2 of 4
2
I Do Not Choose to Be an Atheist
Posted: 02 January 2011 10:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2008-03-08
pelagic - 02 January 2011 09:49 PM

The fact that you can find *millions* of people that believe weird things actually proves my point . I’m hardly missing the point. Or are you positing a case for an ‘n’ of one?

If 2 people believe two different things, how does that show that they had a choice? There’s no logical relationship. Each of them could have arrived at their different positions without choosing. They may or may not be choosing, but that they arrive at different conclusions has no relevance to that.

So, are you suggesting that people simply *don’t* have a say in which choice they make? Why is that? Could you give an example?

I gave an example in my first post. Do you or do you not have the ability to convince yourself to choose options B or C over A with the same level of conviction that you currently have for A? Do you not realize that you haven’t answered that yet?

You just contradicted yourself.

Show me how I contradicted myself. I asked if you if you have a choice to believe between the three and you seem to be saying you do. I was challenging you to show that.

And no, I don’t equivicate. Unless I’ve made the choice to LOL . I am using the word ‘believe’ in it’s common venacular case.

The Princeton dictionary defines belief as “any cognitive content held as true” (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=belief)

That is the common vernacular.

You said earlier:

A person *can* make themselves believe whatever they want to , *even* if they know what they believe may not be true. Humans are not 100% rational as I’m sure you already know.

That is a contradiction. You said that someone can believe something, which is to say that they hold something as true, while simultaneously “knowing” that it isn’t true. Knowledge has to do with our beliefs being true, as oppose to believing something that’s factually false. But believing something that happens to be false doesn’t change that we are convinced that it is true.

The equivocation is happening because you’re using “belief” in a different way than it is defined, likely to avoid dissonance.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2011 01:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  92
Joined  2010-12-23

“The equivocation is happening because you’re using “belief” in a different way than it is defined, likely to avoid dissonance. “


Well golly gee, doctor, thanks for clearing that up! I always enjoy being told how and why I think the things I do! LOL  LOL

I must confess that what you are writing about is not clear . Are you discussing the concept of ‘Free Will’ or the ability for humans to hold two completely contradictory ideas in their minds at the same time?  If you are merely writing about ‘choices’, it is difficult because we cannot measure or examine people’s ‘thoughts’, we can only judge by their behavior. Judging from human behavior, it appears that humans can believe, hold to be self-evident, trust in the truth of ( however you would like it to be expressed) two opposing ideas at once. Further, they may act upon one idea while not believing it to be true or conversely, not act on something they believe to be true. 
It would be clearer for myself if I knew whether you were writing about ‘thought’ or ‘behavior’ in regard to the choices people make?

 Signature 

Mihi, quanto plura recentium seu veterum revolvo, tanto magis ludibria rerum mortalium cunctis in negotiis observantur - Tacitus

” I knew that!” - me

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2011 03:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6120
Joined  2006-12-20
ShadowSot - 02 January 2011 02:37 PM

The only thing I’m sure of is that it isn’t simple ShadowSot.

I think you’re making it complicated.

I very much doubt it, it is complicated or at least very unclear.

What do you mean by make yourself believe?


I mean convincing myself of something that runs contrary to my own experiences and understanding, based off of no evidence.

Hmm…... a couple of thoughts. Is this what we do when we delude ourselves in which case you can. Or is belief always the result of your understanding and experience in which case you can’t but why does that mean it isn’t a choice?

You come to your understanding due to influences from your environment, your experiences, your thought processes. these are the reasons for your belief. But you are aware of different options and you’ve selected your option due to this process.

I’m just playing devil’s advocate b.t.w. Trying to see if you can say why it isn’t a choice.

I’m stating I don’t choose, I find religion innately unsatisfying.

One could say you find religion innately unsatisfying so you choose atheism.  My daughter finds sprouts unsatisfying so she chooses carrots.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2011 03:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6120
Joined  2006-12-20
Kaizen - 02 January 2011 04:32 PM

Consider the following options. For convenience, let’s rule out any other options or labeling this a false dilemma.

