@extremis:
No one is saying it's absolute here, but you sound like you're expecting more information to come along. Maybe you know something the rest of us don't?
I do think more info will come along based on past examples.
Yes but not based on any current evidence. You are "believing" it will happen. That is fine, but distinguish it as such.
I'm an anti-theist so yeah it is silly to me as a concept. Also it's not just relevant to me, it's relevant to everyone as religion is an unnecessary harm to society.
I think you are not understanding my point, your personal belief that religion is silly is relative. I also agree with you on that, however there are a lot of people out there that disagree with your statement. You are also lumping all religion together, Buddhism is not a harm to society, Christianity (church wise) can be a big harm, but the religion itself has so many fluctuations on religious people. I know some very liberal christians and very republican non religious people ect.... it is not religion itself, it is how people interpret their religion that can be bad.
No I mean all religion. It is all harmful in different ways. Some worse than others, but it should be eradicated. If you're familiar with Christopher Hitchens then you should be familiar with some of the problems with Buddhism.
And Liberal interpretation or not, all religions demean human integrity in some sense. Almost all of them offer up this idea that humans true place lie in subjugation, subservient to some "higher" being or cause. It was a decent morality system a very long time ago that somehow was never thrown, rightfully, to the curb. Society has outgrown religion and it's really only a matter of time before it is surgically removed from society at large. Look at the state of religion now, it has become a cherry picking fest of which values and principles to keep and which are deemed wrong (all of a sudden). the reality is that this is indicative of religion's stuggling attempt to keep up with our new socially determined morality system.
It will die out eventually and I only hope I can see it happen.
Agnosticism is a broad term. I say I'm an atheist but I'm technically an "agnostic" as well in the way that I can't prove there is no God, nor do I claim we can with what we know. But there really is quite a different distinction amongst agnostics. There seems to be a significant amount who think "well since we can't prove there's no God, there's a good chance he still exists" and/or give credence to there being a God simply because it hasn't been disproven. I resent those sentiments. I'll explain why:
Agnosticism is quite broad, that is correct. Notice i spent the time to say "technically an atheist". The reason I self define myself as agnostic is taking on the label Atheist, people often accert so much about your beliefs. And it is currently a non formal, but understanded label.
Could God exist? I suppose. But is it even likely enough for me to act/live my life in such a way that it is true? No, not at all. I don't give any credence to such an opinion because there has been absolutely no reason to believe it to be true...ever.
Well, gut feeling? That is why I use to be a deist.You do not need proof to believe something, belief changes quite easily when proof comes along. When more info come along, belief changes into knowledge. Belief in some explanation to an unanswerable question is not a bad thing at all. If someone, beliefs that some sort of higher being created the universe, then so be it, it is only bad when they assert that it happened without proof. Claiming knowledge without evidence is when it can become harmful.
lol you just implicated ALL religion with that statement, so good work.
So even just from a practical standpoint it's not worth it to even entertain that solution. If you are going to entertain that as a possibility, then you have to consider every other ridiculous possibility that's just as likely from a probability standpoint. Richard Dawkins' Spaghetti Monster analogy comes to mind lol. So once you realize you've started entertaining such nonsense, it behooves you to discredit anyone who would give credence to it.
I am well aware of Richard Dawkins arguments, I was a christopher hitchens type atheist that was an anti-theist. I went around criticizing religion ect... But I personally realized that the true answer to the unknown is infact currently unknowable, why should I tell people they are wrong when we have no idea whether they are or not. The likelihood of them being right is infinitesimally small, but still a possibility.
this is my exact point, you are not a well thought out agnostic. You are more in line with that 50/50 camp. you admit it's an infinitely small possibility yet give credence to them. We call such statistical anamolies "outliers". You're not analyzing the proposed solutions properly if you give them significance.
You seem like you entertain the concept of God, or there being an alternative to the Big Bang, as some likely possibility and that's why I disagree with you. Here's a Richard Dawkins clip to explain my point about the broad range of difference between agnostics, also because Dawkins could say it way better than me:
There is always a possibility that what we know about reality can change drastically, especially if it is trying to explain something that happened billions of years ago. I have seen this video a dozen times :D
Log in to comment