NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I'm agnostic. Most here are agnostic or atheist. So, I have some questions. What made you choose the path you did? What do you think of Christians? Jews? Muslims? Everyone else? Do you think religion is falt-out wrong, or that it could be right but not for you (or everyone)?

For me, I realized that I knew little of Christianity, which was at the time my religion. There were so many dicrepancies in it that I chose agnosticism, because though I was no longer Christian I still believed in some higher power. (And NSG had something to do with that). I really have no problems with Christians at all, I think many are quite loving and caring people when they're not in perpetual Bible study, but I do think it's rather odd to worship a mortal man who basically got tortured to death (don't get me wrong, Jesus was an awesome guy). I have no problem with Jews or Muslims at all, I find their beliefs fascinating but don't really believe them. Everyone is cool as long as it's not some weird sci-fi cult like Scientology. I don't really believe in organized religion, because I think everyone should have their own beliefs.

And what about you guys?

+1

+1

:(

why :( , be :D you're not alone

why :( , be :D you're not alone

No, but nobody's posting... :( I'm starting to feel lonely here.....

Just curious, what do you think is odd about worshiping a mortal man who got tortured to death?

(yes, I'm a bit of a thread-crasher, since I'm Christian, but I suppose I'm being productive compared to some. And I personally can think of lots of reasons why it's odd, but they all seem like good things to me)

in my best steve martin voice "well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me" i was agreeing with you

that was a post lol

Poor Pancake's thread is all empty. Poor Pancake.

Just curious, what do you think is odd about worshiping a mortal man who got tortured to death?

(yes, I'm a bit of a thread-crasher, since I'm Christian, but I suppose I'm being productive compared to some. And I personally can think of lots of reasons why it's odd, but they all seem like good things to me)

I really have no problem with JEsus at all, it's just that he was simply a mortal man who had good ideas. I'd readily get mad at someone who started talkign smack but actually saying he's the son of God is a bit extreme in my opinion. He died for his opinions because the Romans felt threatened. Jesus is a hero but not necessarily the son of any god there may be, and certainly not the Abrahamic one (unless he was a mama's boy).

Poor Pancake's thread is all empty. Poor Pancake.

It's filling up... slowly :p

I never chose anything... I just decided to stop pretending.
I was raised Christian, not very orthodox, but decidedly Catholic. So, I kept being told about god, about belief, afterlife, sin, bible, the whole lot. And since everybody seemed to believe that, and clearly expected me to do the same, I did. That wasn't a conscious decision, it was more immitating my environment.

Once I left home, the whole thing simply became a non-issue. I still thought of myself as Catholic, but it was simply something I was used to, nothing else.
Endless discussions with Christians on NSG finally convinced me that I simply was no Christian, and had no desire to be one, either.

I don't judge a person by their religion, I judge them by their behaviour.

I really have no problem with JEsus at all, it's just that he was simply a mortal man who had good ideas. I'd readily get mad at someone who started talkign smack but actually saying he's the son of God is a bit extreme in my opinion. He died for his opinions because the Romans felt threatened. Jesus is a hero but not necessarily the son of any god there may be, and certainly not the Abrahamic one (unless he was a mama's boy).
So I suppose your view of Jesus is a bit like my own view of Gandhi. Okay.

On the other hand, Jesus did explicitly refer to himself as the Son of God in the fourth Gospel, and spent a lot of time in the other Gospels dropping various hints about fulfilments of prophecies and messiahs and the Son of Man.

What made you choose the path you did?
I have never believed in a God or gods. I have attended many churches, temples, and other places of worship, and at several points in my life I have tried out being religious or spiritual, but I have never made the required leap of faith.

I think this is mostly because I have never needed God/gods or superstition, and because my world and my life are full enough as is. Also, I delight in asking question and seeking answers, but there are none to be found with superstition because there's never any way to know whether your answer is correct or not.


What do you think of Christians? Jews? Muslims? Everyone else?

I think superstition is silly and dull, much like the music of Brittany Spears, but I also know that there are smart, kind, well-meaning people who happen to like silly or dull things. One of the smartest people I know is a Brittany Spears fan, and I don't hate him or wish him ill for it.

I don't want to ban Brittany Spears music, or make it a crime to listen to it. I don't want Brittany Spears fans to be harmed or discriminated against. I think they've got lame taste, but I also think that it should be completely legal to be lame. Same for superstition.


Do you think religion is falt-out wrong, or that it could be right but not for you (or everyone)?
I think religion answers a need (or several needs) that many people have. The existence of that need is the problem, not the religion itself. Sometimes it exists because of a failing of the individual, but more often it is because society/reality do not fulfill their needs sufficiently. It is perfectly reasonable for humans to seek to satisfy their needs. I simply believe that religion will no longer be necessary or desired once the individual is able to discover alternatives.

It's filling up... slowly :p
Yay!
I never chose anything... I just decided to stop pretending.
I was raised Christian, not very orthodox, but decidedly Catholic. So, I kept being told about god, about belief, afterlife, sin, bible, the whole lot. And since everybody seemed to believe that, and clearly expected me to do the same, I did. That wasn't a conscious decision, it was more immitating my environment.

Once I left home, the whole thing simply became a non-issue. I still thought of myself as Catholic, but it was simply something I was used to, nothing else.
Endless discussions with Christians on NSG finally convinced me that I simply was no Christian, and had no desire to be one, either.

I don't judge a person by their religion, I judge them by their behaviour.
iDitto.

I was an atheist for a while, I mean I thought I was I guess. I met three distinct types of atheists

1. just couldn't believe the whole God thing, couldn't wrap their mind around why anyone would think that

2. angry at the church

3. angry at God

I was the third. Most of the people I hung out with were the second, as are most of the people around here. It's very rare that I find someone like the first, but they are the type of atheist that annoys me least.

For me, it's two things, really.

Firstly, religion implies servility - it implies that we should see Good in some higher being, some entity superior to us, and we should worship and serve this being. I don't think anyone or anything deserves to be worshipped and served.

Secondly, the argument from evil really destroys the notion of a being simultaneously omnipotent and benevolent. Giving people the "freedom" to commit atrocities is not a good thing at all; nor is permitting horrific natural disasters.

I have problems with religious fundamentalists of any type, but I tend to respect most religions and religious people.

I think superstition is silly and dull, much like the music of Brittany Spears, but I also know that there are smart, kind, well-meaning people who happen to like silly or dull things. One of the smartest people I know is a Brittany Spears fan, and I don't hate him or wish him ill for it.

I don't want to ban Brittany Spears music, or make it a crime to listen to it. I don't want Brittany Spears fans to be harmed or discriminated against. I think they've got lame taste, but I also think that it should be completely legal to be lame. Same for superstition.
Heh... I think this is the closest I've ever come to wanting to start a holy war. Britney Spears indeed!

So I suppose your view of Jesus is a bit like my own view of Gandhi. Okay.

On the other hand, Jesus did explicitly refer to himself as the Son of God in the fourth Gospel, and spent a lot of time in the other Gospels dropping various hints about fulfilments of prophecies and messiahs and the Son of Man.

I think you have to keep in mind that the gospels were written by ardent, possibly even fanatic followers of his teachings, not by people who had actually known the person Jesus.
I wouldn't accuse them of lying, but they wrote down what they believed, not necessarily what actually happened.

So I suppose your view of Jesus is a bit like my own view of Gandhi. Okay.

On the other hand, Jesus did explicitly refer to himself as the Son of God in the fourth Gospel, and spent a lot of time in the other Gospels dropping various hints about fulfilments of prophecies and messiahs and the Son of Man.

Really?

Couldnt he have been reffering to himself as the son of god, in a more general way, is in...we are all the sons/daughters of God?

As for the Gospels...

Thomas makes no reference to any such divinty, or miracles, or crucifixtion

For me, it's two things, really.

Firstly, religion implies servility - it implies that we should see Good in some higher being, some entity superior to us, and we should worship and serve this being. I don't think anyone or anything deserves to be worshipped and served.

Secondly, the argument from evil really destroys the notion of a being simultaneously omnipotent and benevolent. Giving people the "freedom" to commit atrocities is not a good thing at all; nor is permitting horrific natural disasters.

