• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Adventures of a Pseudo-Intellectual

Animore

Active Member
I like nice beginnings. Something peaceful to start off the rollercoaster ride that is to come. Oh, screw it. This journal is just gonna be me trying to be smart and philosopher-like. So yeah. That;'s that.
 

Animore

Active Member
Is America a Christian country?

First post. Let's do this.

Disclaimer: This post will contain no links or sources of any kind. This is going off of my own personal creed.

I believe we all understand the principles of a democracy. We have no argument over this. It's the opposite of a dictator ship, and it allows for freedoms and liberties to play a key role in the workings of a society. Remember this, this is going to be something important here.

In order for this post to get anywhere at all, we must clarify on some phrases. The USA was not a country founded on Christian ideals. It was a country founded by Christian men and women. There is a big difference in this. I'll give you an example: When Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison help revolutionize and, obviously, create the first electricity, these inventions were not created by the characteristics of these men. They were created because they had brilliant ideas, with little to nothing to do with what they felt on what a good president should be like, or if gay marriage was to be accepted. It had nothing to do with any of their political or social views in the slightest. It had to do with their knowledge of electricity. What nuts and bolts should be where, what type of metal or conductor to use. In the same way, the country was not founded by what Gods they worshiped, or their views on which holy book was right. It was founded on their views on how to run a country.

That and separation of church and state. :D

Once again, I have no idea what I'm talking about.
 

Animore

Active Member
The Dawkins Scale

As I'm sure everyone knows, Richard Dawkins is a renowned zoologist, ethologist, and evolutionary biologist, as well as a renowned anti-theist. In his book The God Delusion he explains a seven-point scale of theistic to atheistic beliefs, with one being "I KNOW there is a God" and seven being "I KNOW there is no God" the main focus (or at least, implied focus) being Abrahamic religions.

The scale is as follows:

1- I know there is a God

2- I don't know for certain, but I believe very strongly, and base my life off of the assumption that He is there

3- I am not very certain, but I am inclined to believe

4- I believe the existence of God is 50/50 in possibility

5- I am not very certain, but I am inclined to be skeptical

6- I am not entirely certain, but I think God is very improbable, and live my life off of the assumption that He is not there.

7- I know there is no God.

Here is the explanation by Mr. Dawkins on-stage:


Richard Dawkins later stated that he was a 6.9 rather than just a six.

Richard Dawkins: '6.9 out of seven' sure that God does not exist

"There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: 'Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?' Prof Dawkins answered that he did.

An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: 'You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.'

Prof Dawkins said that he was '6.9 out of seven' sure of his beliefs."

'I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,' he added."

That's really all I got. :/
 

Animore

Active Member
'Agnostic/Gnostic/Ignostic'-Please Clarify.

This is fairly simple really.

Before we begin, I believe there are God concepts that we can dismiss without question. There cannot be a material God who is willing to give evidence. There cannot be a God whose existence is knowable by material means. There cannot be a God that is a mountain, or a sea, or anything inanimate. In these cases, we can all be gnostic atheists in this sense, relatively no question there. The problem begins, however, with the question of, "Can there be a God that is in a major organized religion which can be disproven?"

Well, yes and no. One could say that the lack of evidence of a specific God could be the conclusion to this, but it would be a necessity to outline the specifics of the God. I know what you're thinking. "But Jacob, lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack!" Bull****, if you'll excuse my French. If something is intended to be somewhere, and it's been tested multiple times that it isn't, that can conclude that there isn't something. Let me give you an example. Say we have a coin. We flip such a coin. It lands on heads. We flip it again. It lands on heads again. We flip it again. It lands on heads once more. We start to get suspicious. Say we flip it 2,000 times and it still does not land on tails, but heads, every single time. One can safely conclude that this is an only-face-sided coin. We can of course give silly reasons why this doesn't happen, like, "The coin has a plan for life, and it will flip when it chooses to flip, not when you want it to flip," or, "That's only the physical side of the coin, and on the spiritual side it is flipping on tails," but we know these claims are simply not true. We can safely say that this coin, is not a heads-and-tails coin, but an only-face coin. The same can be said for God. If this God is said to interact with the world, and in modern society this God does not interact with modern society at all, it can safely be said that this God does not exist. That is why I am a gnostic atheist about most theistic Gods in religions.

"Well what about a deistic God?" you may ask. There is one problem here. What use would it be to believe in a God that might as well not exist? Nevertheless, the purpose of this is not whether it is useful or not to believe in something or not, but the stance on the knowledge of truth of these claims. So yes, when it comes to such a god/gods, I am an agnostic atheist.

"How about God in general?" You may inquire. I will reply in the most direct way possible. "It is a waste of one's time to have a stance on something that is so vague not one physical, or spiritual for that matter, attributes have been given for such a deity except the basic definition of every deity." This simply means I do not feel that such a concept deserves to have a stance on it. It is way too vague. One must define some key terms and attributes.

So yes, this is the best definition of my stance on Gods.
 
Top