gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Of course he does. If you're lucky he'll tell you all about it. I'm too shy.
Religions are mostly wrong
- Thread starter BartenderElite
- Start date
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Thanks for the confession, Sybil. Do you apply it to him or does he apply it to you?
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Like I said, I'm too shy. You'll have to ask the IBD sock of mine about the juicy details.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Frank,
Well, of course, there is no definitive indicator of what the answers to the unanswered questions are. If one of the religions is correct, then most humans (like, 90% + ) would agree and support it.
There is no faulted position to take, since none can be proven false.
Science appears to hold the most hope. Religions are static. Their beliefs pretty much do not change. Science produces new knowledge. The more science progresses, the more we learn about our universe. There is no accepted scientific theory to prove the existence of a creator being; nor an afterlife. That makes it easy to assume they do not exist. There's no there there. At least, not scientifically.
Well, of course, there is no definitive indicator of what the answers to the unanswered questions are. If one of the religions is correct, then most humans (like, 90% + ) would agree and support it.
There is no faulted position to take, since none can be proven false.
Science appears to hold the most hope. Religions are static. Their beliefs pretty much do not change. Science produces new knowledge. The more science progresses, the more we learn about our universe. There is no accepted scientific theory to prove the existence of a creator being; nor an afterlife. That makes it easy to assume they do not exist. There's no there there. At least, not scientifically.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Cypress,
Yes, there is quite a good life to be had doing one's civic duty and enjoying life without religion. Yes, there are indicators of early emergence of rituals. It makes sense that early humans would make things up to gossip about frightening things like lightning, earthquakes, meteors, severe weather, droughts, floods, etc. We all know how a story, retold over and over by those it was told to, changes with each retelling. The emergence of religions, following the establishment of a language, is really no surprise at all. It's not like any of those people knew any better.
Yes, there is quite a good life to be had doing one's civic duty and enjoying life without religion. Yes, there are indicators of early emergence of rituals. It makes sense that early humans would make things up to gossip about frightening things like lightning, earthquakes, meteors, severe weather, droughts, floods, etc. We all know how a story, retold over and over by those it was told to, changes with each retelling. The emergence of religions, following the establishment of a language, is really no surprise at all. It's not like any of those people knew any better.
Hey, Poli,
We are in substantial disagreement on several items here, Poli. I'll comment on them. Feel free to comment back or to just ignore them.
They might...they might not. Not sure of your reasoning here, but if one of the religions IS correct...and people cannot agree on which is, why would 90% agree and support it?
There IS a faulted position to take. That position is: I DO NOT KNOW.
Religions change. The religions of the ancient Greeks, Romans and Norse are substantially different from the religions of today. Even something as supposedly "static" as Roman Catholicism has changed...sorta like a glacier, but still changed.
It makes it a hell of a lot easier to declare (rather than assume)...that we do not know. Some of the greatest scientific minds of history have gone that route. It definitely is the path I recommend.
Tinkerpeach
New member
I don’t think religion can be wrong
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
So you support ISIS?
Tinkerpeach
New member
ISIS Isn’t a religion lol
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
It's Islamic. As religious as Evangelicals, Fundamentalist Mormons, Seventh-day Adventist and these folks:
BidenPresident
Verified User
Of course it can.
Tinkerpeach
New member
No they are a political organization which uses terrorism to achieve their goals
While the majority of their members are religious they encompass many different belief systems
There is no uniform religion they follow nor do they promote any specific religion
Their goal is to enact fundamental political change throughout the region and turn it more extremist such as cutting ties with the west and being self reliant
IBDaMann
Well-known member
No Frank, that is not a belief. You use the word "position" to avoid clearly stating whether you are expressing a theistic belief (for which you do not know) or stating a lack of knowledge irrespective of any beliefs. You do this because you are dishonest.
Now I get it. You believe that being dishonest in this way makes you a great scientific mind. Unfortunately, it leaves you babbling gibberish like a moron.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Wrong, Tink. They are a religious/political organization which uses terrorism. Remember the Westboro Baptists? Like them.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Frank,
When I said 'Faulted position' I meant 'faulty position,' 'Position at fault.' Not 'default position.' ie, I meant there is no wrong position to take.
Agreed, we do not know. There are unanswered questions. We are all free to choose what makes the most sense to us to believe. I am not proclaiming there is no creator. I am saying I do not believe there is one. I'm prepared to offer my reasoning in arriving at that belief. I do not ever expect to establish that as agreed fact. I argue to support my belief. That's all. I totally recognize the right of others to believe differently. Leaving it at 'unknown' does not describe my beliefs accurately. You can leave it there. I am not comfortable with that. That would be more agnostic than atheist. I am definitely atheist. I don't expect others to be. But I do respect it if they do. Regardless, we are each entitled to our own freedom to believe as we wish - or not. It's the freedom that is important.