I have problems with religious fundamentalists of any type, but I tend to respect most religions and religious people.
Would it be better for the human race to live without free will? (this is not a rhetorical question, I'm seriously asking your opinion)

The problem with saying that Jesus was just a mortal man is that, apparently, he didn't think he was just a mortal man. He clearly regarded himself as a person who had divine authority. So, at the very least you have to say that he was a mortal man who had this crazy idea that he was divine. But then this strikes you as a little odd because when you examine his life and his words this man with this crazy delusion seems to have been one of the most sane, humane people you have ever heard about.

Again, saying that Jesus was just a mortal man is not a real option since Jesus himself doesn't give you that option.

Would it be better for the human race to live without free will? (this is not a rhetorical question, I'm seriously asking your opinion)

How much free will do we have when we serve the God we do?

(seriously I have been battling this one lately....I don't expect anyone to have an acceptable answer for me....probably shoudln't hijack the thread with it though)

Heh... I think this is the closest I've ever come to wanting to start a holy war. Britney Spears indeed!
The analogy is really a good one in my case, because there certainly are TIMES when I have unkind feelings about Brittany Spears fans. Like if they insist on playing their music for me in an effort to convert me into a fan. ;)

The problem with saying that Jesus was just a mortal man is that, apparently, he didn't think he was just a mortal man. He clearly regarded himself as a person who had divine authority. So, at the very least you have to say that he was a mortal man who had this crazy idea that he was divine. But then this strikes you as a little odd because when you examine his life and his words this man with this crazy delusion seems to have been one of the most sane, humane people you have ever heard about.

Again, saying that Jesus was just a mortal man is not a real option since Jesus himself doesn't give you that option.

Google "The Gospel of Thomas".

then post again, after youve read it.

I think you have to keep in mind that the gospels were written by ardent, possibly even fanatic followers of his teachings, not by people who had actually known the person Jesus.
I wouldn't accuse them of lying, but they wrote down what they believed, not necessarily what actually happened.
But considering that the various Gospels contain several instances of a particular event being recounted almost identically in more than one Gospel, we must necessarily assume that they had access to something pretty close to what Jesus said. Of course, the Gospel writers were all human and as such introduced their own interpretations of events. But it wasn't just a matter of what they decided that they believed.
Really?

Couldnt he have been reffering to himself as the son of god, in a more general way, is in...we are all the sons/daughters of God?

As for the Gospels...

Thomas makes no reference to any such divinty, or miracles, or crucifixtion
I haven't read the Gospel of Thomas yet... it's one of those million things on my To Read list...
wait, was it one of the Gnostic gospels? Or were those different ones...

I'm getting very muddy-headed. It's 5:20 AM and I haven't had any sleep and I have to be sitting in my history class, at least semi-awake, in 2 hours 55 minutes. I bid you all a good night/day/morning/miscellaneous part of the diurnal cycle.

How much free will do we have when we serve the God we do?

(seriously I have been battling this one lately....I don't expect anyone to have an acceptable answer for me....probably shoudln't hijack the thread with it though)

I guess you've got the choice to either obey what you assume is god's will, or disobey. If you choose to obey, that would then mean that your decisions are pretty much predetermined, I guess... but then again, you're always free to disobey.

Would it be better for the human race to live without free will? (this is not a rhetorical question, I'm seriously asking your opinion)

Absolutely not. Keep free will in its entirety, just as now.

But if someone is about to murder someone, or rape someone, or whatever, a benevolent and omnipotent deity would restrain her. Just as we mortals ought to do, if we have the capability.

The analogy is really a good one in my case, because there certainly are TIMES when I have unkind feelings about Brittany Spears fans. Like if they insist on playing their music for me in an effort to convert me into a fan. ;)
That's IT. Jihad for you, missy!:upyours:

(Just kidding. Mostly:p )

Well, for me, it was (like just about everything) an emotional jolt that got me started.

I was raised with no religion in an apathetic agnostic family (not uncommon here) and didn't honestly give a shit about religion apart from thinking there were some entertaining stories but that believing in them as if they were true was a bit silly. Oh, and we still had scripture classes in public schools back then (we may still do, but I don't know), and I remember being bored to tears in them and getting caught while surreptitiously playing my Gameboy to escape the doldrum.

As I moved into adolescence, I started developing opinions and ethics of my own and this is where the aforementioned emotional jolt came in. As I matured, I began investigating the primary religion in our culture (Christianity) and being able to understand it beyond "boring stories about Jesus" I found myself becoming more and more disgusted by what passed as "morality" in Christianity, with the debasement of humanity and the idea of only doing good because of fear of divine punishment, not because of a developed ethical structure of one's own.

So I got started on the road to self-identifying as an "atheist" by discovering all those offensive little doctrines and rules. For a while, that was all I needed. Moving into adulthood, I developed an interest in comparative religion and looked into a slew of different religions (even having a short jaunt into one myself not so long ago) and discovered that most of the "big" religions in our world aren't much better (and some are worse) than mainstream Christianity in the realms of morality.

For me, logical arguments were secondary, though still very important. Logical and reasoned arguments against religion are what brought me back and keep me as an atheist, rather than just drifting back into apathetic non-religiousness. Simply put, it makes sense.

Being raised with a sceptical outlook on the world certainly helped make me more receptive to the arguments once I was ready to hear and understand them.

These days, I am becoming rather dissatisfied with the label "atheist." It doesn't really say anything about what I do believe and I'm sick of being defined by what I'm not. All the silly social baggage that surrounds the word doesn't help either. I've looked into the idea of "brights", but I'm not sure how I really feel about that yet.

I guess you've got the choice to either obey what you assume is god's will, or disobey. If you choose to obey, that would then mean that your decisions are pretty much predetermined, I guess... but then again, you're always free to disobey.

what if we can't disobey?

seriously Pancake, sorry about the hijack.

But considering that the various Gospels contain several instances of a particular event being recounted almost identically in more than one Gospel, we must necessarily assume that they had access to something pretty close to what Jesus said. Of course, the Gospel writers were all human and as such introduced their own interpretations of events. But it wasn't just a matter of what they decided that they believed.


Either that, or else they were each relying on different accounts for different events, but had only one account for others. *shrugs*

I don't want to dismiss the whole thing as forgery or anything, but I don't see the need to claim divine inspiration if there's a more obvious explanation. ;)

How much free will do we have when we serve the God we do?

(seriously I have been battling this one lately....I don't expect anyone to have an acceptable answer for me....probably shoudln't hijack the thread with it though)

Particularly if you believe that God has your every move planned out, as so many Christians believe.

This means everything you have done/ will do, was all laid out for you.

What choice is there?

The only choice, is to decide that you always have had free will, and that God has nothing to to with that.

For you, there is one consolation:

If God exists, he desires you to follow him, not becuase he says you must, but becuase you feel its the right thing to do.

I do not believe any loving God would send me to Hell becuase I dont believe in him, and I dont think you do either.
So then, your "Free Will" comes in by choosing to live your life in the way you see fit to, and adherance to the Golden Rule.

what if we can't disobey?

seriously Pancake, sorry about the hijack.

Would there be degrees to which you obey then? As in follow (what you believe to be) the Word of God exactly, or just go along with the general spirit of it. And possibly other stuff in between.

what if we can't disobey?

seriously Pancake, sorry about the hijack.

In that case, you don't have free will. If you don't have options, you can't choose.

Particularly if you believe that God has your every move planned out, as so many Christians believe.

This means everything you have done/ will do, was all laid out for you.

What choice is there?

The only choice, is to decide that you always have had free will, and that God has nothing to to with that.

For you, there is one consolation:

If God exists, he desires you to follow him, not becuase he says you must, but becuase you feel its the right thing to do.

I do not believe any loving God would send me to Hell becuase I dont believe in him, and I dont think you do either.
So then, your "Free Will" comes in by choosing to live your life in the way you see fit to, and adherance to the Golden Rule.

Would there be degrees to which you obey then? As in follow (what you believe to be) the Word of God exactly, or just go along with the general spirit of it. And possibly other stuff in between.

my problem comes in when I was re-studying Isaiah.

Isaiah 46:9-11
9 Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.

10 I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say: My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.

11 From the east I summon a bird of prey;
from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.
What I have said, that will I bring about;
what I have planned, that will I do.

I haven't read the Gospel of Thomas yet... it's one of those million things on my To Read list...
wait, was it one of the Gnostic gospels? Or were those different ones..

Gnostic text, yes.

Its basically 114 sayings attributed to Jesus.

Its my personal fave, because it focuses on his message, not on his death, and supposed ressurection.

Its much like a book of Confucius' saying.

He is not reffered to as Christ, or Messiah, or "Lord".

He is reffered to as "Rabbi".

