Opinions of religion. Why or why don't believe in them?
Yes, i am a christain, but im not going to be the one to argue with atheiests about it. im not going to dislike u because you dont believe in God, because you have the right to believe in what you like. we have free will. pus, i do understand why atheists dont believe in the Bible because to them, its just like any other old book that could be fake like all other stories made up by an author. i do understand that that could possibly be true, but i just believe in Christianity. so state your thoughts and opinions about it. i will respect all answers regardless of reasons
|
The religious beliefs I subscribe to, I subscribe to not because they are (or even can be) empirically proven; they cannot. That which is outside the realm of empiricism and observation can neither be proven or disproven. Thus, to say belief in the existence of a god is any more or less illogical than strong atheism is absurd. Given what we know about the world, the universe, and the realms of space and time themselves (which is very little), I believe theists must simply look objectively at the concepts posited by different religions and subscribe to the most logical system that encompasses all we know about...everything. Religion, then, is a hypothesis, just like atheism. Agnosticism is the most logically consistent position to hold. As Obama once said, "My faith admits some doubt." Religion on the whole, and religious conflicts are just human arrogance. To say Christianity is true is incredibly arrogant. Belief is exactly that, a belief. One believes in god. One does not believe in evolution; one accepts it as truth or dismisses reality. So the simple answer is "it makes sense." But for anyone to say religion is any more than a hypothetical, theoretical explanation for the supernatural has no idea what they're talking about. And for atheists to claim any more than exactly that is arrogant and ignorant, as well. 1
point
The religious beliefs I subscribe to, Holy shitnigs man, you're religious? Feigned surprise aside, you never actually told me which set of beliefs you followed ,you just once messaged me saying you did. I subscribe to not because they are (or even can be) empirically proven; they cannot. Why would one choose to subscribe to that which cannot be proven? I suppose I can buy the whole, "I was touched by an angel" stuff, simply because that isn't a choice (though it isn't evidence for their claim). But to consciously choose it seems prima facie unsubstantiated. Thus, to say belief in the existence of a god is any more or less illogical than strong atheism is absurd. In the case of gnostic atheism, I agree. But I doubt 1% of the atheist population would claim gnosticism on God. Although, would you agree that some of the logical impossibilities surrounding specific concepts of God are evidence enough to at least call gnostic atheism more logical than gnostic theism, regardless of how illogical it is on its own. Given what we know about the world, the universe, and the realms of space and time themselves (which is very little) How can one adequately judge the level of our understanding? I believe theists must simply look objectively at the concepts posited by different religions and subscribe to the most logical system that encompasses all we know about...everything. Or, as the case may be (which I believe), no religion whatsoever. To support theism on the grounds of logic, to me, is not possible. Religion, then, is a hypothesis, just like atheism. What does atheism hypothesize? Agnosticism is the most logically consistent position to hold. The terms are not mutually exclusive. I would hazard a guess that 99% of the atheist populace is also agnostic. One does not believe in evolution; one accepts it as truth or dismisses reality. One believes in everything they so choose, regardless of whether or not they can substantiate it. One believes in evolution, they just have more evidence than those that believe in Xenu. "Belief" is a word that has been sadly hijacked by theists. 1
point
1
point
"The religious beliefs I subscribe to, I subscribe to not because they are (or even can be) empirically proven; they cannot." What religious beliefs do you subscribe to? I wasn't aware you subscribed to any belief that could be deemed "religious". That is of course of you don't mind telling me, I would understand completely if you would rather keep it to yourself. Or maybe you would prefer to message me, that may be more appropriate. 1
point
1
point
The religious beliefs I subscribe to, I subscribe to not because they are (or even can be) empirically proven; they cannot. Is there any other basis of belief, but lack of empirical evidence that proves something to be undeniably true? Thus, to say belief in the existence of a god is any more or less illogical than strong atheism is absurd. The validity of the above statement must surely depend upon one's definition of a God. There are certain definitions of God which conflict with the most basic logical principles. I believe theists must simply... subscribe to the most logical system that encompasses all we know about everything. One cannot subscribe to knowledge, sir. One can reject what is known, but to suggest that knowledge is false conflicts with any logical philosophy. The only system that is actually logical is to know what is proven, suspect and contrive knowledge of what is unproven, and to scorn any endeavour to know what is unprovable. Religion, then, is a hypothesis, just like atheism. Atheism is not a hypothesis. It is an antithesis. No original man ever stood up, before he had heard of another's God, and exclaimed "There is no God!" The definition of God that atheism rejects is one of an omnipotent, sentient being, which created the universe. You may wish to supply some other definition, but as atheism is a reactive philosophy, I shall enquire as to which theistic religion ever posited it. At any rate, the definition of God that I understand to be the most common, is certainly in conflict with diverse scientific principles, and therefore is not admitted by rational logic, wherever it is based upon knowledge. Is there any other basis of belief, but lack of empirical evidence that proves something to be undeniably true? Perhaps. That matter isn't really relevant as I'm not claiming my beliefs to be undeniably true. The validity of the above statement must surely depend upon one's definition of a God. There are certain definitions of God which conflict with the most basic logical principles. Fair enough. As well as those gods that enter into the realm of empiricism. If they contradict observation, I side with the empirical evidence (ex. creationism). One cannot subscribe to knowledge, sir. Am I claiming it to be knowledge? One can reject what is known, but to suggest that knowledge is false conflicts with any logical philosophy. We're not dealing in knowledge or fact here. These are unsubstantiated hypothesis. Atheism is not a hypothesis. It is an antithesis. No original man ever stood up, before he had heard of another's God, and exclaimed "There is no God!" Yet atheists (for the most part) do not believe in any metaphysical or supernatural realm. They hypothesize non-existence. The definition of God that atheism rejects is one of an omnipotent, sentient being, which created the universe. You may wish to supply some other definition, but as atheism is a reactive philosophy, I shall enquire as to which theistic religion ever posited it. I reject this definition. At any rate, the definition of God that I understand to be the most common, is certainly in conflict with diverse scientific principles, and therefore is not admitted by rational logic, wherever it is based upon knowledge. Why are we now narrowing down this argument to the definitions of god that are most common? Any definition of god that does not expand observable influence into the realm of empiricism CANNOT by its very definition contradict anything we know. Thus strong atheism remains just as illogical given no grounds upon which to dismiss existence. 1
point
1
point
1
point
|
