Imagine No Religion — Page 8

Namo - I honestly have to ask, why are you so convinced of nothing being 'in charge'? Perhaps you have access to information some of us don't - but I just don't see how our limited awareness leads to the kind of defiant dismissal that you profess.

In addition, most of the world is religious and/or believes in God or something greater. Are you implying that only those who don't believe, as you don't, are rational and the rest-the majority-of the world is irrational? That is a sad thought. The founders of this country were believers, and if they weren't rational thinkers than who was?

---

Not surprisingly, the least rational among you have grow incredibly defensive and affronted by something so simple.

In all honestly I am an agnostic. I fully admit that I have no idea what's out/up/down there and I fully admit that. I may gain a personal belief, but I will never KNOW what's out/up/down there. No one will.

---

Updated On: 12/11/07 at 08:09 PM

You really are nine, aren't you?

Do you even know what the word "rational" means?

Oh, and before you carry on with the trope about this country being founded by believers, let's let Thomas Jefferson from a letter to John Adams have the last word on that, okay?

"The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained.

---

You're not defending your positions, you're taking the points I am making and rephrasing them back to me. Very very nine.

---

Namo does have a tendency of ignoring posts that he can't explain away.

---

I know some people have to see it to believe it. But does that make those of us who believe in something we don't see irrational? There is a book called "Apologetics" which has arguments for many questions asked about Christian faith (i.e. why they believe what they do, what the beliefs are based upon). For example, Jesus did exist, he was a historical figure, but the fact that he was the Son of God is left up to faith.

---

You missed DG's post:
"Namo - I honestly have to ask, why are you so convinced of nothing being 'in charge'? Perhaps you have access to information some of us don't - but I just don't see how our limited awareness leads to the kind of defiant dismissal that you profess."

And I hope you don't act the way you do here towards the ones you love who believe, because that would be terrible.

---

A belief that no greater being exist is based on what exactly? Science? Test tube babies? Last time I checked sex/humans created babies. So, science is getting closer and closer to duplicating that. That disproves what exactly? Nothing. So if we could look into the future to find that such baby will ever be created, would you then change your thoughts?

Namo - I honestly have to ask, why are you so convinced of nothing being 'in charge'? Perhaps you have access to information some of us don't - but I just don't see how our limited awareness leads to the kind of defiant dismissal that you profess.

YWIW, exactly. Believing in nothing is just as a irrational as believing in god/allah/jah/Vishnu/whomever.

---

Updated On: 12/11/07 at 08:39 PM

There are "proofs" for the existence of God that philosophers have worked on for centuries. There is no proof that God does not exist. So is it irrational to not believe as well? If neither can be proven than both must be irrational. One cannot be rational if the other cannot be if both can't be proven.

EDIT: If any of you would like I'll post the proofs, but first I must attend to something non-internet related.

---

Updated On: 12/11/07 at 08:40 PM

But YWIW - I get the feeling that some want to look at the VERY LIMITED information available, and firmly decree that God couldn't exist. They're taking a stand, and therefore as susciptible to the 'burden of proof' as those who 'believe'.

Well, if you tell me an envelope has 100 dollars in it - unless I have personal knowledge of the person making the statement, I am going to check to make sure that 100 dollars is there. To me, the belief in God is kind of the same.

If someone has had experiences that make it reasonable for them to believe in God, then that is great. But that is very different from proving objectively that God exists. If someone comes and tells me there is a God, I will still ask them to prove it.

With regard to God, belief or non-belief is something very personal - I would consider myself to actually be an Agnostic - I am just not sure. It has not been proven or disproven. To me, that is the most rational approach to an irrational quest.

Again, irrational does not necessarily mean bad. It just means that it is not supported by logic or reason. Many things that bring joy and comfort to us are not supported by logic or reason.

And, as an aside, it is much more difficult to prove a negative - that something does not exist, than to believe that it does. My friend once had a Philosophy test where he was asked to prove the existence of a chair in the front of the room. He wrote "what chair" and walked out. He got an A (and is also one of the best litigators I have ever met).

Updated On: 12/11/07 at 09:13 PM

Who here believes that the Greek and Roman Gods existed? Who believes in Xenu or whatever that Scientology God is?