quick apology

I was being a dick last night. I'm not an atheist or a Christian. I'm agnostic. My point was valid but I went about it the wrong way.

There are some good people on this forum, so from now on I will try to be more positive when posting. Arguing on the internet really is a waste of time, and that's become more and more clear over the years.

I'll be using the Igore function again. Last time I did it changed the forum experience for me. I took people off of it because their names had changed and I couldn't remember why I had them on Ignore in the first place. Probably a bad idea.

Have a good day.

Lighten up Francis...no one cares....

And apology accepted.

And might as while lay out my beliefs since I've called people out on theirs.

Over the years I've been an Atheist, a Christian, a Buddhist, you name it chances are I've been it. And I don't mean I read a book or two. I read dozens of books and immersed myself in the study each and every time, sometimes going to the extremes. My experiences in these different religions as well as many other things enforces my belief that the mind can be described as having two parts: a thinker and a prover.

What the thinker thinks, the prover proves.

A human being can think themselves into anything. Be it a Nazi, a Catholic, an Atheist, a voodoo priest, a Democrat, a Republican, etc. These people "think" the world is a certain way, and their "prover" goes about finding evidence that fits and discounting evidence that doesn't. Sometimes its done intentionally but most of the time it happens under the radar. See Robert Anton Wilson for more on that. it's kind of a "meta" view.

In this day and age with so much information available right NOW we are overloaded. So we become "wiki philosophers" and Googlers. We have our views, articles which enforce that view tend to catch our eye, we may be a part of newsgroups and frequent websites which enforce our view. We also spend time looking at opposing view websites and poking holes in their arguments or ridiculing their views. This is not studying. This is life in soundbites.

For my part, I simply cannot decide if there is a God or not. I do not have the evidence and I've looked hard, and looked for over 20 years. I'm smart, I'm intuitive, I'm curious, and I can't decide. Further, I'll say it can't be objectively decide upon, and right now my "prover" has tabled the question and I'm moving on to other things. I'm sure I'll address it again in my own studies, and probably sooner than I think.

My advice: stop living a Wikilife and do some studying if you're interested in a question. The internet is not going to be able to solve that for you. To truly understand something you have to live it. You can't become a good fighter by watching YouTube videos and you can't understand, really understand, something until you've trained in it. If you want to answer religious questions for yourself have an open mind and do the work. There is no substitute.

 

I think you're under the mistaken impression that "agnostic" and "atheist" are mutually exclusive. They're not. In fact, every atheist I've ever come into contact with both IRL and on the interwebs has been an agnostic atheist.

I've never met a person who has declared something to the effect of "I'm 100% sure that there is no god".

Most atheists can't say with 100% certainty that there is no god. But what we can say is that in our time on this planet we've seen no substantive evidence to suggest that there is, and therefore don't believe that there is. But it's certainly possible that it exists.

I'm purposely not going to Google any definitions as it would fly in the face of what I just wrote, and instead go to memory, which could be wrong.

I remember there being a "strong" version and a "weak" version in the literature. The strong version said "There is no God" while the weak version said something like "I do not assert that there is a God". To me the weak version is just like saying nothing at all.

I would grab one of my books but I'm eating a sandwhich at the moment.

Think of it like you'd think of anything else that could exist, but that you've seen no supporting evidence for (Santa, Unicorns, etc).

For example, I'm also an aflyingpinkunicornist. Whilst it's possible that flying pink unicorns exists somewhere (perhaps somewhere in the Amazon where human eyes have never been), I've seen no evidence that they exist and therefore don't believe that they exist. If I ever saw substantive evidence that they exist, that would change things.

 

Also, what kind of sandwich are we talking about here? ;)
 

Seems like it would be an easy question to answer, or an easy thing to say that I don't believe in a flying spaghetti monster, unicorns, etc. But to me to goes to the heart of epistemology and language, and what kinds of claims we are "allowed" to make and what those claims mean when we make them. Honestly, its been too many years since I was sharp on that.

Sandwich is a calorie bomb from Subway: foot long chicken bacon ranch with avocado. Eat fresh! Last night was my last night to drink alcohol (shocking, I was drunk as skunk while being a dick!) and today and tomorrow are my last days to eat whatever I want. I'm starting a 23 week long training program on Monday to prepare for a half ironman next spring.

NeonGreenHares - 


I was being a dick last night. I'm not an atheist or a Christian. I'm agnostic. My point was valid but I went about it the wrong way.



