't agree with the theist, the atheist doesn't have any particular position, claim, or belief to defend.
Thank you. And that's how you do it folks!

It might thus be fairly said that the entire attempt to deny the definition of atheism as simply a "lack of belief in gods" is an attempt by religious theists to avoid facing and defending their own theistic position. You see, if they can claim that atheists are making their own assertions, then perhaps the theistic claims will fade into the background and not be subject to the critical examination, questions, and critique they deserve. These people can thus quietly remain theists without having to do any of the work necessary to justify it.
Yes, because it's so wrong to object to the attempted definition of something as a position that's not a position; a claim that's not a claim, a belief that's not a belief. So then one wonders, WTF is it that you are defining anyways? Answer: nothing, nothing at all! Smoke and mirrors!

BOOOOOOOOOM!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.