Any other faithless org members here? [Archive]

View Full Version : Any other faithless org members here?

Byzantine Prince

08-28-2005, 19:35

Are you faithless? Do you not trust anything that requires a leap of faith? This is the place for you. ~:)

Also explain what caused you to lose your faith if you had it before. :book:

Silver Rusher

08-28-2005, 19:36

Do you mean faith as in religion, or faith as in trust?

derF

08-28-2005, 20:04

For me, the concept of faith is not of science, but of sociology. I've never had a shred of faith, nor do i now. I reccommend you guys make the leap of admitting of not being able to comprehend certain things.

Steppe Merc

08-28-2005, 20:13

I suppose you mean religon? I don't believe in any higher power. I had doubts for a while, but after my grandpa died, I stopped believing. No god would let my grandpa die when there were so many evil people out there. And if that god did exist, he doesn't deserve my worship.

Soulforged

08-28-2005, 20:23

Well i lost my uncle first, he was a good man who fought for the rights of the workers in Brazil. Then i started to doubt, but the catolcism classes in my school kept me in. though i didn't believe in Jesus like the son of God anymore. Later i just was indiferent, to me it was just ******** to control my way of life, so i dismissed it all. At the end i readed a text by Bakunin (i think it was called "God and the State" or something like that) and this closed all my ideas about religion, specially organazed one (and i became an anarchist of heart too ~D ).

Soulforged

08-28-2005, 20:25

[DnC]

08-28-2005, 20:41

I used to believe when I was younger. However after growing older and gaining more knowledge, it merely became a possibility in my mind and nothing more. And if I'm punished for "not believing", then God is neither merciful and/or allknowing. Certain people proclaim non-believers perish in hell. I find that to be a bit contradicting if God is supposed to be merciful and allknowing. Hell I would be wiser then God if that were to be true.
To me everything is possible as long as it's 100%, non-disputably and absolutely proven not to be possible, including the existence of a God.

Anyways Steppe Merc; you might also take a different perspective on the matter. Perhaps God has merely created life, but given it it's own will to do whatever it may want to do, for the good or the bad. You wouldn't hold your own child's hand for the rest of it's life either, would you? Humanity needs to be able to stand on it's own feet, right? Just a "might be" explanation.

Byzantine Prince

08-28-2005, 20:48

At the end i readed a text by Bakunin (i think it was called "God and the State" or something like that) and this closed all my ideas about religion, specially organazed one (and i became an anarchist of heart too ~D ).
Bakunin was part of that movement of nihilism in Russia(1820s to 1860s). I'm glad you read it.

I don't like anarchism though. It seems entirely unstable.

Uesugi Kenshin

08-29-2005, 03:25

I have no faith in most things or people, but every now and then I can be gullible. Though usually I am untrusting and paranoid. My gullible moments are few and far between for the most part.

bmolsson

08-29-2005, 04:21

I have faith in myself and my future.

derF

08-29-2005, 17:10

And what do you think sociology is? ~:confused:

WHat do you mean? Are you intending that Science and Sociology are the same?

Science is Biology, Physics and Chemistry.

Sociology, is the study of society and its behaviour.

The Stranger

08-29-2005, 19:24

i dont have a faith in the way of religion i do have other kinds of faith

Soulforged

08-30-2005, 02:12

WHat do you mean? Are you intending that Science and Sociology are the same?

Science is Biology, Physics and Chemistry.

Sociology, is the study of society and its behaviour.

You're joking right. What do you think that Hegel, Mark, Durkheim, Rousseau, Habermas were. The social science commenced arround the XVIII, when it was called science of the spirit (because the theorics considered the human spirit the principal engine that moved the history in general). Later it was divided into various matters of study: sociology, history, antropology, etc. There always existed the dicussion if this were to be considered "science" because all the other theorics stated that this ones were a pure deviation of the natural sciences (the ones that you consider, as the only ones,with no reason like those theorics). Finally after years of dicussion and years of evolution of the social sciences beyond the recognition of the Scientific Community, to the end of the XIX century the social science finally got recognazed and adquired (through ages of development) a new method of study. It has some inherent problems that has to be resolved, but it's accepted now as science. What you're talking about is just the possitive part of science.