Teacher.

Its not a long read either.

Interestingly, enough, its thought to be the first of the biblical texts.
Approximately 40. AD.
It seems likely that most folks of the day didnt consider him to be divine, and merely a mortal with a good message, that was executed for speaking against Ceasar, and the Jewish leaders of the day.

Weird huh? :)

-snip-
I have a very fulfilled and very happy life and feel immensely lucky and privileged to have been born in this time and place. As such, I don't find the arrogant assertion that I believe in God because of some 'void' in my life I'm 'trying to fill' at all offensive or preposterous. :rolleyes:

My faith is a personal and very real thing. Belittleing it because you don't understand it is something that demeans you more than you realise.

I was an atheist for a while, I mean I thought I was I guess. I met three distinct types of atheists

1. just couldn't believe the whole God thing, couldn't wrap their mind around why anyone would think that

2. angry at the church

3. angry at God

I was the third. Most of the people I hung out with were the second, as are most of the people around here. It's very rare that I find someone like the first, but they are the type of atheist that annoys me least.

I guess I fall into the first category. I'd like to believe in God but I just don't seem to be able. I don't actually think if I believed that I could be a christian, jewish or muslim.

I'll sometimes quote Discodian scripture and I am actually a =POPE= of the church of Discordia and I have the =POPE= card to prove it but I don't really believe in or worship Eris.

Faith is not something I understand.

Trilby63;11834503']I guess I fall into the first category. I'd like to believe in God but I just don't seem to be able. I don't actually think if I believed that I could be a christian, jewish or muslim.

I'll sometimes quote Discodian scripture and I am actually a =POPE= of the church of Discordia and I have the =POPE= card to prove it but I don't really believe in or worship Eris.

Faith is not something I understand.

I demand to see your =POPE= card.

I have a very fulfilled and very happy life and feel immensely lucky and privileged to have been born in this time and place. As such, I don't find the arrogant assertion that I believe in God because of some 'void' in my life I'm 'trying to fill' at all offensive or preposterous. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you misunderstand what I was saying. Clearly, you have some reason to believe in God. It serves some purpose in your life, a purpose which is not served by anything else. If you had no reason to believe in God, you probably wouldn't do it, right?


My faith is a personal and very real thing. Belittleing it because you don't understand it is something that demeans you more than you realise.
I don't believe I ever said that your faith was impersonal or unreal. I also didn't think I belittled it. I gave my personal opinion, which is that superstition is silly and dull, but the fact that I have this opinion doesn't belittle anything. It's my opinion. I also am of the opinion that broccoli tastes like ass, but my feelings on the subject do not constitute a "belittling" of broccoli or broccoli aficionados. My opinions simply aren't that powerful.

Your opinions or beliefs are not "belittled" by the existence of opposing views.

I don't believe in Santa Claus, God, or the Tooth Fairy. See no reason why anyone would.

my problem comes in when I was re-studying Isaiah.

Isaiah 46:9-11
9 Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.

10 I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say: My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.

11 From the east I summon a bird of prey;
from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.
What I have said, that will I bring about;
what I have planned, that will I do.

Smunk, my dear, ya really gotta be careful with the OT texts.
I find they are all to easily open to varying interperetation.

This could be a warning of armegeddon, as easily as a foretelling of the coming Messiah.

"Im telling you how its gonna be, so get ready".

Is that the jist of what you were reading into it?

I was an atheist for a while, I mean I thought I was I guess. I met three distinct types of atheists

1. just couldn't believe the whole God thing, couldn't wrap their mind around why anyone would think that

2. angry at the church

3. angry at God

I was the third. Most of the people I hung out with were the second, as are most of the people around here. It's very rare that I find someone like the first, but they are the type of atheist that annoys me least.


Hi.

Im a #1.

For the record....you cant be an atheist and a #3.
If your angry at God...that means you believe there is a target for that anger.

I demand to see your =POPE= card.

As the =POPE= I am infallible and hence don't have to prove anything! Now run along before I marry you to a shrew!

For the record....you cant be an atheist and a #3.
If your angry at God...that means you believe there is a target for that anger.
Bingo. Most of the religious people I meet who claim to have been atheists in the past were actually #3's.

Can you feel angry at the Tooth Fairy? Do you feel anger at invisible magic gnomes who live under over-turned tea cups? Can you blame the Easter Bunny for the pain you've endured in your life?

Only if you believe in them. You cannot direct feelings of anger at thing which you do not believe exist.

I wasn't brought up in any religion, but I was taught to believe in God. Until I started giving it serious thought, and decided believing in God was illogical.

First, there's the issue of the soul. How and when did the soul appear? If we assume that only human beings have souls (and that horses, spiders, dogs, lobsters and so forth haven't), at what point during evolution did the soul appear? As I see it, there are two hypotheses:

1) The soul evolved. This seems self-contradictory. You've either got a soul or you haven't; you can't have a partially developed, partially-evolved soul, surely. Which brings us to the second hypothesis.

2) The soul appeared, full and complete, all of a sudden. Presumably, in one particular generation. This is asking us to believe that parents without souls somehow gave birth to children with souls. Which strikes me as somewhat difficult to accept.

Then there's the whole issue of religion. Why would God demand my worship? Is he lacking something? Many Christians (and, I assume, members of other religions) seem to assume that those of us who don't believe in God were given the option of believing, and rejected it. That's incorrect. You cannot force yourself to believe when your reason tells you it would be irrational. I am not capable of sincerely believing in any deity. And I am to be punished for this?

As I've said elsewhere, if God wants to send me to hell for all eternity for daring not to worship him, I will spend eternity basking in the triumphant knowledge that I am a better person than God.

Anyway... Obviously I have no objection to people believing whatever they want. As long as the strict seperation between Church and State here in France is maintained. We're one of the most secular countries in the world (religion has no place in politics here), and I'm very thankful for it.

Trilby63;11834538']As the =POPE= I am infallible and hence don't have to prove anything! Now run along before I marry you to a shrew!

Sorry your holyness. I wasn't claiming you weren't a =POPE=, I just wanna see it. I needs to get Principia Discordia.

Perhaps you misunderstand what I was saying. Clearly, you have some reason to believe in God. It serves some purpose in your life, a purpose which is not served by anything else. If you had no reason to believe in God, you probably wouldn't do it, right?
What is my 'reason' for believing in God beyond His mere existence? This is like saying that if I had no reason for believing in tables I wouldn't; that the table must serve a purpose before I recognise it. Not believing in them wouldn't stop them from existing, however; all it would do is make me, to use your own words, 'silly and dull' for ignoring their presence.

It's kind of funny. Most political aware people I talk to aren't Christians but man when the polls open they're coming out of the woodwork voting for Republicans. Don't get me wrong, I'm centerist. I just hate the reason why a lot of people vote Republican. You see, I live in Alabama. 'Nuff said.

Anyway, I'm agnostic. I was raised to be Christian but questioned the religion from a very early age. I remember around 8 years old I was discussing with my grandparents how life was just a test to see if you were worthy of Heaven and that we are clearly created by some higher power because of how amazingly complex our minds and bodies are, including the ability to think, understand and be self-aware unlike any other creature. Which is actually a pretty good arguement.

By the time I was 15, though, I was digging deeper. I started getting interested in things like philosophy and politics. I started asking myself what was the meaning behind it all, what purpose does Hell serve and so forth and so on. These are a few of the arguements against Christianity I can think of off the bat:

- Hell is sort've sadistic. What purpose does eternal damnation serve? It's not a punishment, it's simply a consequence. You aren't sent to Hell with the intention of learning a lesson, because even if you do it's too late to be forgiven. And forgiven for what? Not believing in God? This is not an idea I support.

- Evil/Hell is part of God's divine plan, so is it 'really' bad?
Without the ability to choose evil there would be no freewill, and without freewill Christianity just doesn't work at all.

- Judgement. How is an immortal being supposed to judge mortal creatures? Can he even truly understand what it is to be mortal? Could even Jesus? Does God have the wide spectrum of emotions like we do? It's said our God is a jealous God, how absurd is that? How can God be jealous of something, shouldn't he be above such a petty emotion? It's laughable.

I don't know if there is an afterlife. I don't know if there is a God, but I don't believe the teachings of the Bible. If anything God is, literally, the divine plan itself and is immortal in the same sense that gravity is immortal. It's just there, without emotion.

I've even gone as far to call into a local radiostation in Birmingham to put some of these arguements on the air. I don't like the fear-driven religion and I want people to question their religion.

Overall though, I don't think religion is a bad thing.

What is my 'reason' for believing in God beyond His mere existence? This is like saying that if I had no reason for believing in tables I wouldn't; that the table must serve a purpose before I recognise it.

Please share your empirical evidence for the existence of God as you happen to envision him/her/it. Seeing as how no human has ever been able to provide such (including the greatest religious leaders in the history of the world), I'm sure we're all eager to hear how the existence of God is as empirically verifiable as the existence of tables.


Not believing in them wouldn't stop them from existing, however; all it would do is make me, to use your own words, 'silly and dull' for ignoring their presence.
Again, if you can provide an empirically verifiable means of establishing the existence of the particular God you believe in, then please do share! I, for one, will be delighted to give it a try.

Sorry your holyness. I wasn't claiming you weren't a =POPE=, I just wanna see it. I needs to get Principia Discordia.

Was you not? My apologies.

You know I bought my copy on ebay for a tenner!

What is my 'reason' for believing in God beyond His mere existence? This is like saying that if I had no reason for believing in tables I wouldn't; that the table must serve a purpose before I recognise it. Not believing in them wouldn't stop them from existing, however; all it would do is make me, to use your own words, 'silly and dull' for ignoring their presence.

I prefer the Britney Spears example, it fits much better. Believing in god is very much like believing that Britney Spears makes good music. (Exchange her for any other singer if you're offended that I chose her here)
There's no way of telling what exactly good music is, people have very different ideas of it and very different tastes. Those who think Britney is the best artist ever can't understand those who don't think so, and the other way around.
It's simply a matter of personal preference.

Trilby63;11834558']Was you not? My apologies.

You know I bought my copy on ebay for a tenner!

Cusre my lack of a credit card. Well I'll have a looky in the library, and keep an eye out for it.

I prefer the Britney Spears example, it fits much better. Believing in god is very much like believing that Britney Spears makes good music. (Exchange her for any other singer if you're offended that I chose her here)
There's no way of telling what exactly good music is, people have very different ideas of it and very different tastes. Those who think Britney is the best artist ever can't understand those who don't think so, and the other way around.
It's simply a matter of personal preference.
To further belabor the analogy, we cannot test opinion, but we can test factual claims.

For instance, we can't test whether or not Brittany Spears makes "good" music, because "good" is a subjective matter. However, if somebody claims that Brittany Spears has the greatest vocal range of any singer in the history of humanity, we can certainly test (and refute) that claim.

Similarly, we cannot test whether or not there is a God, but we can test some of the specific claims made by God-believers or religious individuals. For example, if a religious person claims that they can turn a piece of bread into a fish by praying to God, we can test this claim empirically.

Cusre my lack of a credit card. Well I'll have a looky in the library, and keep an eye out for it.

What about paypal? You don't need a credit card for that.

Please share your empirical evidence for the existence of God as you happen to envision him/her/it. Seeing as how no human has ever been able to provide such (including the greatest religious leaders in the history of the world), I'm sure we're all eager to hear how the existence of God is as empirically verifiable as the existence of tables.
There is much evidence of God, ranging from the obvious (the resurrection), to the less obvious; personal faith experiences, and looking out the window at the amazing world around you.

I prefer the Britney Spears example, it fits much better. Believing in god is very much like believing that Britney Spears makes good music. (Exchange her for any other singer if you're offended that I chose her here)
There's no way of telling what exactly good music is, people have very different ideas of it and very different tastes. Those who think Britney is the best artist ever can't understand those who don't think so, and the other way around.
It's simply a matter of personal preference.
It is a nonsense example that only works if you choose to deny the existence of God in the first place. The idea that the existence of something is a 'personal preference' is absurd. It either exists or it doesn't.

Your faith may be a personal preference, but the existence of God is an absolute. There is no either/or about it.

Trilby63;11834571']What about paypal? You don't need a credit card for that.

I have no idea what that is. But in any case, wewt Discordianism I say.

What is my 'reason' for believing in God beyond His mere existence? This is like saying that if I had no reason for believing in tables I wouldn't; that the table must serve a purpose before I recognise it. Not believing in them wouldn't stop them from existing, however; all it would do is make me, to use your own words, 'silly and dull' for ignoring their presence.

There's a difference. You can't question the existence of a table unless you're going to start questioning your sense of sight, touch, smell and taste. (What, you've never tasted a table?) Whereas you have no sensual indication of the existence of a divinity. Making that "leap of faith" therefore implies that something within you feels the need to make it. For those of us who don't believe in God, that suggests some psychological impulse, a need of some sort, etc...

I attended a Catholic school, and my family on my mother's side is Catholic. My father's side is protestant, but both my parents are now atheists (though I believe my mum sways more to agnosticism). In either case, I've rejected all religion since a very young age, because I see them as logically impossible.

There is much evidence of God, ranging from the obvious (the resurrection), to the less obvious; personal faith experiences, and looking out the window at the amazing world around you.


It is a nonsense example that only works if you choose to deny the existence of God in the first place. The idea that the existence of something is a 'personal preference' is absurd. It either exists or it doesn't.

Your faith may be a personal preference, but the existence of God is an absolute. There is no either/or about it.

Then PROVE God exists.

Prove Jesus was ressurected.

Heck, prove to us he even existed.

You cant.

Its impossible.

Thats what Bottle is trying to tell you.

You are basing your arguement as if there is solid evidence to support his existance.
As if his existance is a proven fact.

It is not...and there is none.

You are placing a value of 1, from 0+0.

There is much evidence of God, ranging from the obvious (the resurrection), to the less obvious; personal faith experiences, and looking out the window at the amazing world around you.


It is a nonsense example that only works if you choose to deny the existence of God in the first place. The idea that the existence of something is a 'personal preference' is absurd. It either exists or it doesn't.

Your faith may be a personal preference, but the existence of God is an absolute. There is no either/or about it.

Ok, then. I hereby declare everyone a fool who does not believe in the obvious existence of unicorns. To deny their existence is nonsense, there are plenty of reports and eyewitnesses from all over the world. Unicorns are fact.


See where that goes? Don't mix faith with facts.... if you claim god is fact, you had better be able to empirically prove his existence.

Actually, I should've been more conscise: I believe all current religion is bunk, but I don't dismiss the possibility of some kind of higher being. I do, however, think that all current religions have it wrong about it.

I was an atheist for a while, I mean I thought I was I guess. I met three distinct types of atheists

1. just couldn't believe the whole God thing, couldn't wrap their mind around why anyone would think that

2. angry at the church

3. angry at God
How can someone who is angry at god be an atheist, when being angry at god means that you believe in god, meaning that you're a theist!

Do theists ever think about the logical consequences of their statements regarding atheists? Or are they content to slander atheists for the sake of it?

-snip-

-snip-

And you are both missing my point. Regardless of whether or not God does exist, it is impossible to argue that His existence is a personal preference. He either exists, or he doesn't. There is no middle ground.

Or are you both relativists, who do believe that tables stop existing if you don't believe in them?

There is much evidence of God, ranging from the obvious (the resurrection), to the less obvious; personal faith experiences, and looking out the window at the amazing world around you.

Well, Horus was resurrected a bit earlier than Jesus and when I look outside of my window, I see Ra, not Jehova.

And you are both missing my point. Regardless of whether or not God does exist, it is impossible to argue that his existence is a personal preference. He either exists, or he doesn't. There is no middle ground.

Or are you both relativists, who do believe that tables stop existing if you don't believe in them?

In that case, you've misunderstood the point. We weren't arguing god's existence as such, we were arguing people's motivations to accept that existence as fact without proof.

There is much evidence of God, ranging from the obvious (the resurrection), to the less obvious; personal faith experiences, and looking out the window at the amazing world around you.

Again, please explain how this evidence can be examined and tested, and how it leads incontrovertably to the conclusion that God exists in the form that you assume.

To put it another way:

If I sat here and argued to you that there is no such thing as tables, you'd probably think I was mentally ill in some way, right? I mean, my computer is resting on a table right now, so I'd have to be a bit off to deny that the table exists, right?

So do you believe that all non-God-believers are as crazy as non-table-believers? Are people who believe in a different God also crazy? If the existence of your God is as verifiable and obvious as the existence of tables, then doesn't that mean that you think people are nuts if they see all the same evidence as you but still refuse to believe the same things as you?

Or is it, perhaps, different from tables after all?


It is a nonsense example that only works if you choose to deny the existence of God in the first place.

