self righteous atheists....

damn you write blocky essays.

faith is just what you believe in. if you're human, you believe. you're not faithless, sorry.

the "cop-out" thing is nonsensical and unnecessary. let people live. i find those so fixed on a certain right way end up driving themselves insane. you cannot change what others think in total, sorry again.

 

I guess I'm not human.

That explains a lot.

 

indeed you have difficulty explaining what you mean.

must be and probably isn't both indicate uncertainty and faith. paradox? yes. the difference isn't palpable in this context, darling.

your views are more like those that frustrate you than you think.

 

I suppose that is the danger of writing long winded essays, people miss importan bits.

Why do you think I want to change what others think?

I'm just saying, if you must have faith, call it what it is, faith and faith only. Maybe the idea that faith itself is a cop out is unnecessary, and too harsh. However, to try to attribute characteristics to reality that dictate that there mustbe a god, where the proof just isn't there either way, IS a cop out.

The humble priest who feels that the best thing for his heart, and the best philosophy with which to comfort others, with which to learn how to be compassionate and tolerant, is okay.

The agnostic that refuses to believe in any one religion, yet exclaims that there must be some sort of supernatural force working behind everything because a scientific reality dictates it so, is okay as well, but is an idiot.

 

the danger of rambles is the point isn't clear. a writer is only as good as his readers.

i think you're too fixed in people accepting your definition on an ambiguous term. also, it frustrates you that people can be so nonchalant about something you care deeply.

 

No, my views are just too complex for people to understand. They're not frustrating at all, they're just difficult to explain to people who aren't really reading my posts properly, and aren't really looking into the meanings of the words I am using.

If somebody says they find it difficult to accept any one religion as the ultimate truth, yet say that there MUST be a god because reality dictates it so, then they exclaim to understand something about the nature of the unknown which can only truly be explained with faith. That is a paradox. It is trying to dance between faith and logic, and utterly failing. It is a cop out.

If somebody says that they believe there probably isn't a god, they're simply saying that if there seems to be no proof of God's existence within the known reality, then it is reasonable to assume that there is none within the unknown, however there doesn't appear to be a way of finding out. Nothing in this reality tells me there must be a god.

 

Read some new science

 

the belief that one needs to prove that there is a god, or one needs to prove there is a god is as ridiculous as Thetans

it's like comparing my car, and someones Cessna. they are both vehicles, but the basis for comparison are so frail that we're all wasting our time.

intellectual masturbation.

 

it isn't fair to blame others on misinterpreting your beliefs, because it seems you already have trouble figuring out what you mean. it's okay, i think i get the gist. but may i point out a glaring logical fallacy?

you're generalizing the opposing view (believing in god) as a representation of agnosticism and making it look somehow faulty... and you're taking your personal views (atheism), twisting the words around, and making it sound correct.

why can't an agnostic think "there probably isn't a god?"

give me something that isn't a paradox, then we'll fuck.

 

*fixed

good point.

 

I think that the point is clear, but again you're just not reading it.

I think there is a very basic point here, that I have repeated again and again that you're just failing to see.

If one says that there must be a god, because certain aspects of reality prove it, they're pretty much making a statement of epic totality. At least you're suggesting balance, you're suggesting staying open to other possibilities. You're suggesting faith. Faith is fine. Trying to logically prove the basis for that faith, doesn't really work.

 

i've said it before... i'd rather people find faith in something/believe in something that works for them. we're individuals and have our own needs.

just because i am desperate for a banana right now doesn't mean you're right to say "you've eaten too much fruit already today, sania...give it a rest" because the truth may be that you're just a fatass jealous that i'm eating healthy while your fat rolls are sitting there, flubbering in waves.

 

You're still reading into my posts from a very narrow point of view.

I'm not talking about people who believe in God. I feel as if I have made it clear.

I'm talking about specific agnostics (not all agnostics) who refuse to believe in one true god, and yet argue that there must be a god.

I'm probably more agnostic than athiestic because I, like you, don't actually believe that science can ever be truly objective and that I can never truly discount the existence of God.

The issue here is you not understanding my meaning, and some of that could be my fault for not being concise.

 

it's all perception, no one's perception is the same. some people need religion. The more highly evolved prefer science, maybe a smattering of spirituality. But I can't hate anyone for their beliefs; I can only hate them for being jackasses.

 

I'm also happy for people to believe in whatever the hell they want and eat all the capers that want. I hate capers, I think they taste like vomit, yet my Dad seems to like them and it is not any of my business to tell him what he can and cannot eat.

However, there is something kind of annoying about a person that thinks that they can attribute Godly aspects to existence through scientific reasoning, and then criticize athiests for doing the same thing in defence of their own position.

P.S. I don't care that deeply about this. I just care about being understood and getting my point across. I know you're smart enough to understand at least to some extent and I like the challenge of putting it across, as well as trying to develop my own thoughts on the matter, or even better, ways of expressing those thoughts. There is certainly no 'hate' here.

 

I've been reading Robert Anton Wilson lately and I think he puts it best saying that the existence of God, among other things, is indeterminate. So to view the question if a god exists as either "true" or "false" is presuming and unscientific.

 

i may have missed it, but blaming others for not seeing it just lessens the strength of your argument. it doesn't help your case.

considering the currently accepted definitions of proof and logic, there aren't concrete ways to logically prove faith. by concrete i mean, to assure many will buy into it. now what?

you've got a good mind, but you'll drive yourself nuts if you honestly worry about things like this. not saying you do, though.

 

I totally agree, so why the hell try?

 

I've come to realize that the extreme of almost anything is "bad." I say almost, because stating that all extremes are "bad" is an extreme in and of itself.

Self-righteous atheists are just as ignorant as their religious counterparts, they simply pride themselves in being "open minded" whereas religious extremists pride themselves as knowing and following the "truth." This truth just so happens to be extremely (what a horrible pun...) subjective, which is exactly what these hard core atheists cannot fully comprehend.

We don't really deal with absolutes, rather probability. If people understood this, they'd see that no single belief or set of beliefs (atheist have beliefs too) are truly better or more "right" than another. However some may certainly be more probable based upon empirical evidence (which is still to some degree subjective).

 

it feels like "is there a God?...prove why or why not" is the new "what is the meaning of life?"

ninny.