IliaDN

08-31-2005, 15:00

I have faith in myself and my future.
~:cheers:

Byzantine Prince

08-31-2005, 15:03

Well well well... Looky who's winning. 20 years ago that other side would have won, but today people are finally more realistic. Well done guys. ~D

Ianofsmeg16

08-31-2005, 15:45

I beleive in God, Jesus and all that....emphasis on the word Beleive, maybe we shouldnt try and find answers by science,just think of what you beleive created everything..
(this is very religios coming from a guy who's hero is Charles Darwin :))

Viking

08-31-2005, 19:10

Well well well... Looky who's winning. 20 years ago that other side would have won, but today people are finally more realistic. Well done guys. ~D

More realistic? I don`t get you there. The Big Bang theory is to me almost as unbelieveable as the existence of a god.

Craterus

08-31-2005, 22:01

Well well well... Looky who's winning. 20 years ago that other side would have won, but today people are finally more realistic. Well done guys. ~D

You say people, but this isn't a very broad survey.

All voters are TW gamers (something to do with it? who knows?) and this forums sways toawrds rock/metal. And a lot of rock is anti-religion (people are influenced by music).

Dâriûsh

08-31-2005, 22:05

Well well well... Looky who's winning. 20 years ago that other side would have won, but today people are finally more realistic. Well done guys. ~D Explain, if you please.

Soulforged

09-01-2005, 03:34

More realistic? I don`t get you there. The Big Bang theory is to me almost as unbelieveable as the existence of a god.

That's not true the Big Bang theory has scientific work behind it, and the value of refutability. God, any god, doesn't.

Viking

09-01-2005, 14:40

That's not true the Big Bang theory has scientific work behind it, and the value of refutability. God, any god, doesn't.

BB is still only a theory and not something scientifically proved. And I was saying that to me, it`s almost as unbelievable. Imagine everything in the whole universe compressed to something smaller than an atom, it`s not easy; not to think about the existence of a god either. I know God hasn`t anything to do with science, if you just not view him as yet another natural force, wich doesn`t become too difficult when you read about dark energy, BB and alike. The universe is just so much more than any human being can understand.

Byzantine Prince

09-01-2005, 15:23

"A picture is a fact." - Wittgenstein.

HAHAHA. Show me a picture of the big bang. Can you get one? I hardly think so since not only could you not go back in time(time doesn't exist), but you would also not exist because nothing else would. Why do even need to know about the big bang. It's in the past, there's nothing we can do about that.

Everything that's in the past will not be coming back any time soon. We have to live in the today. Today the earth exists and I exist and "god is dead"(Nietzsche). There done.

BP ~:cheers:

Geoffrey S

09-01-2005, 16:09

No. What I could believe now is irrelevent, as no one belief can be seen as more likely than the next; as far as I'm concerned this includes religion as well as scientific theories. If there is something larger than life, I'll see it when I get there.

Aenlic

09-01-2005, 16:10

I see your Wittgenstein and raise you two Chomskys:

Chomsky v. Kripke on Wittgenstein, Round 1 (http://www.personal.kent.edu/~pbohanbr/Webpage/New/Huen-Barbiero/Kripke1.html)

Chomsky v. Kripke on Wittgenstein, Round 2 (http://www.personal.kent.edu/~pbohanbr/Webpage/New/Huen-Barbiero/kripke2(Barbiero).html)

Viking

09-01-2005, 17:45

HAHAHA. Show me a picture of the big bang. Can you get one? I hardly think so since not only could you not go back in time(time doesn't exist), but you would also not exist because nothing else would.

I can get one. Just provide me with a powerfull enough telescope and I can get one. You don`t need time-travels for that.

