181–190 of 368 posts
It's fairly common for people to respond to this sort of question by saying something along the lines of "I disapprove of organized religion, but have spiritual faith." My own view is exactly the opposite. I see the value in the ritual, community, and psychological "anchor" that organized religion can provide. But spiritual faith seems absurd; why mix your emotional security and your sense of identity up with a bunch…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"So why not believe?" How is it that easy? We're not picking a team to support in the Finals series. The idea of believing in a "god" to me is as foreign as believing in a tooth fairy. When an employee of mine is openly religious, it is to me akin to him espousing a belief in something purely fantastical - tooth fairy, Santa Claus, etc. His choice and I don't deride it, but to me it is all entirely bizarre. When I lo…
Might not be the best idea to comment on your personal feelings regarding an employee's religious affiliation. It'd suck to have a HN post submitted as evidence in a discrimination lawsuit. Edit: Why the down-vote? The parent has his company and website in his info. No idea what it's like in AUS, but in the states, if someone was fired and there was any ambiguity regarding the reason, this comment could be be admissi…
I don't discriminate against the guy. We are open about our positions and can discuss it at the right times, but all it is, is a difference in belief in one aspect of life (admittedly, a big aspect of his life). I pay him more than I pay myself and he is an invaluable employee who does great work for me. I think the only way he'd lose his job here is if I ran out of work for him to do!
I am just framing my perspective so that a religious person might comprehend it. e.g., Santa Claus is an identity that some people believe in at some point but not at another, and at that later point they (hopefully) have zero doubt about their belief.
To get it further back on track: If I suggested that you (marcamillion, not frederick) believed in Santa Claus to get better presents, how would you even do it? You know Santa doesn't actually deliver presents with his reindeer, right? You'd stake your house and life on it, surely?
I recognize the fact that the theory of the existence of a deity or deities is logically, scientifically, factually, demonstrably, historically, and obviously devoid of any creditability. So yea, nonreligious. Allow me to plug a speech by Douglas Adams before any discussion attempts to ensure: http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/ also, 3 scientologists? gosh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree definitions vary, and that can cause confusion. For example, people unsure of what to believe can label themselves agnostic . Some call this "fence sitting". At the same time there is what's called weak atheism and strong atheism , the latter asserting there are no gods, which of course is a stupid assertion to make in an absolute sense. So weak atheism makes the most sense as it makes no assertion; it's just…
There's a definition to atheism I've read once that I think it's the best way to define what atheism means to me: An atheist doesn't believe in god the same way he doesn't believe in santa claus, or werewolves. It's not that he can positively proof god does not exist, only that there's no reason, given current evidences, to believe.
oblig. Einstein repeatedly argued that there must be simplified explanations of nature, because God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer. Fred Brooks, p. 184 The Mythical Man-Month 2nd ed. It's interesting to me that several people I greatly admire in comp sci/technology are religious: Fred Brooks, Knuth, Larry Wall and Clayton Christensen ( The Innovator's Dilemma ). To me, on…
Looking through history and trying to discern intent is a difficult thing to do. I don't think any of the development of God(s) as a concept was done with much long term intent but was likely as most things are done the result of mutually beneficial agreements made on the spot to secure wealth and power between the parties to the agreement.
Basically, stuff happens and then people talk their book, each gains a number of supporters and the interested parties create a consensus or official truth that best meshes with the official truth from the previous event. The magna carta wasn't signed because the King or Parliament had some love of freedom. The opportunity existed for a power grab and they took it. Even the Declaration of Independence was heavily watered down after it reached committee. Sure, Jefferson and Washington might have been true believers but most of the signatories were want to exclude things that would negatively impact their bottom line. (eg. abolishing slavery). Look at the list of grievances it's mostly about money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no reason to believe in a god, and no evidence to support it. I'd like to know why people do believe in a god, as not believing in one is fairly easy. So, a question to your question, is there a good reason you believe in it (assuming you do)? Edit: petervandijck said it better above me.
Well there is evidence but it's not evidence that you're presently accepting. The Bible is a sort of evidence and people's testimony is as well. For my part I believe in God because he speaks to me regularly and I'm the last person you'd expect that to happen to. I was minding my own business when I started hearing from God. Everyone I knew at the time was totally shocked and it took me over two years to accept what…
Lets say, for the sake of argument. You don't believe in god. What would stop you from doing the above things you mentioned? Would it be fair for me to make an assumption (and I apologize if I am wrong), that you are not necessarily doing those noble things because you think those things will help people, but possibly you are doing those things to appease your god so that you get a better after life.
Assuming my above assumption is right (again I apologize if its not), do you see the inconsistency in your morality?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Whether or not God exists objectively isn't really something I think about or care about answering. I think that you could fairly be described as an agnostic, then.
Apathetist is a better description. An agnostic says he doesn't know the answer; I'm saying the question is meaningless.
Why? Is it because we have not been able to answer it yet?