On reincarnation of God

[Samson]

idk where it's absurb

Perhaps you would see the absurdity if you applied it to another belief, say the belief in the predictive power of astrology. You could say that the Pope, Sitting Bull and Richard Dawkins all share the same "family of beliefs" that do not accept that, but I think most would say it is an absurd statement.

 

[citizenofdoom]

Perhaps you would see the absurdity if you applied it to another belief, say the belief in the predictive power of astrology. You could say that the Pope, Sitting Bull and Richard Dawkins all share the same "family of beliefs" that do not accept that, but I think most would say it is an absurd statement.

It's just set of people believing predictive power of astrology somewhere near zero.
I can't see the absurdity mate

 

[Narz]

It's just set of people believing predictive power of astrology somewhere near zero

When a 'spiritual' idea has a predictive power above zero I'll start believing

 

[Samson]

It's just set of people believing predictive power of astrology somewhere near zero.
I can't see the absurdity mate

We are not talking about the people, but the beliefs. My point is that you totally can define such a set, but it is "absurd" to use it as a general means of classification.

 

[Farm Boy]

Hey cutie, what's your sign?

 

[Birdjaguar]

IIRC Trump is a Gemini.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

belief is probably one of the most abstract terms I could think.
because the word atheism exists, set of beliefs/things must have some similarities to be considered as atheism.
so yeah, set of beliefs that satisfy a boolean statement, should be a well-defined set.
that statement altho hold nearly no value but must be right to everyone
idk where it's absurb

I don't speak math. I've already mentioned this, so using math to attempt to convince me isn't going to work.

 

[Farm Boy]

IIRC Trump is a Gemini.

Hrm. Might be fun with an Aries.

 

[citizenofdoom]

I don't speak math. I've already mentioned this, so using math to attempt to convince me isn't going to work.

I think this will simplify the thing.

Atheism is a set of any idea/system which approve this statement: "Number of deities can be equal to zero" is true.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

And most religions are the same +1. Maths.

 

[Narz]

Atheism is a set of any idea/system which approve this statement: "Number of deities can be equal to zero" is true.

It's a belief but not a system. Except the system every1 has that says "If someone tries to sell you something that makes no sense you reject it posthaste without much thought". Even two year olds have this system when you're being silly with them & they realize you make no sense.

 

[El_Machinae]

Most atheists don't strictly believe there are no gods. They just don't believe in any of the ones they've been told about

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Have you told them about me?

 

[Farm Boy]

Same difference.

At least transubstantiation vs symbolism is slightly interesting.

 

[Narz]

Most atheists don't strictly believe there are no gods. They just don't believe in any of the ones they've been told about

I believe we could be in a simulation on the computer of some alien or a Chinese kid from the year 4036. I suppose we could call them 'gods.

But yes generally the deities I've heard about sound so absurd I could confidently give them a 0% chance of existence. Which is how religious people also feel about every other God but their own (Christians don't worry about going to Hades)

I don't like the label agnostic because I don't want anyone to get the idea that I'm undecided about any religion I've ever been exposed to.

 

[Farm Boy]

You like to speak for people you expressly say you aren't. It's weird, don't you think?

 

[Edmund Ironside]

Dawkins bingo! Double ones!

(I don't know bingo but I know nonsense united statistics when I see them)

Is there a scientific way of knowing whether the assertion is true or not? I know when I Google "killed" and "blasphemy" the results for which religion was involved are very predictable (but of course a google search is not science)!

Which is how religious people also feel about every other God but their own (Christians don't worry about going to Hades)

Though it is not strictly about religion (though it does have a religious origin), I have heard the blind men and elephant parable used in the context of different religions.

http://www.wisehypnosis.com/articles/stories-parables/the-blind-men-and-the-elephant-parable/

 

[Narz]

You like to speak for people you expressly say you aren't. It's weird, don't you think?

So you think Oden is legit too? My bad

 

[Rg339]

This is neither here nor there but I always thought the character of Odin was more mysterious, mystical and magical(and this cooler) than the heads of other Indo-European pantheons. More compelling than Jupiter or Zeus

 

[Farm Boy]

So you think Oden is legit too? My bad

He's a smaller concept of diety. Partial, perhaps, in my more comfortable context. But insofar as he describes human interactions with themselves, human interactions with others, and the experience in the world. Sure, it's a part of God. It's not like I'm surprised when I look around and the parts of the world are cruel, stupid, or seemingly random. Shocking. Oh no, there's suffering out there! I rather like the characterization of God of Fatherhood in Zeus. That one doesn't pull many punches. But I gather that a lot of people, some atheists maybe included, don't much like unblinking stares at the world. Look at all the people that find the Old Testament or the book of Job so off putting. Daw, does evil and pain hurt our little sensibilities? We'd be such better gods, I'm sure.