The apparent movement of the Sun throughout a given day is best described by:

A: Kepler, Newtonian, Einsteinian theories

B: A secret message only described by dolphins

C: The last fortune you read out of a fortune cookie

My question is, do you have the ability to firmly convince yourself that options B or C are true with the same conviction that you might have with option A?

My gut reaction is no I don’t Kaizen. But still it’s unclear what this has to do with it.

today I can

A) Cut my arm off with a chain saw

B) Eat a spoonful of mud.

C) do other than the above

Do I have the ability to do A or B? If so how? And why can’t I use the same reasoning to show I am able to do A or B to show I can become convinced of B) in your example.

And if I don’t have the ability to do A or B isn’t it nevertheless true that I choose C)

Stephen

[ Edited: 03 January 2011 03:55 AM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2011 04:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2008-03-08
pelagic - 03 January 2011 01:23 AM

“The equivocation is happening because you’re using “belief” in a different way than it is defined, likely to avoid dissonance. “


Well golly gee, doctor, thanks for clearing that up! I always enjoy being told how and why I think the things I do! LOL  LOL

I must confess that what you are writing about is not clear . Are you discussing the concept of ‘Free Will’ or the ability for humans to hold two completely contradictory ideas in their minds at the same time?  If you are merely writing about ‘choices’, it is difficult because we cannot measure or examine people’s ‘thoughts’, we can only judge by their behavior. Judging from human behavior, it appears that humans can believe, hold to be self-evident, trust in the truth of ( however you would like it to be expressed) two opposing ideas at once. Further, they may act upon one idea while not believing it to be true or conversely, not act on something they believe to be true. 
It would be clearer for myself if I knew whether you were writing about ‘thought’ or ‘behavior’ in regard to the choices people make?

With your constant avoidance of the points and questions I’m posing and the immature tone you’re bringing to this discussion, I can’t take you seriously anymore.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2011 04:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2008-03-08
StephenLawrence - 03 January 2011 03:51 AM

My gut reaction is no I don’t Kaizen. But still it’s unclear what this has to do with it.

today I can

A) Cut my arm off with a chain saw

B) Eat a spoonful of mud.

C) do other than the above

Do I have the ability to do A or B? If so how? And why can’t I use the same reasoning to show I am able to do A or B to show I can become convinced of B) in your example.

This thought experiment is interesting because it does seem to have implications on the concept of free will. The good thing about the thought experiment is, if it is possible for you to convince yourself of option B for example, the consequences wouldn’t be as bad or irreversible like if you ate mud or cut off your arm. After convincing yourself of option B, you could just change it back to option A, presuming this is indeed a matter of choice. But you’ve already expressed (at least I think you expressed) that you don’t think you can convince yourself of option B, so I’m a little confused why you would suppose that you could hypothetically.

And if I don’t have the ability to do A or B isn’t it nevertheless true that I choose C)

Stephen

That depends on what we mean by “choose.” The typical assumption made is that when we “choose” something, there was an actual chance that we could have chosen differently. If you don’t have the ability to do A or B in your example, the word “choose” doesn’t seem like an appropriate description for going in that direction. You’re essentially doing away with any other “choice”, so how could we “choose” the only option?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2011 05:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6120
Joined  2006-12-20
Kaizen - 03 January 2011 04:53 AM

This thought experiment is interesting because it does seem to have implications on the concept of free will. The good thing about the thought experiment is, if it is possible for you to convince yourself of option B for example, the consequences wouldn’t be as bad or irreversible like if you ate mud or cut off your arm.

This is all very tricky for many reasons. I’m not sure I go with the idea of being able to convince myself. I think can become convinced seems better.

Your options are so off the wall they seem literally impossible. I think better to stick with the relevent options atheism, agnosticism and theism.

Sure you couldn’t become convinced that theism is true given the reasons you’re convinced that atheism is true but that’s taken as a given with all choices.