Why do even need to know about the big bang.

Why do we have to know anything?

Everything that's in the past will not be coming back any time soon. We have to live in the today.

That`s not the same as we don`t need to know about the past.

Today the earth exists and I exist and "god is dead"(Nietzsche).

If God ever existed, he would certainly not be dead; it`s either or. :book:

Hurin_Rules

09-01-2005, 18:50

Everything that's in the past will not be coming back any time soon. We have to live in the today. Today the earth exists and I exist and "god is dead"(Nietzsche). There done.

Hmm... bad choice of philosophers to quote on that one:

http://www.wpunj.edu/wpcpages/sch-hmss/philosophy/COURSES/NIETNET/RECUR.HTM

In short: Nietzsche discussed the idea of 'Eternal Recurrence', where everything that had ever happened occured in an endless loop in exactly the same way. I tend to think for him it was more just an intellectual exercise--a way of avoiding nihilism by developing a moral heuristic in the absence of the absolute--but either way, you really shouldn't quote Nietsche to defend the opposite.

Just FYI. ~:cheers:

Byzantine Prince

09-01-2005, 20:50

Is there any regulation in this site that says you can't quote to support an argument they would not agree with? I'll answer for you, NO.
I think you are trying to be smart in the wrong direction.

Also even if you [Viking] had a very powerful telescope you could not possibly comprehend how the universe created, because you would have to know the coordinates of the single point, and you would hope to god that it just so hapens to be hapening in the time that it took the light to get to the earth. Pretty far fetched idea. ~D
Also it would say nothing about god. If that was evidence, then our existence is also evidence, by that logic. But it's not. Our existence means nothing. We just are, or so I hope.

Don Corleone

09-01-2005, 20:56

Hey BP, glad to see you're alive & well. When I left for Alaska, you had another one of those weird false bannings going on. Glad to see it got straightened out.

I think this poll shows how limited in their definitions some people are. Faith is the belief in the unprovable. There's plenty of things people have faith in beyond God or other supernatural entitities. Besides, I'm glad you're all thumbing your noses at the almighty. Means I'll get first crack at the good rooms in the mansion ~;)

Seriously, even at it's strictest defintion, I'm surprised 2/3 people do not believe in anything beyond our temporal existence (assuming that those who voted no didn't mean to say they had no faith in relationships or their fellow man, and other intangibles).

Byzantine Prince

09-02-2005, 03:29

Strike For The South

09-02-2005, 03:42

Ice

09-03-2005, 03:47

I didn't realise the athiests outnumbered the believers 2:1. No matter though, just surprising.

Don Corleone

09-03-2005, 05:08

I hope you are right about getting first crack at the good rooms. I certainly don't think god would have much love for me if I don't believe he exists. But how can that be real love. Real love is beyond reward and punishment. God doesn't love anyone. God punished us for eating from that tree, remember? Why? Why would he do that if he loved us unconditionally, what is this, the "tough love" syndrome god has?

Why should I even need to woship such an entity even if I was sure it existed?

Ah, ah, ah, my friend.

Well, with all due respect, amigo, you have to stop with the black & white approach. What if the Jews amped their scriptures up to make certain they got the point across, but in the process distorted the picture. What if God, recognizing this, sent His son down here to say "Hey guys, calm down. No need to stone each other. In fact, why don't each of us worry about our own sins and helping each other out". Such a radical idea they tacked him to a tree and 2000 years later, we're still struggling to figure out what exactly He was trying to say. Oh, that's right. Not here and now, hogwash. Sorrry, bud.

Anyway, I'm not God. I cannot say what makes Him happy and what doesn't. The bible is full of sinners who pleased Him, and saints that pissed Him off. My belief is He weighs your heart, based on what's it capable of. But what do I know, I'm still one of those pesky 1/3 neanderthals that's preventing you from your elusive 100% number. ~;)

By the way, what did happen to you two weeks ago?