Ursus Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 I'm a Roman Pagan, and like Pantagathus I have an affinity for Hermes/ Mercury, among a few others. I don't agree with and would never personally practice a lot of religions/philosophies out there, but if they leave me alone I don't care. I find militant atheists can be as annoying as militant monotheists, and I find it hard to befriend either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 I am with Ursus and Pantagathus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlapse Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 As for the difference between agnosticism and atheism, I think there is a major and important difference: whether one believes it is possible that there is an omnipotent/omniscient/creator (i.e., one or more beings with godly properties) or whether one believes it is impossible. As an atheist, my opinion is that a being that is both omnipotent and omniscient is impossible, in the same way that it's impossible for something to be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect. If a being is capable of doing anything, then it is capable of learning; but if it is capable of learning, then it is not all-knowing; therefore, there cannot be a being that is simultaneously omniscient and omnipotent. QED. Do you believe that self-aware A.I. can eventually be created? The answer 'yes' or 'no' is irrelevant, no one can know until it happens. I think that assuming the impossibility of a creator based on assumptions of the nature of a creator is a flawed rationale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflex Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 (edited) ....however I have faith that everything can be explained by scientific thought, and to follow practices of religion in the meanwhile would simply be a hindrance to furthur advances of science and finding the true answer. I don't think modern christianity is a hindrence to science, other religions might be but not christianity. The only time it might obstruct scientific advancement is when experimentation might be considered inhumane eg. human experimentation, animal cruelty etc. In these cases, sure I agree with you, without christianity science would be better off but it would also be highly immoral. Edited February 4, 2006 by tflex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favonius Cornelius Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 I was heavily indoctrinated as a Christian, but now I'm neither Christian or atheist, because both would presume something unknown, so I'm agnostic. I really don't care for any religious belief. Same, it is arrogant to presume humans know ^*&* about reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Valerius Scerio Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 I second Primus Pilus' note - atheism is not a religion. Over at IIDB where I am a moderator for the Existence of God forum, we've come up with technical definitions for atheism and agnosticism. It might be worth a look. You can see it here. As for me, I'm a dignist. I was heavily indoctrinated as a Christian, but now I'm neither Christian or atheist, because both would presume something unknown, so I'm agnostic. I really don't care for any religious belief. Same, it is arrogant to presume humans know ^*&* about reality. Wouldn't it be equally arrogant to presume that you know that we don't know? Argumenta ad Ignorantiam. (IIRC) Likewise, to Moonlapse, merely having no belief in god warrants you an atheist. You may not be a "strong" atheist, which would require you to actively deny the existence of god, but nonetheless an atheist you'd be. If I read you correctly, you'd be an agnostic atheist - one who does not believe in the existence of gods yet states that knowledge of gods' existence cannot be known. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favonius Cornelius Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 (edited) Wouldn't it be equally arrogant to presume that you know that we don't know? Argumenta ad Ignorantiam. (IIRC) I do not presume we know or don't know, and therefore arrive at still not knowing. It is true based on logical deduction that we cannot know. If one cannot accept that fact, then they operate outside logic or do not understand the process of coming to that ultimate final deduction. Edited February 4, 2006 by Favonius Cornelius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlapse Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Same, it is arrogant to presume humans know ^*&* about reality. I believe we know reality. The point I'm trying to get across is that just because something is unkown, does not mean that we cannot discover it. When I say discover, I mean to know and explain something objectively. Just because something has not been discovered by humans does not objectively prove non-existence. Everything is unknown, until known. Until you know, you cannot objectively determine one way or the other. Presuming anything, especially knowledge about a creator of the universe, is unrealistic. One can believe one way or the other, but saying "I know God exists," without tangible evidence is the same bad logic as saying "I know that God doesn't exist." Likewise, to Moonlapse, merely having no belief in god warrants you an atheist. You may not be a "strong" atheist, which would require you to actively deny the existence of god, but nonetheless an atheist you'd be. If I read you correctly, you'd be an agnostic atheist - one who does not believe in the existence of gods yet states that knowledge of gods' existence cannot be known. Not entirely