I don't "deny" the existence of God, any more than I "deny" the existence of magical 2000-ton fluorescent orange centaurs who live on the Planet Bibblesnork. I simply have no reason to believe in either one. God-belief is not a default position.


The idea that the existence of something is a 'personal preference' is absurd. It either exists or it doesn't.

Ok. But we have no way of knowing whether or not God exists, so your decision about God-belief really has nothing to do with the actual existence of God.


Your faith may be a personal preference, but the existence of God is an absolute. There is no either/or about it.
Exactly. Your faith is a personal preference, which exists apart from any actual God or gods that may exist.

So what are you arguing with me about?

Hi.

Im a #1.

For the record....you cant be an atheist and a #3.
If your angry at God...that means you believe there is a target for that anger.

ah, but see....I ask "why are you an atheist?" I get three main answers

1. I can't force myself to believe in God, I can't fathom that there would be one.

2. Christians make me realize that there is no God, they are all assholes and they are mean and stuff and all the church cares about is money and didn't you read about the crusades in school? all the evil in the world comes from Christians and every thing that is ever bad happens because the church exists.

3. God is a jerk, He made that tree just to screw with us, and my grandma died of cancer and she was really nice and God let the hurricane happen and that was not nice and once I got beat up and God was watching and he laughed at me because he is a jerk.

see?

In that case, you've misunderstood the point. We weren't arguing god's existence as such, we were arguing people's motivations to accept that existence as fact without proof.
Precisely.

Whether or not God actually exists is pretty irrelevant to me. I cannot test the existence of God, and I (as a human) will never be able to know whether or not there is a God, so God's actual existence or form is essentially beside the point.

That's agnosticism, baby!

In that case, you've misunderstood the point. We weren't arguing god's existence as such, we were arguing people's motivations to accept that existence as fact without proof.
What, people talking about different things? On NSG? I refuse to believe it. ;)

I can only refer you back to my original comments about the insulting nature of you deciding what my motivations are. My 'motivation' is that God exists, pure and simple. You are trying to imply, deliberately or not, that it is because my life is lacking in someway. You don't expect me to find that slightly grating?

ah, but see....I ask "why are you an atheist?" I get three main answers

1. I can't force myself to believe in God, I can't fathom that there would be one.

2. Christians make me realize that there is no God, they are all assholes and they are mean and stuff and all the church cares about is money and didn't you read about the crusades in school? all the evil in the world comes from Christians and every thing that is ever bad happens because the church exists.

3. God is a jerk, He made that tree just to screw with us, and my grandma died of cancer and she was really nice and God let the hurricane happen and that was not nice and once I got beat up and God was watching and he laughed at me because he is a jerk.

see?

#2 and 3 aren't atheists, they're antitheists. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism)

Atheist: without theism.
Antitheist: against theism, or a specific type of theism.

So, I'm agnostic. Most here are agnostic or atheist. So, I have some questions. What made you choose the path you did? What do you think of Christians? Jews? Muslims? Everyone else? Do you think religion is falt-out wrong, or that it could be right but not for you (or everyone)?
I realized that god merely was an ancient attempt to explain that which we didn't know. As I learned more, I further came to the realization that no theist knows what their god/s/ess/esses is/are. They can't explain it properly. It's just a mish-mash of self-contradictory concepts and natural existents. Thus, the entire idea of god is much the same as a square circle.

If other people want to believe in god, they are welcome to. But they'd best not believe they have the right/duty/obligation to force their belief/s onto others. They are also rather childish for having the security-blanket belief known as god.

Meh.

Smunk, my dear, ya really gotta be careful with the OT texts.
I find they are all to easily open to varying interperetation.

This could be a warning of armegeddon, as easily as a foretelling of the coming Messiah.

"Im telling you how its gonna be, so get ready".

Is that the jist of what you were reading into it?
I don't know, I continue my study.

How can someone who is angry at god be an atheist, when being angry at god means that you believe in god, meaning that you're a theist!

Do theists ever think about the logical consequences of their statements regarding atheists? Or are they content to slander atheists for the sake of it?
I seek to slander nobody, I only offer my own experience with the matter.

I was an atheist for a while, I mean I thought I was I guess. I met three distinct types of atheists

1. just couldn't believe the whole God thing, couldn't wrap their mind around why anyone would think that

2. angry at the church

3. angry at God

I was the third. Most of the people I hung out with were the second, as are most of the people around here. It's very rare that I find someone like the first, but they are the type of atheist that annoys me least.

Don't worry. You weren't an atheist. It's not possible to be angry at something you don't believe exists. #3 sounds more like a teenage rebellion phase. I for one am an atheist more in the #1 category, but I wouldn't describe myself in those words. I grew up going to a fairly liberal Episcopal church, drifted to a sort of agnostic/deistic thing by high school, and my lack of belief gradually grew firmer. It wasn't until recent years when I started actually doing research and participating in online atheist forums that I came to realize why I always doubted and why the notion of supernatural deities and different god claims are so contradictory and absurd. All the research I've done has only confirmed that there is absolutely no evidence for any supernatural entity, never has been and probably never will be, scant evidence that Jesus ever really existed much less actually being the son of God miracle worker the Gospels describe, religion tends to be inherently dangerous when people take thousands of years old tribal mythology and superstitions as fact (ask yourself why you don't believe in Zeus, Vishnu, Thor, Loki, Mithras, Hercules, etc, and then you'll understand why I can say Jesus probably didn't exist), and as such has been used to justify centuries of bigotry, cruelty, attacks on science and rational thought, greed, intolerence, wars, suicide bombings, genocide, etc.

I picked the wrong time to write that long post, lol. Now it's been knocked back a page thanks to Philosophy. =P

And you are both missing my point. Regardless of whether or not God does exist, it is impossible to argue that His existence is a personal preference. He either exists, or he doesn't. There is no middle ground.


You seem to have missed my post. Fortunately, you've addressed the point anyway:

I can only refer you back to my original comments about the insulting nature of you deciding what my motivations are. My 'motivation' is that God exists, pure and simple. You are trying to imply, deliberately or not, that it is because my life is lacking in someway. You don't expect me to find that slightly grating?

If you want to put it that way, I'm compelled to point out that just because you feel something is "grating" or "insulting" doesn't mean it's not true.

#2 and 3 aren't atheists, they're antitheists. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism)

well, they call themselves atheists, and mostly the first group leaves me alone, they say "well, if you wanna beleive it, I guess you are going to anyway" but the other two, the antitheists...they try to convert.

;)

ah, but see....I ask "why are you an atheist?" I get three main answers

*snipped for length*

see?
It's true, a lot of people identify themselves as atheists even though they don't actually believe in atheism. Some people don't really know what the word means, so it's not like they're intentionally deceiving you.

It's kind of like how you can get some interesting answers if you ask people why they are Christian. Some people have very theologically-unsound reasons behind their beliefs. Some people claim to be Christian even though they believe things that directly contradict Christian doctrine. Some people identify as Christian for reasons that really have nothing to do with religious belief at all.

For instance, I hear reasons like:

1) If I didn't believe in God, I'd have no reason to not go out and kill people or steal things!

2) I don't want to go to Hell, so I'll do whatever it takes to avoid it!

3) Everybody's Christian where I live, so what else could I be?
3b) My parents were Christian, and theirs before them. So I'm Christian.

4) I'm not a sinner like all those non-Christians. I'm better than that.

That doesn't mean that these beliefs are necessarily consistant with the actual teachings of Christianity (though some are, depending on what sect you're talking about).

I realized that god merely was an ancient attempt to explain that which we didn't know. As I learned more, I further came to the realization that no theist knows what their god/s/ess/esses is/are. They can't explain it properly. It's just a mish-mash of self-contradictory concepts and natural existents. Thus, the entire idea of god is much the same as a square circle.

If other people want to believe in god, they are welcome to. But they'd best not believe they have the right/duty/obligation to force their belief/s onto others. They are also rather childish for having the security-blanket belief known as god.


You know, I was once like you before I accepted Eris into my life as my personal er.... thing.

I was an atheist for a while, I mean I thought I was I guess. I met three distinct types of atheists

1. just couldn't believe the whole God thing, couldn't wrap their mind around why anyone would think that

2. angry at the church

3. angry at God

I was the third. Most of the people I hung out with were the second, as are most of the people around here. It's very rare that I find someone like the first, but they are the type of atheist that annoys me least.

