You are who you associate with. To some degree you have to admit it's true.
I would have thought I'm an atheist, but I'm too lazy for that. I have no intention to prove that God or something like that don't exist. Agnostic suits me best. I wouldn't believe something that cannot be proven, but you are welcomed to it.
An ancient Chinese Wiseman (Lao Zi 老子?) said, "You life is limited. To chase after the boundless would be dangerous". If you want to believe in a religion, you might just end up in Scientology and other destructive cults.
It's true that atheists crash with all people with religions to some extent. But for the agnostic view, those with different religions contradict each other. For example, Christian, Buddhism and Hindu believe in very different things. Only one of them can be right? And since you can't prove who is right one way or the other, I have better things to do.
The problem with Scientologists is that they cannot defend their own religion without risking to see the ethic officer for saying or looking up the wrong things. They can only tell you to read a book, even in press releases.
"Dianetics: the modern science of mental health" This is not science, end of story for me, and the same for anybody who knows science from science friction. How do you defend that? There is no IF's, BUT's. It's not true or false, acceptable or unacceptable, right or wrong. There is no intention to be a science as we know it.
I would have thought I'm an atheist, but I'm too lazy for that. I have no intention to prove that God or something like that don't exist. Agnostic suits me best. I wouldn't believe something that cannot be proven, but you are welcomed to it.
An ancient Chinese Wiseman (Lao Zi 老子?) said, "You life is limited. To chase after the boundless would be dangerous". If you want to believe in a religion, you might just end up in Scientology and other destructive cults.
It's true that atheists crash with all people with religions to some extent. But for the agnostic view, those with different religions contradict each other. For example, Christian, Buddhism and Hindu believe in very different things. Only one of them can be right? And since you can't prove who is right one way or the other, I have better things to do.
The problem with Scientologists is that they cannot defend their own religion without risking to see the ethic officer for saying or looking up the wrong things. They can only tell you to read a book, even in press releases.
"Dianetics: the modern science of mental health" This is not science, end of story for me, and the same for anybody who knows science from science friction. How do you defend that? There is no IF's, BUT's. It's not true or false, acceptable or unacceptable, right or wrong. There is no intention to be a science as we know it.
Atheists do not say there is no god. Atheists say there is zero proof either way, and its a waste of time to believe in something with no evidence. So by your own words, you are actually closer to atheism than agnosticism, but its up to you which label you prefer.
ReplyDeleteI got my definitions from one source, can't say about the rest. But interestingly, the Chinese translation is very clear cut - Atheist is translated as "no god theory". But then translation doesn't mean a lot.
ReplyDelete