I'm not sure if it was seeing the doucmentary, Religulous, or if seeing a defendant on Judge Judy claim to be following the Lord Jesus Christ, while at the same time lying about her case. I really don't know what it was, but what I believe regarding God, and what Christians believe is not at all the same thing. To them, I would be an atheist. To most atheists, I'm not sure what they would consider me as, but here I am, and I hope this community suits me and I suit it.

Ed

(March 19, 2009 at 5:41 pm)Edward Wrote: I'm not sure if it was seeing the doucmentary, Religulous, or if seeing a defendent on Judge Judy claim to be following the Lord Jesus Christ, while at the same time lying about her case. I really don't know what it was, but what I believe regarding God, and what Christians believe is not at all the same thing. To them, I would be an atheist. To most atheists, I'm not sure what they would consider me as, but here I am, and I hope this community suits me and I suit it.

Hi Ed, not sure I'd call "Religulous" a documentary but welcome to our little corner of cyberspace

Kyu

welcome!

---

ps: atheist i think? maybe for now you can settle with calling yourself agnostic until you understand what you do and do not believe. just a suggestion.

(March 19, 2009 at 8:43 pm)WWLD Wrote: welcome!

---

ps: atheist i think? maybe for now you can settle with calling yourself agnostic until you understand what you do and do not believe. just a suggestion.

I know exactly what I believe. I just don't know how others would catagorize me. I'm definitely not an agnostic, which I take to mean someone who either isn't sure if God exists or someone who believes knowing whether or not God exists is impossible. I'm a monist, like Spinoza, like Einstein. Perhaps, I'm even a little different than they are since Spinoza is a little too religious in his approach, if not illogical, and I'm not sure Einstein has taken the most verifiable phenomenon in the universe into account: consciousness.

Consciousness is real and it has to be in the equations to make them true. If you get my meaning.

Ed

---

(March 19, 2009 at 5:48 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Hi Ed, not sure I'd call "Religulous" a documentary but welcome to our little corner of cyberspace

Kyu

Maybe it's not, but I love the part where he's talking to the Latin guy who claims to be Jesus Christ, and he cuts in little bits of Al Pacino in "Scarface."

That movie really did it for me.

Thanks for the welcome.

(March 19, 2009 at 5:41 pm)Edward Wrote: I'm not sure if it was seeing the doucmentary, Religulous, or if seeing a defendant on Judge Judy claim to be following the Lord Jesus Christ, while at the same time lying about her case. I really don't know what it was, but what I believe regarding God, and what Christians believe is not at all the same thing. To them, I would be an atheist. To most atheists, I'm not sure what they would consider me as, but here I am, and I hope this community suits me and I suit it.

Ed

Greetings Ed!

Well...if you don't believe in God as in a 'Supernatural creator', a designer of the universe...then that makes you an atheist by definition I say...the rest is entirely optional. All the rest.

EvF

(March 20, 2009 at 2:22 am)Edward Wrote: I'm definitely not an agnostic, which I take to mean someone who either isn't sure if God exists or someone who believes knowing whether or not God exists is impossible.

The correct definition is one who holds that some aspects of the universe as "unknowable". I disagree with WWLD's position as I don't think it has ever held any merit in philosophy or otherwise. The "unsure" definition of agnosticism only lives on in a limited public eye.

Agnosticism is my philosophy, atheism defines my beliefs.

Same here Adrian.

Or rather I'd say...atheism defines one thing that I DON'T believe

A disbelief...what's NOT a belief - not believing something - is not a belief of course

But yes its the stance on the belief in God....and the stance is absence of it

(March 20, 2009 at 8:01 am)Tiberius Wrote: The correct definition is one who holds that some aspects of the universe as "unknowable". I disagree with WWLD's position as I don't think it has ever held any merit in philosophy or otherwise. The "unsure" definition of agnosticism only lives on in a limited public eye.

Agnosticism is my philosophy, atheism defines my beliefs.

I hear what you are saying, and I like the honesty of your final statement. I suppose I am not an agnostic. I don't believe anything in the universe is unknowable, and it's funny, because Bernard d'Espagnat just one a million-dollar Templeton Prize for producing a theory that there are just some things science can't know, such as the "veiled reality" of the universe.

I can't help but wonder if the million dollars might have creeped into his equations, but I think what he proposes is a kind of agnosticism by your definition.

I think we may be at a limit of what we can know by looking in the direction we are looking. We may need another persepective. There may be things that can be known but can only be tested in thought experiments. There may be a way to combine philosophy and science into a better way of understanding the truth of reality (which is what this whole game is about), but to believe something is unknowable, in my opinion, sounds like capitulation.