Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Orange Wizard]

It'd also mean the schools would teach non-religious points of view as absolute fact with no protest.

The schools would teach fact, you mean? They could throw in the odd bit of "this religion thinks this, though, and this one that" if they wanted.

This is basically what happens in NZ. Even religious schools are required to teach evolution etc. as part of the curriculum. We also had compulsory classes on Hinduism and... some other religion I don't recall.

[martinuzz]

It's more how saying atheism is fact and then saying 'yo hav the religuns' is kinda, well, indoctrination.

If an educational system would only teach scientific fact, and have no mention of world religions, and their main views on science, then it would be, in the light of all religions in existence, be incomplete information, and I might even agree when you say indoctrination, because information is being witheld.

However, when education about the various religions and their main views is included as part of the total curriculum, I disagree.

I don't believe in atheism by the way, just like I don't believe in any god. You cannot prove or disprove the existance of a god, so both are dogmatic beliefs.
Hence I would never advocate any institution to teach atheism as fact.
Atheism is not the same as science.
Which is why the term 'agnost' literally means 'not knowing' (in Old Greek), which, if I had to place myself in any group, would be where to put me.

This is basically what happens in NZ. Even religious schools are required to teach evolution etc. as part of the curriculum. We also had compulsory classes on Hinduism and... some other religion I don't recall.

Same in the Netherlands. For over 35 years already.

[Graknorke]

I don't believe in atheism by the way

Uh, you know atheism is a real thing right? As in, lots of people say they are. Unless they're all deluding themselves and secretly believe in a god and are lying about it.

[TD1]

I don't think he's saying he doesn't believe atheism exists, he just does not believe that atheism is a valid approach. Though, given the wording, a mistake could easily have been made.

[martinuzz]

Uh, you know atheism is a real thing right? As in, lots of people say they are. Unless they're all deluding themselves and secretly believe in a god and are lying about it.

No their delusion lies in thinking that it is absolute certainty that there is no god. That is philosophically unprovable.

butyeah I might have worded it a bit multi-interpretable

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

[TD1]

I wouldn't say that I believe it's absolutely impossible that there is a god. I'd just say the possibility for there to be one is next to nil, or that if there is one it probably stretches the definition of "god."

Still, nothing is impossible. An Almighty Father in heaven who sent his son - who is also himself - to earth in order to die for our sins which we committed because of his plan just isn't high amongst the possibilities, along with all other religions.

To give an oft used example: The FSM is philosophically possible. Doesn't mean anyone ought to believe in flying, sentient spaghetti.

[origamiscienceguy]

I wouldn't say that I believe it's absolutely impossible that there is a god. I'd just say the possibility for there to be one is next to nil, or that if there is one it probably stretches the definition of "god."

Still, nothing is impossible. An Almighty Father in heaven who sent his son - who is also himself - to earth in order to die for our sins which we committed because of his plan just isn't high amongst the possibilities, along with all other religions.

To give an oft used example: The FSM is philosophically possible. Doesn't mean anyone ought to believe in flying, sentient spaghetti.

Every option has an absurdly small chance if looked upon with a logical standpoint. Since I don't think Humans can quite comprehend what a God would actually be like. But the chance that Earth was in the perfect place around the perfect star with the perfect substances and the perfect conditions to support life is also absurdly small.

[Graknorke]

Reread it, thought you were being one of those inherent-human-nature deists. My bad.

No their delusion lies in thinking that it is absolute certainty that there is no god. That is philosophically unprovable.

Those are some pretty flimsy straw men you have set up there. I don't think you'd find many atheists who define atheism like that. Bar yourself obviously. It's not a truth statement, just the absence of a particular one.

Every option has an absurdly small chance if looked upon with a logical standpoint. Since I don't think Humans can quite comprehend what a God would actually be like. But the chance that Earth was in the perfect place around the perfect star with the perfect substances and the perfect conditions to support life is also absurdly small.

That one's subject to some heavy confirmation bias. Namely that life isn't going to develop somewhere life can't develop. So if you took a survey of all life in the universe you'd find that all of it came from improbably hospitable conditions.