So what we’re interested in is what counts as the ability to select theism for you and why?

After convincing yourself of option B, you could just change it back to option A, presuming this is indeed a matter of choice.

This is what people commonly say but choice isn’t about change over time is it? It’s about the ability to select other options as you go on to say.

There is a process involved and it’s hard to imagine a process that led to someone going from atheist to theist, then being followed by a pretty immediate process back to atheism again.

That depends on what we mean by “choose.” The typical assumption made is that when we “choose” something, there was an actual chance that we could have chosen differently. If you don’t have the ability to do A or B in your example, the word “choose” doesn’t seem like an appropriate description for going in that direction.

Ok fine I’m happy with that.

I think I know what ability to do otherwise means in the case of chosen options but it’s more tricky or at least I’m less familier with what it might mean in the case of chosen beliefs, if there are such things.

You’re essentially doing away with any other “choice”, so how could we “choose” the only option?

Ok so we must keep the ability to select the other option but the question is how.

And why do we have the right way of selecting other options in the case of actions in order to make them chosen but the wrong way of possibly becoming convinced of other options in the case of beliefs, so that although you could become a theist, you couldn’t choose to become a theist?

Stephen

[ Edited: 03 January 2011 05:25 AM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2011 10:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2008-03-08
StephenLawrence - 03 January 2011 05:23 AM

This is all very tricky for many reasons. I’m not sure I go with the idea of being able to convince myself. I think can become convinced seems better.

Your options are so off the wall they seem literally impossible. I think better to stick with the relevent options atheism, agnosticism and theism.

The question was posed as such because I wanted to put into question this idea of us being able to “choose” a given belief. The main thing that’s being claimed is that we can choose the beliefs that we end up with, so I asked a question that brings that claim into doubt. There weren’t any qualifiers to the claim prior to me posing the question. This allows us to step back and ask if or what needs to be modified if there is indeed a choice being made with regard to belief and of course, whether there’s any choice at all.

What occurs between the more nuanced competing positions just muddies the water as far as I’m concerned. So long as the arguments between them were more drawn out, elaborate and full of subtleties, people could go on making the claim that going in any direction was a matter of “choice.”

If the only thing that’s true is that you can choose between options P, Q & R, then it doesn’t matter what P, Q & R are. That was the point of the question.

Sure you couldn’t become convinced that theism is true given the reasons you’re convinced that atheism is true but that’s taken as a given with all choices.

I don’t think that has actually been taken as a given. What most people seem to describe is that we are presented with whatever facts, and then someone “chooses” atheism, agnosticism or theism.

So what we’re interested in is what counts as the ability to select theism for you and why?

Maybe. We might also be concerned with why we have whatever criteria to be convinced of one thing over another. And we have to be careful about how we pose these questions, lest we beg them.

This is what people commonly say but choice isn’t about change over time is it? It’s about the ability to select other options as you go on to say.

I don’t see how going back to an old choice isn’t still picking between options, IF we are picking between options.

There is a process involved and it’s hard to imagine a process that led to someone going from atheist to theist, then being followed by a pretty immediate process back to atheism again.

Right, and this is why I’m questioning whether we’re choosing these outcomes.

Ok fine I’m happy with that.

I think I know what ability to do otherwise means in the case of chosen options but it’s more tricky or at least I’m less familier with what it might mean in the case of chosen beliefs, if there are such things.

I see them as being related in terms of process, but that would take us too far off topic.

Ok so we must keep the ability to select the other option but the question is how.

And why do we have the right way of selecting other options in the case of actions in order to make them chosen but the wrong way of possibly becoming convinced of other options in the case of beliefs, so that although you could become a theist, you couldn’t choose to become a theist?