accurate. I don't state that 'knowledge of gods' existence cannot be known', I just require real proof before I believe anything. You can't realistically determine anything about something you don't know. If you read me correctly, I'd be somone who doesn't know or believe because that issue has nothing to do with my reality. But it is accurate to say that I don't believe in man-made 'gods'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 I think that assuming the impossibility of a creator based on assumptions of the nature of a creator is a flawed rationale. Belief in a god without godliness (omnipotence and omniscience)? Why bother? If you don't believe in godliness, what's the point of theism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurion Legioneer Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 I am a Roman Catholic, oh yeah! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sextus Roscius Posted February 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 I think that assuming the impossibility of a creator based on assumptions of the nature of a creator is a flawed rationale. Belief in a god without godliness (omnipotence and omniscience)? Why bother? If you don't believe in godliness, what's the point of theism? Agreed Cato, I'd like to ask the same question. Also, I'd ask the mods to make sure that if this starts to get out of hand, to lock the thread, this is really beyond what I meant it to be currently, but don't lock things down yet mods... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLavius Valerius Constantinus Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 (edited) I am a Roman Catholic, oh yeah! Welcome fellow Catholic, that makes it 5 Catholics then. As for science in respect to Catholicism, there isn't much conflict with the exceptions of abortion, cloning humans(who the heck would wanna do that), and gays are naturally born(BS in my opinion). Aside from all that, the Catholic Church now promotes the advancement of science and learning. And if you try to say the Medieval Catholic Church...blah...stuff, it will do you no good since it no longer applies after the Church made the change for modern adaptation. Edited February 5, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlapse Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 I think that assuming the impossibility of a creator based on assumptions of the nature of a creator is a flawed rationale. Belief in a god without godliness (omnipotence and omniscience)? Why bother? If you don't believe in godliness, what's the point of theism? Quite the popular notion in religion, isn't it? Here's a question for you... what is the only universally understandable way to account for existence to people, before hard science? Humans have to have answers. Sorry for the side-track. I was attempting to differentiate atheism from agnosticism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sextus Roscius Posted February 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 As for science in respect to Catholicism, there isn't much conflict with the exceptions of abortion, cloning humans(who the heck would wanna do that), and gays are naturally born(BS in my opinion). Aside from all that, the Catholic Church now promotes the advancement of science and learning. Well Flavius, it has been scientificaly proven that Gayness CAN be naturaly born. It is caused by a chemical inbalance in the brain due to incorrect hormones from the Male and Female. Whether you like it or not, there is XX males and XY females on occasion. Birth defects... As for human cloning, cloning could be incredibly helpful in theory. I personaly wouldn't mind clones for certain things. They pose an economic problem over a ethical problem to me, so personaly I am in agreeance with the church on that Also, I can't say much about abortion. It depends on whether you consider the developing baby/fetus a baby or a fetus. Personaly I consider it a fetus and there for am Pro-choice. However, I find that the church hasn't taken the full stand. If they want to declare Abortion wrong, they should also declare that taking birth control pills is wrong, that using a condom is wrong, and in general fact, the idea of doing anything to prevent birth, they have yet to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLavius Valerius Constantinus Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 (edited) Also, I can't say much about abortion. It depends on whether you consider the developing baby/fetus a baby or a fetus. Personaly I consider it a fetus and there for am Pro-choice. However, I find that the church hasn't taken the full stand. If they want to declare Abortion wrong, they should also declare that taking birth control pills is wrong, that using a condom is wrong, and in general fact, the idea of doing anything to prevent birth, they have yet to do so. Obviously I'm not pro-choice, but I won't address that issue for reasons being. However, I don't know why you used birth control and condoms as reasons when if you haven't noticed, their whole message has been that the whole time, everyone just assumes it so there really is no need for the Church to start a 'crusade.' Also, telling people to stop having families is not an option since the Church believes in 'procreation.' Anyways, the Church stands strong against abortion, 'everyone' knows that. I admit I may be biased alot, but ethics is just too complex to state who is right which is why in my view, God gave free will to do as we please with consequences. No offense to you in anyway Sextus. Edited February 5, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.