Believe not to believe

Discussion in 'Agnosticism and Atheism' started by Duncan, Jan 21, 2005.

  1. Duncan

    Duncan Senior Member

    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.
     
  2. BlackGuardXIII

    BlackGuardXIII fera festiva

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

    Quetzalcoatl Banned

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

    Peregrine Member

    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.
     
  5. Occam

    Occam Old bag of dreams

    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
     
  6. juggla

    juggla Member

    unitarians are a pretty open group
     
  7. Occam

    Occam Old bag of dreams

    Then again...sometimes occam talks shit..
     
  8. BlackGuardXIII

    BlackGuardXIII fera festiva

    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?
     
  9. Disarm

    Disarm Member

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

    Occam Old bag of dreams

    Disarm

    Rubbish.:X

    Occam
     
  11. mati

    mati Member

    I deny the externality of relations.
     
  12. BlackGuardXIII

    BlackGuardXIII fera festiva

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

    Disarm

    Rubbish.[​IMG]

    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.
     
  13. Occam

    Occam Old bag of dreams

    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
     
  14. mati

    mati Member

    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.
     
  15. Occam

    Occam Old bag of dreams

    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
     
  16. mati

    mati Member

    "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.
     
  17. Occam

    Occam Old bag of dreams

    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
     
  18. BlackGuardXIII

    BlackGuardXIII fera festiva

    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
     
  19. Occam

    Occam Old bag of dreams

    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
     
  20. BlackGuardXIII

    BlackGuardXIII fera festiva

    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.
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice