Posts by Joey Jo-Jo

78

Atheism or Agnosticism, which one is correct?

by Joey Jo-Jo in

this has been bugging me for a while, and while i dont want to turn this into something about semantics i think that we should quickly define what an agnostic and atheists are.. richard dawkins defines 7 different types of atheist ranging from weak to militant atheists, but along these definitions there appears one definition with a strong resemblance to agnosticism.. to me an agnostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in deity/deities, but there are those who define agnostics as a ignorant who simply just don't care or don't have the intelligence to come to sound conclusion.. an atheist can be a person who disbelieves in a deity/deities based on the current mathematical and scientific understandings of the universe, as well as understandings that can refute certain religions such as the strong influence of protestantism christianity in america.. .

from here i will refer deity as anything ranging jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we dont know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be.. an argument that can be used about a deity is -we cannot prove nor disprove that god exists- this is referred to as a null hypothesis, an assumption that we cannot create a hypothesis to prove or disprove this deity.

this to me is agnosticism and is more correct than the idea of atheism.

Joey Jo-Jo

ziddina:thx, I also share your view.

Chariklo:That's true, one self proclaimed agnostic being Carl Sagan, but there are intelligent people of all beliefs like some of the founding fathers of science believe in God, so for the purpose of this disussion lets disregard who is more intelligent and focus just on the argument at hand, but thanks.

ohiocowboy: I would re-word it - Which belief is more rational and more logical?

nicolaou wrote Agnosticism is a woolly headed cop-out when it comes to god. Do you have a belief that god is real? You are a theist. Do you lack that positive belief? You are an atheist.

How exactly is it a cop out? Can you prove that god exists(all gods, any gods, gods we dont even know of)? Can you prove that God does not exist? If you can not then you are an agnostic. The word Atheist is not the same word used in the 1980's for people who disbelieved in the possible of there being any God to we have no proof that god exists therefore god does not exist.

I don't see it as a cop-out. The other problem faced with science is that most think it's a set of rules, that somehow evolution only applies to us but not the universe, I might touch on that later.

OnTheWayOut: Agnosticism isn't just that (just like agnostic atheists), I also agree with 'I do know that the God's of man's creation are nonexistent. ' but this is also an agnostic, atheist and anti-theist view on religion. My point being Atheists don't know if a super being created the universe - that is an agnostic view- but when they say that therefore they have no reason to believe in it - is an atheist view and illogical.

Think about it, if I told you I have 5 broken laptops under my bed but you have never been to my house, you are not going to disbelieve me just because you can not prove it to yourself that I have five broken laptops, but you don't have to take my word for it either- a null hypothesis.

78

Atheism or Agnosticism, which one is correct?

by Joey Jo-Jo in

this has been bugging me for a while, and while i dont want to turn this into something about semantics i think that we should quickly define what an agnostic and atheists are.. richard dawkins defines 7 different types of atheist ranging from weak to militant atheists, but along these definitions there appears one definition with a strong resemblance to agnosticism.. to me an agnostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in deity/deities, but there are those who define agnostics as a ignorant who simply just don't care or don't have the intelligence to come to sound conclusion.. an atheist can be a person who disbelieves in a deity/deities based on the current mathematical and scientific understandings of the universe, as well as understandings that can refute certain religions such as the strong influence of protestantism christianity in america.. .

from here i will refer deity as anything ranging jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we dont know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be.. an argument that can be used about a deity is -we cannot prove nor disprove that god exists- this is referred to as a null hypothesis, an assumption that we cannot create a hypothesis to prove or disprove this deity.

this to me is agnosticism and is more correct than the idea of atheism.

Joey Jo-Jo

This has been bugging me for a while, and while I don’t want to turn this into something about semantics I think that we should quickly define what an agnostic and atheists are.

Richard Dawkins defines 7 different types of atheist ranging from weak to militant atheists, but along these definitions there appears one definition with a strong resemblance to agnosticism.

To me an agnostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in deity/deities, but there are those who define agnostics as a ignorant who simply just don't care or don't have the intelligence to come to sound conclusion.

An atheist can be a person who disbelieves in a deity/deities based on the current mathematical and scientific understandings of the universe, as well as understandings that can refute certain religions such as the strong influence of Protestantism Christianity in America.

From here I will refer deity as anything ranging Jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we don’t know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be.

An argument that can be used about a deity is -we cannot prove nor disprove that god exists- this is referred to as a Null Hypothesis, an assumption that we cannot create a hypothesis to prove or disprove this deity. This to me is agnosticism and is more correct than the idea of atheism. An atheist would say that there isn't sufficient evidence to suggest that any super being or a particular god created everything therefore believing in such would be illogical, indeed it would, they are right yet they don't see the logical fallacy that disbelieving is as well and that atheists commit by saying this and they make the mistake to assigned this null hypothesis deity/deities to a certain deity written and canonized in the bible. Wouldn't it be more logical to say I don't know.

3

How to explain cognitive dissonance without offending cults and religion.

by Joey Jo-Jo in

(this might offend smokers lol).

scenario 1. let's say you are aware that smoking is bad for you and addictive (element 1) so you dont smoke (element 2) - this is congnitive consonance (rational harmony).

scenario 2. let's say you are aware that smoking is bad for you and addictive (element 1) but you smoke anyway (element 2) = the mind's natural reaction to this irrational decision is to create anxiety with the person smoking, but the person wanting to continue to smoke will substitute this anxiety with a positive mental idea "well him old so i will probably never get cancer" or "i will quit when i reach my 30's" this irrational excuse (element 3) will substitute element 1 - this is cognitive dissonance..

Joey Jo-Jo

sizemik: Thx, was not aware, will look into it.

dgp: That is the truth, cognitive dissonance isn't just a cult thing, and one my have to tell a witness, not a good idea to say it directly.

This explanation was in a book that I am studying "Psychology" used in University.

3

How to explain cognitive dissonance without offending cults and religion.

by Joey Jo-Jo in

(this might offend smokers lol).

scenario 1. let's say you are aware that smoking is bad for you and addictive (element 1) so you dont smoke (element 2) - this is congnitive consonance (rational harmony).

scenario 2. let's say you are aware that smoking is bad for you and addictive (element 1) but you smoke anyway (element 2) = the mind's natural reaction to this irrational decision is to create anxiety with the person smoking, but the person wanting to continue to smoke will substitute this anxiety with a positive mental idea "well him old so i will probably never get cancer" or "i will quit when i reach my 30's" this irrational excuse (element 3) will substitute element 1 - this is cognitive dissonance..

Joey Jo-Jo

E.g. (this might offend smokers lol)

Scenario 1

Let's say you are aware that smoking is bad for you and addictive (element 1) so you dont smoke (element 2) - this is congnitive consonance (rational harmony)

Scenario 2

Let's say you are aware that smoking is bad for you and addictive (element 1) but you smoke anyway (element 2) = the mind's natural reaction to this irrational decision is to create anxiety with the person smoking, but the person wanting to continue to smoke will substitute this anxiety with a positive mental idea "well him old so I will probably never get cancer" or "I will quit when I reach my 30's" this irrational excuse (element 3) will substitute element 1 - this is cognitive dissonance.

27

Steve Hassan's books

by tornapart in

at the moment i can't get these books, they are not available as ebooks and i can't risk having them in the house.

but i have heard so much about them and how helpful they are that i am just wondering if any who have read them can give some insights they have gained from them that would be useful to know.

thanks in advance.

Joey Jo-Jo

you wont find e-book versions of these books at all

89

Iran vs Israel and the USA = WW III (Should we be worried?)

by Me Myself and I in

this particular bowl of soup has been bubbling for some time now, with various posturing and toing and froing.

looking at the media and the subsequent comments from israel regarding iran, it looks clear that something is going to happen soon, very soon..... with iran having the ears of both china and russia, israel having the us and of course we (uk) as the states poodle on the other side.

i wonder if this could be the beginning of the end?.

Joey Jo-Jo

shepherd: I never failed, it's ok for you to turn a question into a question but not for me? Telling me to shut-up, I posted your comments on my wall and everyone is laughting, in case you dont know I live very close to a mosque which in my area there is a high arab presence that believe in Allah, I speak to them on a daily basis and have spoken to them about Iran, you will be surprised what they have to say about these American "pigs", and I did post a link which you failed to look into, don't want to spend some time researching, your loss and as a bonus you will continue to look like a twat.

Hate anything that is not Islam is at every muslims core, some are more extreme than others, they appear nice and one did a very good deed for me, but look a bit deeper, look at their tv programs and ex-muslims channels and you will see a different reality. Their armaggedom is a war, a holy war that all muslims must be a part of and fight, it's nothing like christianity.

Well said Razziel

89

Iran vs Israel and the USA = WW III (Should we be worried?)

by Me Myself and I in

this particular bowl of soup has been bubbling for some time now, with various posturing and toing and froing.

looking at the media and the subsequent comments from israel regarding iran, it looks clear that something is going to happen soon, very soon..... with iran having the ears of both china and russia, israel having the us and of course we (uk) as the states poodle on the other side.

i wonder if this could be the beginning of the end?.

Joey Jo-Jo

shepherd: You show me that he didn't (see if you like it).

89

Iran vs Israel and the USA = WW III (Should we be worried?)

by Me Myself and I in

this particular bowl of soup has been bubbling for some time now, with various posturing and toing and froing.

looking at the media and the subsequent comments from israel regarding iran, it looks clear that something is going to happen soon, very soon..... with iran having the ears of both china and russia, israel having the us and of course we (uk) as the states poodle on the other side.

i wonder if this could be the beginning of the end?.

Joey Jo-Jo

shepherd: I posted a link, yes you are a liar, negligence does make you one.

89

Iran vs Israel and the USA = WW III (Should we be worried?)

by Me Myself and I in

this particular bowl of soup has been bubbling for some time now, with various posturing and toing and froing.

looking at the media and the subsequent comments from israel regarding iran, it looks clear that something is going to happen soon, very soon..... with iran having the ears of both china and russia, israel having the us and of course we (uk) as the states poodle on the other side.

i wonder if this could be the beginning of the end?.

Joey Jo-Jo

shepherd: I usually don't answer a question with a question but I will note that from what is taught in Islam and from what the Iranian President had said (which you completely lied about), I would use all my power to take away theirs just as taking away a real gun from a baby.

89

Iran vs Israel and the USA = WW III (Should we be worried?)

by Me Myself and I in

this particular bowl of soup has been bubbling for some time now, with various posturing and toing and froing.

looking at the media and the subsequent comments from israel regarding iran, it looks clear that something is going to happen soon, very soon..... with iran having the ears of both china and russia, israel having the us and of course we (uk) as the states poodle on the other side.

i wonder if this could be the beginning of the end?.

Joey Jo-Jo

And where is the proof shepherd? your say? gut feeling?