Are you an atheist? (3 Viewers)

[dan-cat]

This poll addresses all different conceptions of god.
I believe that since I started the poll, I can say that with 100% certainty, without allowing for the possibility that I am wrong.

Oh come on.

Here is what you said in your very first post.

So lets have a poll. I know there are lots of educated people on this board. Are you an atheist? I'll start. I have always been an atheist (luckily born to non-religous parents), and have always found it incomprehensible that other people can bring themselves to believe there is some supernatural being in the sky responsible for our existence, despite an overwhelming lack of evidence to support that belief.

You've just thrown in the concept of a 'natural' God as a red herring haven't you?

As Rabbie alludes to:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Link

 

[Alisa]

You've just thrown in the concept of a 'natural' God as a red herring haven't you?

Sort of.
Mike keeps insisting that I am agnostic. I am trying to make a distinction between agnostics who think there might be a supernatural god, and myself. I am trying to explain why I chose option 2 on the poll, but still consider myself an atheist. It is true that the idea of a "natural" god is kind of silly, after all, the whole point of having a god is that you can use him to explain things that are outside the realm of what we imagine to be possible in the natural world. But the point I am trying to make is that I chose option 2 because I know that discoveries in the future may cause me to reconsider many of my current beliefs, not because I think there actually might be supernatural forces in the universe.

 

[dan-cat]

Ok I get it.

Atheism is what you believe but logically you understand that you cannot know this in the strict sense. Is that right? If so then I'm quite prepared to excuse you from the definition of agnosticism.

 

[Alisa]

Ok I get it.

Atheism is what you believe but logically you understand that you cannot know this in the strict sense. Is that right? If so then I'm quite prepared to excuse you from the definition of agnosticism.

Yes! That is it!

 

[dan-cat]

Yes! That is it!

As for me I am a definite agnostic leaning over to spiritualism.

I am very attracted to the possibility of things being larger than the sum of their parts. Some would dismiss this as sentimental and I would say fair enough to them. But it's my belief system so there!

EDIT: From one of my fave movies.


"Pete: Wait a minute. Who elected you leader of this outfit?

Ulysses: Well Pete, I figured it should be the one with the capacity for abstract thought. But if that ain't the consensus view, then hell, let's put it to a vote. "

 

[Alisa]

As for me I am a definite agnostic leaning over to spiritualism.

I am very attracted to the possibility of things being larger than the sum of their parts. Some would dismiss this as sentimental and I would say fair enough to them. But it's my belief system so there!

Well you know the discussion has reached it's pinnacle when someone says "So there!". Next comes "does not" "does too".

 

[Rabbie]

As for me I am a definite agnostic leaning over to spiritualism.

I am very attracted to the possibility of things being larger than the sum of their parts. Some would dismiss this as sentimental and I would say fair enough to them. But it's my belief system so there!

EDIT: From one of my fave movies.


"Pete: Wait a minute. Who elected you leader of this outfit?

Ulysses: Well Pete, I figured it should be the one with the capacity for abstract thought. But if that ain't the consensus view, then hell, let's put it to a vote. "

Definite Agnostic Isn't there an oxymoron there At least to some of the posters on this thread who seemed to think that any doubt made you agnostic.

 

[ColinEssex]

Unfortunately, the U.S. ceased to function as a democracy quite some time ago. The influence that us average citizen's hold is close to null. All legislation is written by and passed for the benefit of the corporations who send their lobbyists to Washington. Who we vote for no longer matters at all - the supreme court already decided that it is not necessary to even maintain the appearance of counting ballots. Maybe if we rioted more often like the French do, we would excercise some influence . . .

That opinion ties in nicely with the documentaries we see in the UK about American politics.

It's nice to see an honest opinion

Maybe this should be a new thread - but how generally, do the US populace feel about things - is it time for the populace to demonstrate more actively?(ala the Vietnam demo's of the late 1960's)

One view we get here is that the US people don't really care as long as they get their petrol and to hell with who it hurts or gets killed in the process. How can that view be changed?

Col

 

[Alisa]

That opinion ties in nicely with the documentaries we see in the UK about American politics.

It's nice to see an honest opinion

Maybe this should be a new thread - but how generally, do the US populace feel about things - is it time for the populace to demonstrate more actively?(ala the Vietnam demo's of the late 1960's)

One view we get here is that the US people don't really care as long as they get their petrol and to hell with who it hurts or gets killed in the process. How can that view be changed?

Col

Yes it is time to demonstrate more actively - that is only way anything has ever changed in this country, from labor rights, to civil rights, ending wars, etc. As far as why we don't do it, I think it has to do with the media. We seem to be under the illusion that we have a free media in the U.S. It is easy enough to get "real" news if you want to - I mean, we are not censored the same way they are in China, for instance. But most people just watch CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC, etc., where every single story is spin and puff and nonsense. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago, it was discovered that the Pentagon had in fact paid retired generals to appear on CNN, and coached them on what to say in order to convince people that going to war was a good idea.

In the Iraq war, the government doesn't allow the bodies (coffins) to be filmed as they are brought home. Contrast this with the Vietnam war where all the blood and gore was broadcast, let alone nice neat coffins with American flags draped over them. My point is that it is easy for us to ignore what is going on, because the media HELP us ignore it. The biggest story of the day is always Elian Gonzales, or Natalie Holloway, or Lacy Peterson, or Elizabeth Smart. Hopefully you don't know who these people are, because they are not important. But almost everyone in the U.S. knows exactly who they are and could tell you each of their stories, because the news media spent literally YEARS covering these people.

I think there are some people in the U.S. who don't care, but I also think that there are many people who DO care, and even more than that who WOULD care if only they knew what is going on.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

Unfortunately, the U.S. ceased to function as a democracy quite some time ago.

Yes, over 200 years ago, since the US is and always has been a republic, not a democracy.

 

[Alisa]

Yes, over 200 years ago, since the US is and always has been a republic, not a democracy.

Whatever, you know I meant democracy in the popular sense of the word, not the formal meaning.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

Whatever, you know I meant democracy in the popular sense of the word, not the formal meaning.

I'm not going to get into semantics, which seems to be what this thread is all about.

However, there is a huge difference between the 2.

 

[Alisa]

I'm not going to get into semantics, which seems to be what this thread is all about.

However, there is a huge difference between the 2.

Yes I know. That is not what I am talking about. I am using the word democracy to mean a system of government which includes FREE ELECTIONS by the PEOPLE. This is a valid use of the word.

 

[Rabbie]

Yes, over 200 years ago, since the US is and always has been a republic, not a democracy.

I don't think that being a republic and a democracy are incompatible.

I believe denocray can be summed up in the phrase "Government of the people by the people for the people"

I would welcome an explanation of why you thnk being a republic rules out democracy especially as this has been a rallying call of many american presidents over the years.

To me a republic is more democratic than a monarchy and much more so than a dictatorship.

Explain

 

[Rabbie]

For the benefit of our American friends

the closiing words of the Gettysburg Address

"and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall
not perish from the earth."

One of the great democratic statements of history!

 

[Mike375]

Rabbie

My experience with Americans (and the ones I know are the God and Guns blokes) is when they say the US is not a democracy they mean a gov't is not elected by popular vote.

However our system (and other countries) as you know are the same in that "areas" or "electorates" or "states" are won and the excess vote that wins an area is not carried over to other areas.

While Secretary of Defence etc is not elected as is the case with Minister of Defence etc the position has to be approved by the Senate and the people have been selected by POTUS who has been elected, although POTUS is not directly elected. Not sure about England but I think it is the same as Australia in that ministers are selected by the PM and are only elected to be members of parliament.

 

[Mike375]

Yes I know. That is not what I am talking about. I am using the word democracy to mean a system of government which includes FREE ELECTIONS by the PEOPLE. This is a valid use of the word.

You have the same basic political system that operates in Australia and England. There should be no suprise there since both of our systems came from England.

However, what has happened is very big business is now much bigger when related to the ecomonies than use to be the case. On major issues both major parties are the same. If Al Gore had won the 2000 POTUS election then in my opinion Iraq would have been the same. Bush and Co are passengers. Where the major parties will differ is social type issues.

Of course there is nothing stopping you from joining a party and then fighting (selling) your way to the top.

 

[Mike375]

Sort of.
Mike keeps insisting that I am agnostic. I am trying to make a distinction between agnostics who think there might be a supernatural god, and myself.

You are a agnostic but opposite to me. You are agnostic with a leaning to no supernatural whereas I am agnostic with a leaning to supernatural.

An atheist is no supernatural, end of story. Their counterpart would be a born again Christian or that counterpart in other religions.

 

[Rich]

Their counterpart would be a born again Christian or that counterpart in other religions.

Explain your logic behind that definite statement?

 

[Rich]

One of the great democratic statements of history!

Yes, great on paper but worthless in real life