[martinuzz]

I wouldn't say that I believe it's absolutely impossible that there is a god. I'd just say the possibility for there to be one is next to nil, or that if there is one it probably stretches the definition of "god."

Still, nothing is impossible. An Almighty Father in heaven who sent his son - who is also himself - to earth in order to die for our sins which we committed because of his plan just isn't high amongst the possibilities, along with all other religions.

To give an oft used example: The FSM is philosophically possible. Doesn't mean anyone ought to believe in flying, sentient spaghetti.

And then again, what is a god? if I were suddenly plucked from the ground by a giant hand from the sky, would that be a divine act, and acceptable proof of god, or would it just be some extradimensional bored gamer's mouse cursor?

Those are some pretty flimsy straw men you have set up there. I don't think you'd find many atheists who define atheism like that. Bar yourself obviously. It's not a truth statement, just the absence of a particular one.

Let's just say then that a lot of people who call themselves atheist just aren't versed enough in philosophical terminology to realize that they are actually agnosts.
It's kindof like a lot of people who call themselves feminists are actually emancipationists, because they're not sexists.

[Loud Whispers]

what if god was phone

[TD1]

I wouldn't say that I believe it's absolutely impossible that there is a god. I'd just say the possibility for there to be one is next to nil, or that if there is one it probably stretches the definition of "god."

Still, nothing is impossible. An Almighty Father in heaven who sent his son - who is also himself - to earth in order to die for our sins which we committed because of his plan just isn't high amongst the possibilities, along with all other religions.

To give an oft used example: The FSM is philosophically possible. Doesn't mean anyone ought to believe in flying, sentient spaghetti.

Every option has an absurdly small chance if looked upon with a logical standpoint. Since I don't think Humans can quite comprehend what a God would actually be like. But the chance that Earth was in the perfect place around the perfect star with the perfect substances and the perfect conditions to support life is also absurdly small.

Indeed, if you assume it happened once.

If, however, you assume that the universe is infinite (or at least hugenormous - which it certainly is) then it was bound to happen at least once, and probably quite a few times beside.

To paraphrase Libby Aluhwahlia, perhaps the dice had to land some way, and landed as they did by chance.

I wouldn't say that I believe it's absolutely impossible that there is a god. I'd just say the possibility for there to be one is next to nil, or that if there is one it probably stretches the definition of "god."

Still, nothing is impossible. An Almighty Father in heaven who sent his son - who is also himself - to earth in order to die for our sins which we committed because of his plan just isn't high amongst the possibilities, along with all other religions.

To give an oft used example: The FSM is philosophically possible. Doesn't mean anyone ought to believe in flying, sentient spaghetti.

And then again, what is a god? if I were suddenly plucked from the ground by a giant hand from the sky, would that be a divine act, and acceptable proof of god, or would it just be some extradimensional bored gamer's mouse cursor?

As I said, if there is something that is momentous, it does not necessarily mean it is a god. I suppose I would define a god as a creator ex nihilo.

[martinuzz]

Every option has an absurdly small chance if looked upon with a logical standpoint. Since I don't think Humans can quite comprehend what a God would actually be like. But the chance that Earth was in the perfect place around the perfect star with the perfect substances and the perfect conditions to support life is also absurdly small.

Actually, general scientific consensus is the opposite. The chance that there aren't more stars with planets with conditions favourable to life, is regarded as absurdly small.

[Arx]

Idle curiosity Dwarfy, doesn't that mean that you must per force believe in some form of deity? Seeing as presumably the universe originated somewhere. Not that there's any scientific way of testing that, I suppose.

[Graknorke]

Those are some pretty flimsy straw men you have set up there. I don't think you'd find many atheists who define atheism like that. Bar yourself obviously. It's not a truth statement, just the absence of a particular one.

Let's just say then that a lot of people who call themselves atheist just aren't versed enough in philosophical terminology to realize that they are actually agnosts.

That's because they're both. Agnostic atheists. Agnosticism isn't mutually exclusive with theism either, just for the record.

[TD1]

Assuming the universe started somewhere, I'd put it down to some form of force, as much a deity as gravity is. I suppose I should edit my definition - a god is a creator ex nihilo which has sentience.