Stephen

Again, I question the idea of there actually being a free choice with regard to actions.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2011 01:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  92
Joined  2010-12-23
Kaizen - 03 January 2011 04:41 AM
pelagic - 03 January 2011 01:23 AM

“The equivocation is happening because you’re using “belief” in a different way than it is defined, likely to avoid dissonance. “


Well golly gee, doctor, thanks for clearing that up! I always enjoy being told how and why I think the things I do! LOL  LOL

I must confess that what you are writing about is not clear . Are you discussing the concept of ‘Free Will’ or the ability for humans to hold two completely contradictory ideas in their minds at the same time?  If you are merely writing about ‘choices’, it is difficult because we cannot measure or examine people’s ‘thoughts’, we can only judge by their behavior. Judging from human behavior, it appears that humans can believe, hold to be self-evident, trust in the truth of ( however you would like it to be expressed) two opposing ideas at once. Further, they may act upon one idea while not believing it to be true or conversely, not act on something they believe to be true. 
It would be clearer for myself if I knew whether you were writing about ‘thought’ or ‘behavior’ in regard to the choices people make?

With your constant avoidance of the points and questions I’m posing and the immature tone you’re bringing to this discussion, I can’t take you seriously anymore.


No, you just don’t like the answers or suppositions being suggested to you. Your present response of taking your ball and going home because others don’t agree and engaging in ad hominem attacks is hardly ‘mature’.

It seems from reading over your responses to myself and others that you are trying to make a case for whatever *you* believe in vs - that you believe in what you do because you had no choice(s). This explains the the complete denial of any suggestions presented to you that others can and do ‘believe’ in a myriad of things including contradictory ideas and/or make choices based on the ideas they hold even if those ideas are not consistant: that this appears personal for you.

And you are quite right that given this, nobody has anything to add to your remarks because you have already made up your mind that that all humans are like you in thought and behavior. An interesting position but not one that can lead to fruitful debate on many subjects.

 Signature 

Mihi, quanto plura recentium seu veterum revolvo, tanto magis ludibria rerum mortalium cunctis in negotiis observantur - Tacitus

” I knew that!” - me

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2011 02:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2008-03-08
pelagic - 03 January 2011 01:43 PM

No, you just don’t like the answers or suppositions being suggested to you. Your present response of taking your ball and going home because others don’t agree and engaging in ad hominem attacks is hardly ‘mature’.

It seems from reading over your responses to myself and others that you are trying to make a case for whatever *you* believe in vs - that you believe in what you do because you had no choice(s). This explains the the complete denial of any suggestions presented to you that others can and do ‘believe’ in a myriad of things including contradictory ideas and/or make choices based on the ideas they hold even if those ideas are not consistant: that this appears personal for you.

And you are quite right that given this, nobody has anything to add to your remarks because you have already made up your mind that that all humans are like you in thought and behavior. An interesting position but not one that can lead to fruitful debate on many subjects.

My response was that you’ve been completely avoiding anything that may make you seem wrong and you brought an immature tone to the discussion so I don’t want to waste anymore of our time. This is what, your 6th post to me and you still haven’t answered my original question. Stephen Lawrence somehow managed to give an answer on his first post to me.

Stephen Lawrence doesn’t seem to be agreeing with me and yet we’ve been able to keep the discussion civil and on point. I’ve been on these forums long before you got here and time and again I gotten into long debates with other members on these forums and we’ve kept it mature and on point. You haven’t shown me that you’re capable or willing to do that.  I’ve conceded when I was wrong many times before you got here and I’ve learned a lot from the other members here. I’m not afraid of being wrong.

You have:
-Avoided my original question, even after I repeatedly asked it to you. I’ve explained the purpose of such a question in my last response to Stephen Lawrence.
-Claimed that I contradicted myself and when asked to show how I did, you ignored it.
-Avoided addressing how you’ve equivocated with the word “belief.” The only response you’ve made anywhere near that is make a sarcastic comment utilizing smilies- completely avoiding any real points.
-Avoided addressing how just because two people hold differing beliefs, that somehow shows that they made a “choice”, ie there’s a logical relationship between the two.