There are some good people on this forum, so from now on I will try to be more positive when posting. Arguing on the internet really is a waste of time, and that's become more and more clear over the years.



I'll be using the Igore function again. Last time I did it changed the forum experience for me. I took people off of it because their names had changed and I couldn't remember why I had them on Ignore in the first place. Probably a bad idea.



Have a good day.


Translation: "I was posting drunk."

SnapLocally - 
NeonGreenHares - 


I was being a dick last night. I'm not an atheist or a Christian. I'm agnostic. My point was valid but I went about it the wrong way.



There are some good people on this forum, so from now on I will try to be more positive when posting. Arguing on the internet really is a waste of time, and that's become more and more clear over the years.



I'll be using the Igore function again. Last time I did it changed the forum experience for me. I took people off of it because their names had changed and I couldn't remember why I had them on Ignore in the first place. Probably a bad idea.



Have a good day.


Translation: "I was posting drunk."


Pretty much. But even when I'm sober I can be an ass. Trying to tone it down.

OP, you should do an AMA about your experience as a Buddhist. I'm extremely curious as I've wanted to take the leap for a long time. If you don't do the thread; why did it not work out for you?

Sorry to hijack, just curious. Phone Post 3.0

NeonGreenHares -

And might as while lay out my beliefs since I've called people out on theirs.

Over the years I've been an Atheist, a Christian, a Buddhist, you name it chances are I've been it. And I don't mean I read a book or two. I read dozens of books and immersed myself in the study each and every time, sometimes going to the extremes. My experiences in these different religions as well as many other things enforces my belief that the mind can be described as having two parts: a thinker and a prover.

What the thinker thinks, the prover proves.

A human being can think themselves into anything. Be it a Nazi, a Catholic, an Atheist, a voodoo priest, a Democrat, a Republican, etc. These people "think" the world is a certain way, and their "prover" goes about finding evidence that fits and discounting evidence that doesn't. Sometimes its done intentionally but most of the time it happens under the radar. See Robert Anton Wilson for more on that. it's kind of a "meta" view.

In this day and age with so much information available right NOW we are overloaded. So we become "wiki philosophers" and Googlers. We have our views, articles which enforce that view tend to catch our eye, we may be a part of newsgroups and frequent websites which enforce our view. We also spend time looking at opposing view websites and poking holes in their arguments or ridiculing their views. This is not studying. This is life in soundbites.

For my part, I simply cannot decide if there is a God or not. I do not have the evidence and I've looked hard, and looked for over 20 years. I'm smart, I'm intuitive, I'm curious, and I can't decide. Further, I'll say it can't be objectively decide upon, and right now my "prover" has tabled the question and I'm moving on to other things. I'm sure I'll address it again in my own studies, and probably sooner than I think.

My advice: stop living a Wikilife and do some studying if you're interested in a question. The internet is not going to be able to solve that for you. To truly understand something you have to live it. You can't become a good fighter by watching YouTube videos and you can't understand, really understand, something until you've trained in it. If you want to answer religious questions for yourself have an open mind and do the work. There is no substitute.

 

You do realize there are books on Google, right? And Google scholar? And ebscohost? Lexisnexis? These are all ways of studying on the internet. I'm not even the slightest bit interested in discussing religion on a forum, I just wanted to address the statement that you can't Google the answer. If I understood that correctly. And good on you for being the bigger man. Phone Post

We all have forgot about it brosky. Its all good

Twister Trent - OP, you should do an AMA about your experience as a Buddhist. I'm extremely curious as I've wanted to take the leap for a long time. If you don't do the thread; why did it not work out for you?

Sorry to hijack, just curious. Phone Post 3.0


Maybe later. Right now my credibility isn't the greatest.



The truth is, like all things religious, complicated. I still read and listen to audiobooks written by Buddhists, mostly Tibetan but also some Zen and Theravada. You don't have to "leap" if you want to experience it; no water baptism required. The biggest lifestyle change is switching to a vegetarian diet if you haven't already. You could take the Boddhisatva's Vow if you wanted a marker, shave your head, etc, for more of a transformational event. But again nothing like that is required.



For me, after so many different experiences, I just come back to the Thinker/Prover model and I realize that my beliefs and practices are ultimately a choice, not something I arrived at. I could still "be" a Zen Buddhist I suppose while carrying very little philosophical baggage, and maybe some day I will. Just not right now.



If you have any questions about it, or are looking for reading materials, etc, just let me know. I wouldn't discourage anyone from pursuing it.