Not Religious? Well then...
- Thread starter 0R0
- Start date
I think it would tend to be that way. Someone who is agnostic about the existence of God is less likely to devote themselves to practicing a religion that is based on God belief. That is, unless they are going through the motions due to an ulterior motive. But in that case, they aren't theists either.
But as far as practice goes, bisexuals usually practice sex with both men and women. On the other hand, I don't think agnostics practice both sides. I mean, for one, there really isn't a side to practice for atheists. Atheism isn't a positive attribute. Rather, it involves the lack of a certain kind of practice. And secondly, theism and atheism create a dichotomy. That is, one is either practicing theism or one is not and these two sides are mutually exclusive (A and not-A). However, bisexuality does not constitute a dichotomy. One can engage in sex with a man and a woman at the same time, and the two aren't mutually exclusive or contradictory.
It should be noted that practice alone doesn't really suffice to define these categories either. Someone could always argue that the theist might have times when he is not outwardly practicing his belief in God. And thus he would be acting similar to the atheists, at least in that moment. Therefore, I'd say that belief is most essential, but ideally it constitutes the practice. When faced with an undefined belief, we ought to consider practice as the deciding factor.
It should be noted that practice alone doesn't really suffice to define these categories either. Someone could always argue that the theist might have times when he is not outwardly practicing his belief in God. And thus he would be acting similar to the atheists, at least in that moment. Therefore, I'd say that belief is most essential, but ideally it constitutes the practice. When faced with an undefined belief, we ought to consider practice as the deciding factor.
LOL
I tend to think that agnostic is the only option for me since I don't know if a God exists & I don't know if a God doesn't exist, and frankly I don't particularly like one or the other (rotting in the ground vs conscious forever).
I wonder though if subscribing to the theory of an infinite number of universes would increase the possibility of a God simply by design and the number of potential outcomes in an infinite number of universes. In other words, if an infinite number of universes do exist, than by probability God must exist in one of them...?
I think many prefer rotting in the ground devoid of consciousness because being conscious can be overwhelming. I think that has to do with our conditions. If there were some ideal place or state where we were eternally blissful, then I'm sure we'd all prefer to be conscious forever. But so far as being in this material nature goes, sometimes forgetfulness is a blessing. I mean, if we had previous lives, it might make us go crazy if we remembered them.
The thing is, if that works, God, as typically defined, would not merely be the God of one universe. Rather, God would be the God of all universes. In short, if there is something beyond God (i.e. not under His jurisdiction) then we're using the word "God" in a different way. Still, I don't know what empirical reason one would have to accept the existence of infinite universes.
The thing is, if that works, God, as typically defined, would not merely be the God of one universe. Rather, God would be the God of all universes. In short, if there is something beyond God (i.e. not under His jurisdiction) then we're using the word "God" in a different way. Still, I don't know what empirical reason one would have to accept the existence of infinite universes.
I think humans simply lack the capacity to comprehend a being such as a God capable of creating worlds/universe. Further, they also lack the ability to understand God's will, which, in my eyes, invalidates any and all religious practice. I do believe in a higher power (as per creationism), weather it is active in our world is beyond me. Though, all signs would indicate otherwise.
My main objection to religion is clear; why would a god create a world, inhabit this world with life of far inferior intelligence, and expect that this life (humans) will inexplicably discover everything about it (God) without any instruction. Why would you not make your presence known, eliminating all doubt and allowing humans to freely and conciously choose. Why test the very fabric of your creation? It is truly demoralizing. Just reveal yourself to me and I will do whatever you say.. But you leave us to stare down a thousand variants of the Bible and expect that we come to some rational conclusion. I am still waiting on this epiphany.
I certainly pay no mind to any religious practice. And when my room mate comes home with ashes rubbed all over his forehead telling me he gave up fast food for 40 days, these feelings are only reinforced.
I find myself more often than not refuting people's position on God because in almost every case they use the Bible and/or some religious practice to affirm their beliefs, neither of which I acknowledge (especially in their current form)as a basis for creationism.
As to my actual belief in a higher power - I just think it is more logical that the world was created by design rather then some spontaneous phenomenon (out of nothing).
My main objection to religion is clear; why would a god create a world, inhabit this world with life of far inferior intelligence, and expect that this life (humans) will inexplicably discover everything about it (God) without any instruction. Why would you not make your presence known, eliminating all doubt and allowing humans to freely and conciously choose. Why test the very fabric of your creation? It is truly demoralizing. Just reveal yourself to me and I will do whatever you say.. But you leave us to stare down a thousand variants of the Bible and expect that we come to some rational conclusion. I am still waiting on this epiphany.
I certainly pay no mind to any religious practice. And when my room mate comes home with ashes rubbed all over his forehead telling me he gave up fast food for 40 days, these feelings are only reinforced.
I find myself more often than not refuting people's position on God because in almost every case they use the Bible and/or some religious practice to affirm their beliefs, neither of which I acknowledge (especially in their current form)as a basis for creationism.
As to my actual belief in a higher power - I just think it is more logical that the world was created by design rather then some spontaneous phenomenon (out of nothing).
Technically we are all agnostics because nobody can be sure with 100% certainty about whether God exists or not, and that's by definition.
However the same thing, although not by definition applies to everything in science, but we treat certain scientific findings as being true beyond reasonable doubt based on them being confirmed again and again by many different observation and experiments. And we treat things with absolutely no hint of evidence that they are true as false. We do this because otherwise we would not be able to make any progress.
However the same thing, although not by definition applies to everything in science, but we treat certain scientific findings as being true beyond reasonable doubt based on them being confirmed again and again by many different observation and experiments. And we treat things with absolutely no hint of evidence that they are true as false. We do this because otherwise we would not be able to make any progress.
That has nothing to say about whether God exists or not, you are simply positing that such a thing exists and we can't comprehend it. Does this means it really exists? Not at all, we just made it up out of thin air and defined it in such a way that it is immune to any evidence.
That's what every reasonable person will tell you
Why should it be more logical? And if you accept this, where did the designer come from? A designer is no explanation for complexity because he himself must be very complex