So no, I’m not guilty of an ad hominem. I’m not saying that your argument doesn’t work because of some character flaw. You’re avoiding any serious discussion and that’s why I don’t see a good reason to spend much more time responding to you. On top of that, you’re responding sarcastically which isn’t going to help anyone take you seriously.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2011 04:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  92
Joined  2010-12-23
Kaizen - 03 January 2011 02:54 PM
pelagic - 03 January 2011 01:43 PM

No, you just don’t like the answers or suppositions being suggested to you. Your present response of taking your ball and going home because others don’t agree and engaging in ad hominem attacks is hardly ‘mature’.

It seems from reading over your responses to myself and others that you are trying to make a case for whatever *you* believe in vs - that you believe in what you do because you had no choice(s). This explains the the complete denial of any suggestions presented to you that others can and do ‘believe’ in a myriad of things including contradictory ideas and/or make choices based on the ideas they hold even if those ideas are not consistant: that this appears personal for you.

And you are quite right that given this, nobody has anything to add to your remarks because you have already made up your mind that that all humans are like you in thought and behavior. An interesting position but not one that can lead to fruitful debate on many subjects.

My response was that you’ve been completely avoiding anything that may make you seem wrong and you brought an immature tone to the discussion so I don’t want to waste anymore of our time. This is what, your 6th post to me and you still haven’t answered my original question. Stephen Lawrence somehow managed to give an answer on his first post to me.

Stephen Lawrence doesn’t seem to be agreeing with me and yet we’ve been able to keep the discussion civil and on point. I’ve been on these forums long before you got here and time and again I gotten into long debates with other members on these forums and we’ve kept it mature and on point. You haven’t shown me that you’re capable or willing to do that.  I’ve conceded when I was wrong many times before you got here and I’ve learned a lot from the other members here. I’m not afraid of being wrong.

You have:
-Avoided my original question, even after I repeatedly asked it to you. I’ve explained the purpose of such a question in my last response to Stephen Lawrence.
-Claimed that I contradicted myself and when asked to show how I did, you ignored it.
-Avoided addressing how you’ve equivocated with the word “belief.” The only response you’ve made anywhere near that is make a sarcastic comment utilizing smilies- completely avoiding any real points.
-Avoided addressing how just because two people hold differing beliefs, that somehow shows that they made a “choice”, ie there’s a logical relationship between the two.

So no, I’m not guilty of an ad hominem. I’m not saying that your argument doesn’t work because of some character flaw. You’re avoiding any serious discussion and that’s why I don’t see a good reason to spend much more time responding to you. On top of that, you’re responding sarcastically which isn’t going to help anyone take you seriously.

If you think I avoided your original question it is because it made no sense and frankly, I found it a tad sophomoric - the sort of faux-philosophical postulations put forward by first term students. I also note that you only want others to respond on your terms which I also find rather juvenile - ” I won’t talk to you until you answer my question!!!!!! That’s the only way I’ll play this game with you and if you don’t , then everything you write is WRONG ( even if it’s not)  Sorry, I’ve been to way too many forums where I’ve seen this exact type of behavior and it doesn’t interest me anymore. 

So I think you yourself have found the answer - you have found someone willing to turn debate into some process where you lay down the rules for what will be considered ‘correct’ and so they are worthy of a response from you.  I wish you the joy of it. I have done you the courtesy of answering your ‘question’ a number of times in a number of ways. Since you don’t wish to acknowledge it I can only assume it’s because they were not the answers you ‘wanted’ or you didn’t understand the answers. That’s fine, there are lots of things people don’t understand. Doesn’t mean you are a bad person or anything.

So - play and be happy and try not to get your knickers in a twist about things which have no importance ( unless that is what makes it fun for you).