Don't worry. You weren't an atheist. It's not possible to be angry at something you don't believe exists. #3 sounds more like a teenage rebellion phase.

I for one am an atheist more in the #1 category, but I wouldn't describe myself in those words. I grew up going to a fairly liberal Episcopal church, drifted to a sort of agnostic/deistic thing by high school, and my lack of belief gradually grew firmer. It wasn't until recent years when I started actually doing research and participating in online atheist forums that I came to realize why I always doubted and why the notion of supernatural deities and different god claims are so contradictory and absurd. All the research I've done has only confirmed that there is absolutely no evidence for any supernatural entity, never has been and probably never will be, scant evidence that Jesus ever really existed much less actually being the son of God miracle worker the Gospels describe, religion tends to be inherently dangerous when people take thousands of years old tribal mythology and superstitions as fact (ask yourself why you don't believe in Zeus, Vishnu, Thor, Loki, Mithras, Hercules, etc, and then you'll understand why I can say Jesus probably didn't exist), and as such has been used to justify centuries of bigotry, cruelty, attacks on science and rational thought, greed, intolerence, wars, suicide bombings, genocide, etc.

It's true, a lot of people identify themselves as atheists even though they don't actually believe in atheism. Some people don't really know what the word means, so it's not like they're intentionally deceiving you.

It's kind of like how you can get some interesting answers if you ask people why they are Christian. Some people have very theologically-unsound reasons behind their beliefs. Some people claim to be Christian even though they believe things that directly contradict Christian doctrine. Some people identify as Christian for reasons that really have nothing to do with religious belief at all.

For instance, I hear reasons like:

1) If I didn't believe in God, I'd have no reason to not go out and kill people or steal things!

2) I don't want to go to Hell, so I'll do whatever it takes to avoid it!

3) Everybody's Christian where I live, so what else could I be?
3b) My parents were Christian, and theirs before them. So I'm Christian.

4) I'm not a sinner like all those non-Christians. I'm better than that.

That doesn't mean that these beliefs are necessarily consistant with the actual teachings of Christianity (though some are, depending on what sect you're talking about).

touche

(no accent...sorry)

If you want to put it that way, I'm compelled to point out that just because you feel something is "grating" or "insulting" doesn't mean it's not true.
This gift of yours, to be able to tell what people you've never met think and feel, is really quite remarkable. Perhaps you should put it to better use. :rolleyes:

What is my 'reason' for believing in God beyond His mere existence?
That's just presuming your conclusion. Badbadbad.

Don't worry. You weren't an atheist. It's not possible to be angry at something you don't believe exists. #3 sounds more like a teenage rebellion phase. I for one am an atheist more in the #1 category, but I wouldn't describe myself in those words. I grew up going to a fairly liberal Episcopal church, drifted to a sort of agnostic/deistic thing by high school, and my lack of belief gradually grew firmer. It wasn't until recent years when I started actually doing research and participating in online atheist forums that I came to realize why I always doubted and why the notion of supernatural deities and different god claims are so contradictory and absurd. All the research I've done has only confirmed that there is absolutely no evidence for any supernatural entity, never has been and probably never will be, scant evidence that Jesus ever really existed much less actually being the son of God miracle worker the Gospels describe, religion tends to be inherently dangerous when people take thousands of years old tribal mythology and superstitions as fact (ask yourself why you don't believe in Zeus, Vishnu, Thor, Loki, Mithras, Hercules, etc, and then you'll understand why I can say Jesus probably didn't exist), and as such has been used to justify centuries of bigotry, cruelty, attacks on science and rational thought, greed, intolerence, wars, suicide bombings, genocide, etc.
ah, but I was part of the "there isn't a God because if there were he would be a jerk and if he is a jerk he doesn't deserve my worship anyway by virtue of him being a jerk" camp, for quite a few years.

Trilby63;11834634']You know, I was once like you before I accepted Eris into my life as my personal er.... thing.

iDitto.

well, they call themselves atheists, and mostly the first group leaves me alone, they say "well, if you wanna beleive it, I guess you are going to anyway" but the other two, the antitheists...they try to convert.

;)

The true atheist is content in their belief that there is no divine, and see no reason to take comfort away from others. They're also usually comfortable enough in their own beliefs to be unconvertable to religion. An antitheist, on the other hand, has a personal grudge against religion and so feels the need to destroy it; they may also harbour some slight inclination to religion but feel disillusioned by it. While an antitheist may sometimes be atheist by definition, an atheist is not antitheist by default.

Though, I'm curious: you've expressed your support for religious conversion and evangelism (if I'm mistaken, I apologise) in the past, but speak here as if converting from religion is somehow morally rehensible. What's the difference?

I can only refer you back to my original comments about the insulting nature of you deciding what my motivations are. My 'motivation' is that God exists, pure and simple.

And I am pointing out that it cannot be that "pure and simple," because you have no way of knowing whether or not God exists. You, like all humans, are unable to objectively determine whether or not God exists, or what its features may be. This is not an insult; it is the same as me pointing out that you, like all humans, are unable to survive unassisted at the bottom of the ocean.


You are trying to imply, deliberately or not, that it is because my life is lacking in someway. You don't expect me to find that slightly grating?
Why should it be? Does it grate on you if somebody points out that you require food and water? Does it grate on you if somebody suggests that you require shelter from the elements? The fact that you have needs is not an insult, nor is it insulting to suggest that you seek to answer those needs.

Indeed, I think my perspective is a good deal less insulting than many non-theists I've encountered. I don't see superstition as just crazy for the sake of crazy, nor do I assume that religious people are stupid or wicked or insane. I assume that they are attempting to do what everybody else is trying to do: satisfy their needs and wants as best they can, within the complex structure of our world and our social systems.

I think superstition is a way to satisfy some of the needs that humans experience, and thus it is perfectly reasonable for some people to pursue that avenue. I happen to think it's not a very good choice in the end, but that's my personal opinion on the subject and is based on my values and my beliefs about what "good" really is.

I was raised as a Christian but when I began to truly consider it, at the age of 14, I found it didn't make sense to me. I couldn't reconcil myself to the idea of a God. I'm an atheist now. :)

This gift of yours, to be able to tell what people you've never met think and feel, is really quite remarkable. Perhaps you should put it to better use. :rolleyes:

I would suggest you learn to understand the meaning of the words you read. I never said any such thing.

Go back and try again.

There is much evidence of God, ranging from the obvious (the resurrection),
That presumes that resurrection is possible. Please provide the medical journal article whereby resurrection was demonstrated as possible.


to the less obvious; personal faith experiences,
Those contradict each others.


and looking out the window at the amazing world around you.
1. Stuff exists.
2. Ain't it cool?
3. Therefore, god exists.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Not valid.

And yes, that IS PRECISELY the argument you put forth.

Though, I'm curious: you've expressed your support for religious conversion in the past, but speak here as if converting from religion is somehow morally rehensible. What's the difference?

I find that most anti-theists try to convert using abusive tactics. I don't condone that.

*although for the sake of the arguement and to appease Bottle I have seen a ton of Christians that do the same.

The true atheist is content in their belief that there is no divine, and see no reason to take comfort away from others.

I don't think you can honestly make that statement. It smacks of the "No True Scotsman" problem.

It is perfectly possible to be an "evangelical" atheist. There is nothing in the definition of atheism that precludes this.


They're also usually comfortable enough in their own beliefs to be unconvertable to religion. An antitheist, on the other hand, has a personal grudge against religion and so feels the need to destroy it; they may also harbour some slight inclination to religion but feel disillusioned by it.

Be very careful here: feeling angry at GOD is very different from feeling angry at RELIGION.

Religion is human. Religion is a system made by humans, practiced by humans, and experienced by humans. It is perfectly possible for somebody to hate RELIGION even if they love God!

I seek to slander nobody, I only offer my own experience with the matter.
Yet you clearly didn't think through the fact that if one is angry at god, one believes in god, and thus is not an atheist.

Please, in the future, consider the logical consequences of your statements.

Yet you clearly didn't think through the fact that if one is angry at god, one believes in god, and thus is not an atheist.

Please, in the future, consider the logical consequences of your statements.

If people self identify as atheists who am I to say they are not?

Trilby63;11834634']You know, I was once like you before I accepted Eris into my life as my personal er.... thing.
Blasphemy! You shall praise "BOB" or burn in SLACKLESSNESS trying not to!

I find that most anti-theists try to convert using abusive tactics. I don't condone that.

