Saladin the Devout Athiest?

[Older than Dirt]

Dear Warpus, question no longer, I am not a good person. No one is. God doen't grade on a curve, so it gives me no solace that I am not as bad as .............(fill in your favorite).

 

[romelus]

I am not a good person. No one is.

oh the guilt! the unbearable guilt!

 

[Older than Dirt]

I have no guilt. He's alive and I'm forgiven!

 

[JBG]

Sorry - who's alive? That one went way over my head

 

[meatwad4289]

I've actually seen whats his name headdress probably natic american Hyac paca or something... Anyway, He went until the 1600s before choosing a religion. Ofcourse I was "CLEANSING" The earth of peganist religions lol And he went Hindu. And I had just eliminated all the buddists, so.. I made him an appointment. See I go Religion then Threat. If theres 3 other civs, I take the one in my relgion and we fight the strongest of the other religion, then the next civ after that and then my friendly civ. See. but hey.

 

[crocodiledundee]

Atheism is just as much of a religion as Theistic religions. it takes a lot of Faith to believe that the universe happend by accident. in fact their's a growing number of mathmeticians that have worked out that it's less likely forthe universe to have been an accident than for it to have been "created".

I definitely support atheism. It also makes sense in that atheists tend to lose respect for those who believe in eg. that guy in the Bible who lived for 900 years. So the negative attitude toward someone of a different religion would be maintained. There's obviously some problems though...holy building of atheism? Tech prerequisite? Great prophet?

 

[Dueck]

Intelligent design... :suicide:

That and... the laws of science and mathematics can't figure in metaphysical matters.

 

[RandomInsanity]

I definitely support atheism. It also makes sense in that atheists tend to lose respect for those who believe in eg. that guy in the Bible who lived for 900 years. So the negative attitude toward someone of a different religion would be maintained. There's obviously some problems though...holy building of atheism? Tech prerequisite? Great prophet?

tech prereq? scientific method or philosophy
holy building? maybe one of its special properties is that it has none since it is such a decentralized religious belief
edit: great prophets are easy, just take any popular atheist authors

 

[zx1111]

tech prereq? scientific method or philosophy
holy building? maybe one of its special properties is that it has none since it is such a decentralized religious belief
edit: great prophets are easy, just take any popular atheist authors

Atheist Holy building -> Library and University or just public schools
Because 'knowledge is enemy and antidote of religion'...

Great prophet -> Many Renassance/ Greek/Enlightenment philosophers and scientiest esp. Emmanuel Kant, Socrates, Plato, Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno, and some pioneers who were burn on stake accused of heretic.

 

[Ranos]

Regarding the round earth. Let's say Person A claims the earth is round. I'm person B. Person C asks if I agree with A. I say I disagree with A, that I don't believe it's round. That does not imply I have a belief on the shape of the earth! Yes, I do believe A is wrong, but that's not the same as me asserting a claim on the shape of the earth as my belief. You're implying that just because I don't believe that a particular God they define and believe in exists, that I automatically assert another position. I don't.

An agnostic that doesn't know automatically lacks a belief. That, by definition, is an atheist! If you don't think it's possible to prove, then you can still be a theist or atheist. but if you don't know, then you lack a belief in God and are an atheist. This part is binary situation. But within those that lack a belief in God, that can again be broken into two parts: a) those that deny God's existence and b) those that just don't know.

Hence I said that in philosophy, we generally group that as Strong atheists and weak atheists. You're either not grasping this, or willfully denying it.

The problem is that a human will always form an opinion about something. We may not always voice our opinions to others, but we have them none the less. The only way that you can't have a belief on a particular matter is if you know nothing about that subject. When you are asked by person C if you agree with person A, that is not a direct question on your belief. If person C asked what shape you thought the Earth was, you would have to have an answer. If you answered that you didn't know, that isn't a lack of belief but a belief in so many possibilities that you can't choose one to specifically select as your personal belief.

As far as whether there is a god of some sort out there, I don't know. I know that there is something because of things that I have seen and experienced but I don't know if it is a god of some sort, if it is an energy field that links us (the Force from Star Wars if you will) or some other unknown, but I believe something exists.

If you don't know at all, then you believe that the possibility of a god exists and you also believe that there is the possibility that no god exists.

suppose I see a big difference between:

A. coming to a definite conclusion about something
and
B. coming to a fuzzy logic conclusion about something

I am absolutely certain that water freezes at roughly 0C and boils at roughly 100C at sea level. Christians are absolutely certain that God exists. Both of these "beliefs" are of type A.

On the other hand, I am *somewhat* convinced that our moon was created when a mars-sized object slammed into the earth. I can't say with certainty that this is what actually happened, but I estimate that the statement is likely to be right. How accurate the estimation is is beside the point... To give another example, the chances of me winning the lottery tomorrow are 1 in 14 million. I am fairly certain that I am NOT going to win, but I admit that it very well might happen. Both of these "estimations" are of type B.

Religious beliefs are always of type A. A Christian has never EVER said: "I am 85.2% sure that God exists". To Christians, God exists. This is not something that can be questioned. It is a 100% certainty. It is a definite conclusion, accurate or not. It's a belief.

To an atheist, the question of God's existence can be a belief (ie. "I am absolutely certain that God does not exist and I do not admit to myself that I could be wrong") or it can be a statement of type B (ie. "I do not believe in God's existence with 100% certainty (be it 20%, 5%, 75%, 95% or unknown)")

I fall into the second group of people. What I have is not a belief. What I have is a fuzzy logic statement about the possible existence of God. There is nothing belief-like about it. My thoughts on the possibility of the existence of God change dynamically from day to day, month to month, and year to year. Currently I do not think that there is any evidence to suggest that God exists, but this might very well change Friday night for a couple hours when I head out to the bars. Who knows...

