4 ms·

Uff, congrats on going for the standard internet atheist vs. christians blather. Atheism makes a definitive statement for things which are outside the realm of

by wheels 17y ago

Uff, congrats on going for the standard internet atheist vs. christians blather. Atheism makes a definitive statement for things which are outside the realm of the testable world. In that sense, it is like being religious. The term agnosticism, or simply not religious, as I more often use, is indicative of a lack of belief. Second, morality and ethics are part of the same social evolution that has traditionally produced religions. Almost any citizen of a western country has ethics that are rooted in some vaguely judeo-christian notions, which themselves are rooted in socratic notions, and so on. The social fabric doesn't have clearly demarcated lines for "religious" and "areligious". Trying to imaging what western ethics would have been without the influence of religion is like trying to imagine the United States would have been without the influence of England. You just can't pull the two apart.

ThomPete 17y ago
That's like saying that people declaring not guilty of a crime they haven't done are equally as criminal as those declaring guilty. Your argument is at best polemic. The reasons why I don't believe in a good have nothing to do with me living by the doctrine of not believing in god as there is no doctrine for not believing in god. I might believe in things that are not provable up front (such as making it safe from destination a - b) But the big difference is that claims made about religion and god can't be tested. And this leaves them in the same pile of fiction as harry potter, lord of the rings and so on. All very amusing but fundamentally as relevant and testable as whether mice are really running the planet.
ThomPete 17y ago
With regards to agnosticism. We exactly don't know whether there is a god or not, but choosing to believe there is one despite there being no evidence for this is by no metrics the same as saying I don't believe in it cause there is no evidence. You can't be an agnostic. You either "live with god" in your life or you don't. You can have an agnostic point of view on whether the question is answerable or not. You can't both live with a belief in god and without one. You can't both follow the laws of a religion and not follow them. With regards to the cultural heritage then again you are simply assuming the conclusion. The reasons why we have morals and ethics are NOT because we have religion. Human reality is the fundamental reason why we have rules. Religion sits on top of these rules and pretend to tell us WHY we should believe (gods wrath and vengange being one of them) But you don't need religion to make rules for peaceful co-existence and that is what people fundamentally want.

by wheels 17y ago

ThomPete 17y ago

That's like saying that people declaring not guilty of a crime they haven't done are equally as criminal as those declaring guilty. Your argument is at best polemic. The reasons why I don't believe in a good have nothing to do with me living by the doctrine of not believing in god as there is no doctrine for not believing in god. I might believe in things that are not provable up front (such as making it safe from destination a - b) But the big difference is that claims made about religion and god can't be tested. And this leaves them in the same pile of fiction as harry potter, lord of the rings and so on. All very amusing but fundamentally as relevant and testable as whether mice are really running the planet.

ThomPete 17y ago

With regards to agnosticism. We exactly don't know whether there is a god or not, but choosing to believe there is one despite there being no evidence for this is by no metrics the same as saying I don't believe in it cause there is no evidence. You can't be an agnostic. You either "live with god" in your life or you don't. You can have an agnostic point of view on whether the question is answerable or not. You can't both live with a belief in god and without one. You can't both follow the laws of a religion and not follow them. With regards to the cultural heritage then again you are simply assuming the conclusion. The reasons why we have morals and ethics are NOT because we have religion. Human reality is the fundamental reason why we have rules. Religion sits on top of these rules and pretend to tell us WHY we should believe (gods wrath and vengange being one of them) But you don't need religion to make rules for peaceful co-existence and that is what people fundamentally want.