I don't know if I'd say they're trying to convert people, necessarily. A lot of anti-theists don't seem to give a fig about getting religious people to stop being religious, they just feel like insulting religious people for a variety of reasons. Many of them are well aware that they're unlikely to win "converts" by calling religious people names.


*although for the sake of the arguement and to appease Bottle I have seen a ton of Christians that do the same.
People who feel very angry at religion or at non-religion tend to behave angrily. I don't think religiosity causes or solves this problem. I don't blame religion for making evangelicals, since I've encountered evangelical gun owners, vegans, liberals, conservatives, atheists, Christians, and just about anything else you can think of. My most recent headache has been with a friend who recently became "health-conscious," and now has to go off on tirades about processed sugars and fats. Believe me, the tone of voice is exactly the same as rabid atheists or Christians who are yelling at each other about God. :D

I myself am a dystheist, which I'm pretty sure is a branch of agnosticism. Dystheists believe that there is a higher power out there, but it's out there to get us. It essentially made this universe to be his personal experiment, a place where it can screw around with things all it wants, no matter how much it hurts the real beings it created in the universe. But that's all that we care to say about it. Besides that we're just agnostic when concerning everything else. The higher power is an asshole is all we know about it. We don't claim to know anything else about it. So meh.

This gift of yours, to be able to tell what people you've never met think and feel, is really quite remarkable. Perhaps you should put it to better use. :rolleyes:
You SAID that you felt it was insulting and grating! Should he have assumed you were lying?

I don't know if I'd say they're trying to convert people, necessarily. A lot of anti-theists don't seem to give a fig about getting religious people to stop being religious, they just feel like insulting religious people for a variety of reasons. Many of them are well aware that they're unlikely to win "converts" by calling religious people names.
they seem to think so, I mean after they go into the rant of how all Christians are stupid and weak and delusional they seem almost surprised that we don't roll over and agree with them.


People who feel very angry at religion or at non-religion tend to behave angrily. I don't think religiosity causes or solves this problem. I don't blame religion for making evangelicals, since I've encountered evangelical gun owners, vegans, liberals, conservatives, atheists, Christians, and just about anything else you can think of. My most recent headache has been with a friend who recently became "health-conscious," and now has to go off on tirades about processed sugars and fats. Believe me, the tone of voice is exactly the same as rabid atheists or Christians who are yelling at each other about God. :D

I agree there.

If people self identify as atheists who am I to say they are not?
If they are angry at god, clearly they believe that there is one. That's just a logical consequence.

Notice how your attempt to shift the context was rebuffed.

I find that most anti-theists try to convert using abusive tactics. I don't condone that.

*although for the sake of the arguement and to appease Bottle I have seen a ton of Christians that do the same.

Sadly, too true. The whole "grudge against religion" thing tends to evoke bitterness and spite. I concede the point.

Yet you clearly didn't think through the fact that if one is angry at god, one believes in god, and thus is not an atheist.

Please, in the future, consider the logical consequences of your statements.

Don't be silly, Smunkee quite obviously meant nothing slanderous by saying that - she'd been unaware of the proper term (as had the people professing to be atheist) and used the nearest one she knew. You're assuming hostility and I feel it's projected from your own emotions.

I myself am a dystheist, which I'm pretty sure is a branch of agnosticism. Dystheists believe that there is a higher power out there, but it's out there to get us. It essentially made this universe to be his personal experiment, a place where it can screw around with things all it wants, no matter how much it hurts the real beings it created in the universe. But that's all that we care to say about it. Besides that we're just agnostic when concerning everything else. The higher power is an asshole is all we know about it. We don't claim to know anything else about it. So meh.
Just so you know, if dystheists believe that 1) it is possible to know if there is a God and 2) it is possible to know things about the God that is known to exist, then dystheism is not a form of agnosticism. It's a form of theism.

If they are angry at god, clearly they believe that there is one. That's just a logical consequence.

Notice how your attempt to shift the context was rebuffed.

I don't believe they realize they are angry at God, I think they think that they don't believe but actually they are just angry.

they seem to think so, I mean after they go into the rant of how all Christians are stupid and weak and delusional they seem almost surprised that we don't roll over and agree with them.

Well yeah, some do this, just like some Christians seem to think that telling atheists that God will burn them in Hell is going to make the atheists want to love Jeebus. But most aren't quite that bonkers, I think. :P

Blasphemy! You shall praise "BOB" or burn in SLACKLESSNESS trying not to!

I don't know what BOB smokes in that pipe of his but he is nothing compared to Eris, Goddess of Chaos.

And I am pointing out that it cannot be that "pure and simple," because you have no way of knowing whether or not God exists. You, like all humans, are unable to objectively determine whether or not God exists, or what its features may be. This is not an insult; it is the same as me pointing out that you, like all humans, are unable to survive unassisted at the bottom of the ocean.
It is more akin to you saying that I cannot know what an emotion is, because you cannot objectively measure it. Define love? Hate? Jealousy over the actions of a partner? All of these cannot be measured other than by the word of the person involved, yet you would not deny their existence.

I have very objective proof of the existence of God; my own experiences of Him. This is not something that you can 'measure', it's true, but then an inability to measure has never been an indication that something does not exist. Most of modern science is theory, but is still considered to be true.

Why should it be? Does it grate on you if somebody points out that you require food and water? Does it grate on you if somebody suggests that you require shelter from the elements? The fact that you have needs is not an insult, nor is it insulting to suggest that you seek to answer those needs.
Again, what you have said is more akin to 'he needs religion because he can't cope on his own' than 'he needs food and drink to survive'. There is an implied insult in the idea that I have faith because of something lacking in my life; the idea that lacking something is a pre-requisite for the belief in God.

It is the same as me dismissing your analysis because you are obviously so insecure about your place in the world you need to deny the existence of a higher power (but don't worry, that's understandable in this day and age!).

I myself am a dystheist, which I'm pretty sure is a branch of agnosticism. Dystheists believe that there is a higher power out there, but it's out there to get us. It essentially made this universe to be his personal experiment, a place where it can screw around with things all it wants, no matter how much it hurts the real beings it created in the universe. But that's all that we care to say about it. Besides that we're just agnostic when concerning everything else. The higher power is an asshole is all we know about it. We don't claim to know anything else about it. So meh.

angry at God. ;)

Well yeah, some do this, just like some Christians seem to think that telling atheists that God will burn them in Hell is going to make the atheists want to love Jeebus. But most aren't quite that bonkers, I think. :P

didn't I appease you earlier?

You SAID that you felt it was insulting and grating! Should he have assumed you were lying?
And he said that just because I thought it was insulting to say that 'I have faith because I'm lacking something', it didn't make it less true. Should I assume that he was lying?

Don't be silly, Smunkee quite obviously meant nothing slanderous by saying that
If it was obvious, I wouldn't have pointed out the problem, would I?

Now please--peddle your piss-poor pop psych elsewhere.

If it was obvious, I wouldn't have pointed out the problem, would I?

Now please--peddle your piss-poor pop psych elsewhere.

I think it's obvious to everyone but you.

I don't believe they realize they are angry at God, I think they think that they don't believe but actually they are just angry.
So what you're saying is that your original statement about them being atheists was wrong, and that you now realize that you shouldn't call them atheists. Thank you.

Trilby63;11834692']I don't know what BOB smokes in that pipe of his but he is nothing compared to Eris, Goddess of Chaos.

Eris is clearly a superior, having at least two anagrams. BOB, has none. Also(since I'm looking through an online Principia Discordia):
BEFORE THE GODDESS ERIS, I Ifreann, do herewith declare myself a POEE BROTHER of THE LEGION OF DYNAMIC DISCORD. HAIL HAIL HAIL HAIL HAIL ERIS ERIS ERIS ERIS ERIS ALL HAIL DISCORDIA!

What, people talking about different things? On NSG? I refuse to believe it. ;)

I can only refer you back to my original comments about the insulting nature of you deciding what my motivations are. My 'motivation' is that God exists, pure and simple. You are trying to imply, deliberately or not, that it is because my life is lacking in someway. You don't expect me to find that slightly grating?

Um... I never did. Yet you cannot deny the fact that there are reasons why you believe in gods existence, while others don't. And these reasons are your own personal reasons, that I personally don't share.
I think Bottle's assumption that religious people have their reasons for being religious that us nonreligious folks can't understand.

So what you're saying is that your original statement about them being atheists was wrong, and that you now realize that you shouldn't call them atheists. Thank you.

you know The Mindset was much nicer about it than you, and even though I know the proper term now I dare say that if someone self identifies as an atheist I won't question it.