 Signature 

Mihi, quanto plura recentium seu veterum revolvo, tanto magis ludibria rerum mortalium cunctis in negotiis observantur - Tacitus

” I knew that!” - me

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2011 04:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2008-03-08
pelagic - 03 January 2011 04:43 PM

If you think I avoided your original question it is because it made no sense and frankly, I found it a tad sophomoric - the sort of faux-philosophical postulations put forward by first term students. I also note that you only want others to respond on your terms which I also find rather juvenile - ” I won’t talk to you until you answer my question!!!!!! That’s the only way I’ll play this game with you and if you don’t , then everything you write is WRONG ( even if it’s not)  Sorry, I’ve been to way too many forums where I’ve seen this exact type of behavior and it doesn’t interest me anymore. 

So I think you yourself have found the answer - you have found someone willing to turn debate into some process where you lay down the rules for what will be considered ‘correct’ and so they are worthy of a response from you.  I wish you the joy of it. I have done you the courtesy of answering your ‘question’ a number of times in a number of ways. Since you don’t wish to acknowledge it I can only assume it’s because they were not the answers you ‘wanted’ or you didn’t understand the answers. That’s fine, there are lots of things people don’t understand. Doesn’t mean you are a bad person or anything.

So - play and be happy and try not to get your knickers in a twist about things which have no importance ( unless that is what makes it fun for you).

“Your argument is sophomoric” isn’t an argument, it’s a red herring. Keep saying whatever makes you feel better. It looks like we’re in agreement that a continued discussion between us would be a waste of both of our time. Let’s leave it at that and move on then.

[ Edited: 03 January 2011 05:00 PM by Kaizen ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2011 08:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2011-02-14

I do not choose to believe this. With my education at its current point, it is the conclusion I’ve arrived to.

This requires careful investigation. Two reasons why:

Philosopher David Hume famously said: “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them”.

Likewise Professor Jonathan Haidt found that morality (at the cultural level) is emotional, and reason is an afterthought to try and explain our emotion.

So, don’t be surprised to find yourself acting subconsciously on emotion, but telling yourself that it’s rational.

So how do we find out? We need to ask ourselves exactly why we are an atheist i.e.
- do we believe there definitely is no God?
- do we believe a godless universe is more likely than a god universe?
- do we simply lack a belief in God?

And then we need to examine the reasons why we reached our conclusions, to see if they hold up rationally.

In my case, I can’t say for sure that God does not exist, and neither can I say that a godless universe is more likely.

Some say that “absence of evidence is evidence of absence of God” but God could be out there invisible to us.
Some say the nature of the universe proves that God is less likely to exist. I could be wrong, but as yet I’ve seen no reason why a godless or god universe is more likely.

Richard Dawkins says “there almost certainly is no god”, and the lack of evidence makes me intuitively want to agree. However, I can see no convincing arguments for such a strong belief.

In the absence of certainty, we are left to make an emotional choice for or against atheism. I chose atheism because:
- i find it insulting to believe in an invisible God
- i don’t like the mental demands of an imaginary God in my head
- i don’t like a God who is so elusive, hard to understand, and threatens hell
- i like the freedom to follow my own conscience
- i don’t want to waste my life worrying about a possible afterlife
- finally, the whole God topic is one big pain in the proverbial and I mentally kick the idea out of my head just to get some peace.

If you “do not choose to be an atheist” then the onus is on you to prove that it is impossible or unlikely for God to exist.

I suspect many atheists haven’t rationally thought the decision through. Rather, they’re just offended by the lack of evidence and, wait for it, chose not to consider all possibilities.

So, despite many atheists exhibiting cocksure confidence, they are probably more emotional than they think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2011 10:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Interesting post, N-o-N.  I go along with most of it, but my reason for not believing in a god are:
- Since there is no way at present of proving or disproving the existence of a god or a metaphysical world, the subject is meaningless.
- I see no evidence that such a supernatural being has any effect on my life, and according to Occam’s Razor, it’s a waste of time and effort to add unnecessary   complications.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2011 11:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4269
Joined  2010-08-15

oh so it is like a state of mind?

like OM

I can relax

breath and existence

just being

perhaps walk with grace

me and the world around me

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 4
2