religion= faith. faith is believing in something unknown. i have faith that a nuclear war will not happen tonight, however i could be wrong.
No faith is believing in something without reason. mrMagic had a perfect definition of it earlier in this thread. You don't need faith that there won't be a nuclear war because there's plenty of evidence to suggest that there won't be.
@Sabbac, There could always be more sensitive measuring devices, flawed data etc. etc. any number of things. Does this mean that we cannot prove anything for sure, either? Kind of, but if we set up our test in such a way that any unknown element or anything we have missed does exist, it will be statistically insignificant and shouldn't affect the results.
If my invented creation story is as valid as any other, doesn't that devalue creation stories, generally? What if I made up a million creation stories? What if everyone on the planet made up a million creation stories? If they are all valid, this could continue until the chance of any one of them being correct is infinitesimally small.
One more thing I wanted to clear up with you; atheism is not a belief and is not contradictory to agnosticism.
If you can say "I don't think we can know for sure if there is a God or not', then you are agnostic. However, you can say that and still believe in god, making you an agnostic theist.
If you can say "I do not believe that there is a God", then you are an atheist. You may be both an agnostic and an atheist or you may be just an atheist ("I know there is no God").
As I said before, I am an agnostic and an atheist and by the sounds of things, it would seem that you are, too.
@Gunshy1: Religion does not equal faith. Zen Buddhists do not have faith in some unknown concept regarding higher powers. But Zen Buddhism is still a religion. They follow the teachings of a mortal man, Gautama Buddha, who did not want people worshiping him like a god - he recognized himself to be no different than any other man, and any other man could achieve Nirvana just like he did, through any variety of ways. None of that requires any faith in anything.
@Kanped: We already have hundreds of Creation stories circulating around the world, both scientific and religious. Of all these possibilities, a maximum of one and only one can be true. This is how your story is as valid as any of the others. You made yours up as a joke, but it's no more or less likely to be true than any of the others dreamed up by mankind. The ones backed by science have some sort of backing to them, but it wouldn't be the first time that things we took for granted as true turned out later to be in error.
We already have ways of accurately measuring certain things. We have sensors sensitive enough to detect even slight traces of water molecules in a given enclosed space. We have optical devices capable of revealing the presence or absence of any existing bacteria - we can see down to the molecular and atomic level, so why would we not see anything consisting of many, many molecules?
Atheism is a belief - a belief that there is no god. Even if you believe in nothing, that, too, is a belief. Belief doesn't imply religion in any way, though religion in most cases implies a belief in something.
The atheist says: "A god or gods do not exist. This is what I believe."
The agnostic says: "A god or gods may or may not exist - I don't know for sure. I'm open to all possibilities, and I'm seeking which of them is true." This truth can be something internal, it could be something scientific, it could be anything that the agnostic chooses as his tool to measure truth. Mine "ruler" is that it would require proof based on what we know to be true, which by nature leads to something scientifically found to be true.
These two are mutually exclusive. One can't state clearly that there is no higher power, while at the same time not being sure if such a higher power exists. You either believe one exists (some form of theism), believe one doesn't exist (atheism) or just aren't sure and are unwilling to simply go on faith alone (agnosticism). To be both atheist and agnostic is like being simultaneously pregnant and not pregnant.
I guess I will try to explain before I bow out. I am a bit intolerant against intolerance. I think their was a bit of hate speach that came about after I posted my ideas about the Catholic Church. Their are 1.2 billion Catholics in the world and I guess I did not run into any here. I understand people have problems with Religion. I did at one point myself. In the end, many people hate the Catholic Church for what they think it is, few, if any, hate it for what it is. I did not attack anyone on a personal level nor do I feel I was attacked at a personal level. Dialouge and debate is of value to me, but when you say the basis of one point of view is evil, intelligent debate ends, unless he is talking about evil itself. I can admit I did become hot under the collar and spoke out of turn. If you refer to the start of this, I simply was brining up historical fact which was attacked. Again, I do not take this as a personal attack, even if it was inteded to be so. Since I am obviosly out numbered, I will give you all the final word. It has been nice talking with you, that is not passive aggresive, that is about 65% true. Alright, maybe 42%. Peace.
"Intolerant against intolerance"? So you don't tolerate yourself because of your own intolerance?
I was baptized a Catholic. I've seen the Church, heard its teachings, even made it as far as the Sacrament of Penance - and skipped ahead to the Sacrament of Marriage, but that's another story. I find them at times to be very intolerant. It's one reason why I no longer consider myself to be Catholic.
Your statements are passive aggressive. "I'm alone in my beliefs so I'm taking my toys and going home" is generally what you said. I particularly found your percentages of how nice it has been talking to us as a sign of passive aggression.
No one accused your belief of being evil - the acts of mortal men and women can be evil, but belief in a God in Heaven isn't evil or not evil; it's your choice, your faith. That there are mortal men in the Church who have committed heinous acts is not a reflection on your faith, but on those people who share your faith and committed those acts, particularly the ones in positions of authority within your Church. It would seem they chose to ignore certain basic teachings of your shared faith - in other words, they're as human as the rest of us, and as flawed. Giving blind obedience to any flawed mortal person in the name of any God is not my idea of a good idea, although the Catholic Church considers this a requirement.