When I said 'Faulted position' I meant 'faulty position,' 'Position at fault.' Not 'default position.' ie, I meant there is no wrong position to take.
Agreed, we do not know. There are unanswered questions. We are all free to choose what makes the most sense to us to believe. I am not proclaiming there is no creator. I am saying I do not believe there is one. I'm prepared to offer my reasoning in arriving at that belief. I do not ever expect to establish that as agreed fact. I argue to support my belief. That's all. I totally recognize the right of others to believe differently. Leaving it at 'unknown' does not describe my beliefs accurately. You can leave it there. I am not comfortable with that. That would be more agnostic than atheist. I am definitely atheist. I don't expect others to be. But I do respect it if they do. Regardless, we are each entitled to our own freedom to believe as we wish - or not. It's the freedom that is important.
BidenPresident
Verified User
Then it cannot be right.
What do you mean when you say you are "definitely atheistic?"
My position is an agnostic one, but I actually state that position. Here it is again:
I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.
(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)
Please, Poli, if you will...explain your position in as great a depth so I can understand it.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Frank,
"Definitely atheist" means an individual who actually believes there is no creator being.
Definition of atheist: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being." That describes my position.
I really do not believe there is one. I have no doubt in my position. The idea that a super powerful being would have the ability and decide to create a world of lessor beings makes no sense to me. It is not logical. For what purpose would this be done? Amusement of the super powerful being? There is no logical reason to create a world of inferior beings, then sit back and watch it, or require that some of the more advanced of the inferior beings pay homage. If a being possessed such powers this would be a boring exercise.
And it begs the next unanswered question: Who created the creator? For what purpose? I simply cannot subscribe to this theory.
I can't rule it out. I have no way to prove it's BS, but I think it is. I am not afraid of what might happen to me after I am dead. Our best scientific knowledge indicates that when an individual dies brain function ceases. The individual functions no longer, is unable to have thoughts or identify as an individual. It is simply the end of life. That means the individual is no longer subject to pain or punishment because the individual no longer exists. What was becomes biological residue. There is no existence to be concerned about after that point.
By holding that belief, there need be no concern about what happens after death. No individual should have any concerns about it because they won't be around to experience anything. They will not exist at that point.
There was a point prior to birth when the individual did not exist; and upon death it will be precisely the same as prior to becoming an individual life form. Nothingness.
I don't know what you are after. I have explained quite clearly my position. It seems very straightforward. No amount of elaboration could embellish it further. I really feel like nothing beyond the first two lines of this post was required. Everything I wrote after the first two lines was not needed. I hope that suffices for you. I do not know what 'great depth' could say, that the first two lines did not make abundantly clear.
"Definitely atheist" means an individual who actually believes there is no creator being.
Definition of atheist: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being." That describes my position.
I really do not believe there is one. I have no doubt in my position. The idea that a super powerful being would have the ability and decide to create a world of lessor beings makes no sense to me. It is not logical. For what purpose would this be done? Amusement of the super powerful being? There is no logical reason to create a world of inferior beings, then sit back and watch it, or require that some of the more advanced of the inferior beings pay homage. If a being possessed such powers this would be a boring exercise.
And it begs the next unanswered question: Who created the creator? For what purpose? I simply cannot subscribe to this theory.
I can't rule it out. I have no way to prove it's BS, but I think it is. I am not afraid of what might happen to me after I am dead. Our best scientific knowledge indicates that when an individual dies brain function ceases. The individual functions no longer, is unable to have thoughts or identify as an individual. It is simply the end of life. That means the individual is no longer subject to pain or punishment because the individual no longer exists. What was becomes biological residue. There is no existence to be concerned about after that point.
By holding that belief, there need be no concern about what happens after death. No individual should have any concerns about it because they won't be around to experience anything. They will not exist at that point.
There was a point prior to birth when the individual did not exist; and upon death it will be precisely the same as prior to becoming an individual life form. Nothingness.
I don't know what you are after. I have explained quite clearly my position. It seems very straightforward. No amount of elaboration could embellish it further. I really feel like nothing beyond the first two lines of this post was required. Everything I wrote after the first two lines was not needed. I hope that suffices for you. I do not know what 'great depth' could say, that the first two lines did not make abundantly clear.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
What people believe isn't the problem. The problem is when they try to jam those beliefs down the throats of others.
Having a St. Patty's Day parade, a Gay Pride parade or even an atheist protest isn't the problem. It's when any of those groups seek to force others to believe the same way either by violence or legislation that conflict will erupt.
Religions are all wrong. Some religions are wronger than others. I would love to tell you about it. But it wouldn't be allowed. At most of the forums I know of, the only thing you are allowed to do is basically hold hands and sing kumbaya.