The word "belief" can mean two entirely different things in different contexts. In a religious discussion, such as this, a belief will always be something that someone thinks to be true with absolute certainty. In common english the word takes on dfiferent meanings. We shouldn't confuse the two if we're specifically discussing religion.

As for the whole cheese thing.. I'll have to get back to that later, as I have many things to say about religion and cheese.

There are no two separate definitions for believe. You don't have to say for 100% certain that something is true to believe in it. When you make a bet on a game of some kind, you don't know which team will win. You are looking at the evidence of how that team has played in the past, who is on the team and what the condition those players are in. You may also just have a favorite team that you always cheer for and no one can change your mind and you bet on them in faith with no evidence at all. You do this either way because you believe that team will win.

I won't quote dictionary.com because there is too much to put here but you can look up the word belief yourself. It lists four entries.

The first has three definitions that all talk about truth. This entry does support your supposition that belief is about 100% certainty, but it doesn't list it as religious or nonreligious. This then would mean that you must be 100% certain about something before you could believe in it.

The second and third both define belief as not needing to be complete truth. One says "a degree of conviction..." and the second says "a vague idea in which some confidence is placed." Both of these clearly mean that you don't have to be absolutely certain about something to believe in it.

The fourth entry doesn't list a definition but has a link which I didn't follow.

Both of your own A and B examples are belief based on the second and third entries on dictionary.com. The only difference is that one is absolutely sure while the second has some reservations about the subject. If you go by the first entry on that site, then whenever you believe something, you must be sure that it is the truth.

The statement, "I believe the Earth is round," is a belief based on truth. The statement, "I believe the US will bring home the most medals from the Olympics," is a belief based on past history and the fact that the US has the most, or close to it, athletes at the Olympics giving us the greatest odds at winning more medals. Both of the above are beliefs, the only difference is the basis of the belief.

 

[SmokeyD]

Atheist Holy building -> Library and University or just public schools
Because 'knowledge is enemy and antidote of religion'...

Great prophet -> Many Renassance/ Greek/Enlightenment philosophers and scientiest esp. Emmanuel Kant, Socrates, Plato, Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno, and some pioneers who were burn on stake accused of heretic.

I'm not sure about Kant, but everyone else you've mentioned was very religious. Also, Bruno was burnt for actually being a heretic who preached against the trinitarian view of God and believed that all things possess life in a form of mysiticism that centered round the Egyptian religions. Unforunately for us and for science, he was also a proponent of the Copernican model, which the Church had been happy to ignore (it even lent it tacit support at one point) until it was associated with such a public and fiery heretic.

 

[JBG]

The Church (esp. the Established churches) have always been the chief opponents of the advancement of civilisation. A whole series of examples, the Copernical Model being one of them, shows that they really HATE anything that changes the comfortable status quo.

 

[SmokeyD]

Not really. For almost 10 centuries, the Church was the only large scale cultural institution in Europe, setting up schools and universities all over the place. It's not for nothing that most European scientists between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance were monks.

And the Copernican model was challenged mainly because of its association with the heretic Bruno, not because there was anything wrong with the model itself.

 

[romelus]

I have no guilt. He's alive and I'm forgiven!

that's awesome. do whatever you want, you are forgiven. i love religion!

 

[zx1111]

I'm not sure about Kant, but everyone else you've mentioned was very religious. Also, Bruno was burnt for actually being a heretic who preached against the trinitarian view of God and believed that all things possess life in a form of mysiticism that centered round the Egyptian religions. Unforunately for us and for science, he was also a proponent of the Copernican model, which the Church had been happy to ignore (it even lent it tacit support at one point) until it was associated with such a public and fiery heretic.

There are number of religions that are atheistic. Some primary or modern religions are atheistic, i.e . no supreme God or Heavenly Being.
Confucainism is one of such religion. Jainism is another atheistic religion. Buddism is somewhat atheistic in that every mortals can be Immortal ( reach to Nirvana, become a Budda ) if they realize the Truth through self-meditation. ( No God or Savior involved here)
Some modern religions (like New Age, Transendal Meditation, Rajneesh) have atheic tendancy.
It is Christian mis-conception that all religion have theismic god.

Bruno himself was educated as Dominican priest. But he refused the last sacrament offered by church before his excution because he did not believe in after-life after his death. He died as matyre of Knowlege and Logos. He deserves to be called Great Propet.

So religious and atheistic are not always mutually exclusive.

 

[SmokeyD]

So religious and atheistic are not always mutually exclusive.

Err, I know. I didn't say otherwise. The people you mentioned, however, were both religious and theistic.

Bruno himself was educated as Dominican priest. But he refused the last sacrament offered by church before his excution because he did not believe in after-life after his death. He died as matyre of Knowlege and Logos. He deserves to be called Great Propet.

He wasn't an atheist, though.

 

[Depravo]

I'm not sure about Kant, but everyone else you've mentioned was very religious. Also, Bruno was burnt for actually being a heretic who preached against the trinitarian view of God and believed that all things possess life in a form of mysiticism that centered round the Egyptian religions. Unforunately for us and for science, he was also a proponent of the Copernican model, which the Church had been happy to ignore (it even lent it tacit support at one point) until it was associated with such a public and fiery heretic.

Kant did believe in God. He halfheartedly tacked him onto his own philosophy. Even Rousseau didn't quite have the guts to abandon deism. But then I ever preferred Nietzsche