Believe not to believe

I have never given atheism much thought. My choice to seek spirituality has been an ongoing walk on the path. There have even been times when I had opted not to believe period. Those times usually existed when I had reached a point wherein I didn't know what to think and thought it best to think of nothing.

I'd like to know if there is any other belief system that categorizes itself based not on what it believes but rather what it doesn't believe in. Even gay organizations (whose members probably don't believe in opposite gender sex) allow the room for diversion.

 

Yes, its called Protestantism, the faith based on protesting Catholicism.

 

Please tell me that reply was intended to be 'funny' or 'ironic' or something less than serious BlackG?

 

hey! i sort of relate. i think truth can be found in all places and is not the domain of one single religion. if u are seriously looking go read this: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/hpb.htm the only religion is truth. i honestly believe that.
take care buddy.

 

Duncan

SO GAY philosophy is valid by your standards?

How magnanimous

To give a thing thought.. Is to enable it.
Nothing IS . without rational ThOUGHT OF IT.
Reason enables thought.
BECAUSE REASON IS THINKING

True thinking IS RATIONAL THOUGHT
NOT EMOTIONAL THOUGHT [that. which most humans do]

Occam

 

unitarians are a pretty open group

 

Then again...sometimes occam talks shit..

 

I would if I could, but by its name alone Protestantism verily shouts its raison d'etre. It came about as a protest to the aspects of the Universal Christian church, and was founded on the idea that they did not believe in a list of accepted traditions of the church. The question was whether there was a faith based on what they did not believe as opposed to what they did believe, and a religion with protest as a root word in its title fits that description to me.
It may seem funny, it is ironic, but it is presented in all seriousness.
Is that not as clear to you as it is to me, Quetzalcoatl?

 

I'd say protestantism or athiesm. Athiests are people who only define themselves by what they don't believe in. So yeah.

 

Disarm

Rubbish.:X

Occam

 

I deny the externality of relations.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Disarm
Athiests are people who only define themselves by what they don't believe in.

Disarm

Rubbish.

Occam

Atheists are defined by their strong adherence to only accepting those things which are scientifically provable. They do not accept blind faith and need to see reproducable evidence, that is done following the scientific method, in order to accept its validity.
I think......I could be wrong, and know that there are exceptions to that, as I am sure many atheists are so becuz of blind faith in atheism.

So, I agree, sir,

Hooey.

 

Blackgaurd

Occam made the statement 'rubbish'
Because NO-ONE defines themselves by what they do not believe in.

Human beings define themselves by what the DO believe in.
1st..their own existance. Which not only defines them..but allow them to
define anything at all.
&
2nd . The admission that they CAN define anything...which is a function of reason.

Without this two self admissions...humans cannot SAY they are anything at all.


Occam

 

what are we when we try to describe ourselves apart from our perceptions? should we put our faith in others' definitions? science only tries to describe the objects of our perceptions, which are, admittingly, not always identical.

 

Mati

And what do we call descriptions of our perceptions that allways match?
Facts.

Do you say there are no facts?

OK...Show occam an example of where gravity does not apply. [in observed reality]

Occam

 

"all discoverable relations of objects apply to perceptions, but not conversely"
Sure there are facts, the perceptions of which are separable from their objects, one being dependent on the other but not the other on the one.

 

Mati

Yes
Facts are 'agreement on perceptions of objects'
This in no way lessens the probabillity that those objects actually exist.

It is a statement that we depend on sense input to have the perceptions.
That our 'perceptions' are not the 'thing' but transmitted data about the 'thing' [in itself]

This is exactly why occam knows as absolute fact. Only one thing.
"i reason therefore i exist, and thus 'a' reality exists"

Occam

 

This is exactly why occam knows as absolute fact. Only one thing.
"i reason therefore i exist, and thus 'a' reality exists"

Occam

Behaviourist Skinner might question you as to whether you actually reason, or are just acting in accordance with your conditioning, and responding to stimuli, like a flower turning towards the sun. The Descarte concept reminds me of the theist argument that states that the beauty, efficiency, and complexity of this world necessitate a sentient creator.
How far off base am I on this one? lol
cheers

 

Blackguard

In saying to yourself.
'i reason therefore i exist'
You prove absolutely that you do.

Occam can find no error in this.
And has never met or read a human being who can show it as false.
If a conscious being knows it exists because it can say so.
Then that is an existant phenomena of an absolute nature.
The questions that mati posed about perception being independent
from the 'thing in itself' do not apply.
We ARE NOT independent of the 'thing in itself' called a reasoning mind.
There ARE NO intervening senses between reason and the existing mind that has reason.
Reason IS the existant phenomena that it recognises as existing.
It is the sense that knows 'absolutely' of its own existance.

Irrefutable.

Occam

PS.. If skinner uses reason to say reason may be false..
Then his arguement is based on a false premise. No?
If he believes what he says..Then HIS reason is but
conditioning and reaction to stimuli.

PPS..And the addition .."and thus 'a' reality exists"
Is an addition by occam.
No have ever invalidated that ..either

 

I just knew you wouldn't budge. And you have no 'reason' to. lol
I wonder if the statement, 'I feel, therefore I am.', is equally valid?

One other thought, dreams can contain reason, so do that mean they exist in a similar fashion? Just a thought.