I think it's obvious to everyone but you.
Really now. And just how is it obvious that calling a theist an atheist isn't some intended insult on the part of the person so calling the theist an atheist? I'd love to hear this one. It should be good.

you know The Mindset was much nicer about it than you, and even though I know the proper term now I dare say that if someone self identifies as an atheist I won't question it.Why not? If I self-identified at the President of the US, whouldn't you challenge it?

you know The Mindset was much nicer about it than you,
You insulted atheists, and you expect me to be nice? WTF?

Really now. And just how is it obvious that calling a theist an atheist isn't some intended insult on the part of the person so calling the theist an atheist? I'd love to hear this one. It should be good.

seeing as how they self identify as atheists and then give me the reasoning that they think God is a jerk? I don't know, you would have to ask them how they fell about insulting themselves.

Trilby63;11834692']I don't know what BOB smokes in that pipe of his but he is nothing compared to Eris, Goddess of Chaos.
You're a normal! You shall never attain SLACK! Pink-boy!

It is more akin to you saying that I cannot know what an emotion is, because you cannot objectively measure it.

Funny you should use that example, since one of my first research experiences involved the empirical measurement of emotions.


Define love? Hate? Jealousy over the actions of a partner? All of these cannot be measured other than by the word of the person involved, yet you would not deny their existence.

Actually, we can (and do) measure human emotions. We can alter them with empirical methods. We do not fully understand all the complex processes involved in emotion, but we know a great deal and are learning more every day.


I have very objective proof of the existence of God; my own experiences of Him. This is not something that you can 'measure', it's true, but then an inability to measure has never been an indication that something does not exist. Most of modern science is theory, but is still considered to be true.

I don't want to get in to the semantic problems with using the scientific definition of "theory" as opposed to the layperson's definition of "theory," so maybe we should leave that for the ID versus Evolution threads.

You are flat-out stating that your evidence for God is PURELY SUBJECTIVE, since it is your own experience and cannot be measured by any objective method. I have never claimed that your belief in God does not exist, or that your faith is non-real. Indeed, my whole point is that your belief in God is grounded in very real concerns and drives.


Again, what you have said is more akin to 'he needs religion because he can't cope on his own' than 'he needs food and drink to survive'.

You should try not to be so quick to leap to negative assumptions about other people. Not everybody is as judgmental as you seem to think.

I don't look down on a person for trying to satisfy their needs. I don't view them as weak or stupid. Sometimes people make choices that aren't terrific while trying to satisfy their needs, but often it's because they 1) lacked alternatives, 2) didn't have all the information they needed, or 3) simply wanted to make the choice they made, and maybe they feel it's worth it even if I do not. There are other reasons, too, of course.


There is an implied insult in the idea that I have faith because of something lacking in my life; the idea that lacking something is a pre-requisite for the belief in God.

I don't think it's necessarily required, since one could also believe in God for totally irrational or crazy reasons. However, I think most people aren't crazy or irrational (in general).


It is the same as me dismissing your analysis because you are obviously so insecure about your place in the world you need to deny the existence of a higher power (but don't worry, that's understandable in this day and age!).
Why would belief in a diety mean that a person is "secure"? I mean, I could just as easily say that people who believe in God are so insecure that they need to believe there's a great big magical buddy in the sky who loves them very very much and has a Great Cosmic Plan that they feature into. But that would be useless Psych 101 babble.

Some insecure people believe in God, some don't. Some secure people believe in God, some don't. It's not as simple as you are trying to make it. God-belief doesn't magically create, or alleviate, insecurity.

Why not? If I self-identified at the President of the US, whouldn't you challenge it?

Being President is a physical office, it's not the same as stating your faith or lack of in this case.

It's like Bottle said, if you claim to be a Brittney Spears fan and I think that you are not the same type of Brittney Spears fan that I heard about then should I tell you that you are not a fan at all? Where is my place if I don't know your heart, mind and emotions regarding Brittney?

Just so you know, if dystheists believe that 1) it is possible to know if there is a God and 2) it is possible to know things about the God that is known to exist, then dystheism is not a form of agnosticism. It's a form of theism.

I still consider it at least weak agnosticism, since the only thing we claim to know about the higher power is that it's a total asshole.

Really now. And just how is it obvious that calling a theist an atheist isn't some intended insult on the part of the person so calling the theist an atheist? I'd love to hear this one. It should be good.

My my, BAAWA, you're not really saying that how people define atheism is a matter of such importance that it requires persecution and an almost, how can I say, religious fundamentalism about its meaning, are you?

And he said that just because I thought it was insulting to say that 'I have faith because I'm lacking something', it didn't make it less true. Should I assume that he was lying?
Huh?

He's right, in that your feelings about a statement do not necessarily render it untrue. It also may be untrue. So?

You insulted atheists, and you expect me to be nice? WTF?

how did I insult atheists?

seeing as how they self identify as atheists
I self-identify as Mary, Queen of Scots. Believe me? Want to challenge me?


and then give me the reasoning that they think God is a jerk?
If they are angry at god, they believe in god. I don't know why you're trying to justify your erroneous notion when you've admitted that it's wrong.

didn't I appease you earlier?
Hell no. Appeasing The Great Bottle requires 3 goat sacrifices, two chickens, and a ritual dance performed to Prince's "Partyman."

But no scented candles. The Great Bottle is displeased by scented candles.

how did I insult atheists?
By saying that there are some who are merely angry at god. I think we've been over this already.

Well thers surprising, a conversation about religion has turned into a slanging match arguing about minor details in what one party has said and taking offence in the most minor of comments.

You know you're all looking at this in the wrong way right?

I self-identify as Mary, Queen of Scots. Believe me? Want to challenge me?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11834737&postcount=123
one could say that I possibly don't know enough about atheist dogma to go around kicking people out of the church.


If they are angry at god, they believe in god. I don't know why you're trying to justify your erroneous notion when you've admitted that it's wrong.
I admit that I learned a new word today. I will NOT admit to or apologize for willfully insulting the atheists because I did not.

how long are you going to follow me around and bait me? hmm?

By saying that there are some who are merely angry at god. I think we've been over this already.

Yes, and we've already been over that it was a mixup of terminology on both people's part. What's the problem, seriously?

Hell no. Appeasing The Great Bottle requires 3 goat sacrifices, two chickens, and a ritual dance performed to Prince's "Partyman."

But no scented candles. The Great Bottle is displeased by scented candles.

hmm......I offer smores and free T-shirts?

Being President is a physical office, it's not the same as stating your faith or lack of in this case.

It's like Bottle said, if you claim to be a Brittney Spears fan and I think that you are not the same type of Brittney Spears fan that I heard about then should I tell you that you are not a fan at all? Where is my place if I don't know your heart, mind and emotions regarding Brittney?
I think you are behaving appropriately and politely when you respect people's personal identification as "atheist." However, words do have particular definitions. If a person claims to be an atheist who believes in God, you would not be out of line if you pointed out that this is a contradiction in terms.

It's like if somebody claimed to be a German citizen even though they only held Australian citizenship. An inherent requirement of being a German citizen is to be a German citizen, by definition; an inherent requirement of being an atheist is being a-theos.

If somebody told you they were a Christian, they simply didn't believe in Jesus, the Bible, or any Christian doctrine, but instead believed in Zeus and the pantheon of Gods, what would you say to them?

I suppose I'm agnostic because I simply do not care about religion. It has played no signigicant role in my life and I hardly ever think about God or religion. I do believe there might still be a God, but I have nothing to base this upon other than the fact the universe seems too awesome to exist without some sort of divine force. As for Christians and the like: as long as they don't bother me or others, they can believe whatever they like.

My my, BAAWA, you're not really saying that how people define atheism is a matter of such importance that it requires persecution and an almost, how can I say, religious fundamentalism about its meaning, are you?
Nah, I'm saying that if you want to communicate, you should use the correct word. Otherwise, people won't know what you're talking about. You DO want people to know what you're talking about, right? After all, that IS the purpose of communication, right?

Notice how your nonsense got throw back in your face.

hmm......I offer smores and free T-shirts?
Your offering pleases Bottle. In our mercy, we decree that you shall be among the first to be eaten.

:D

Yes, and we've already been over that it was a mixup of terminology on both people's part. What's the problem, seriously?
The problem is Smunkee keeps trying to justify an error by saying that it's not really an error. When she stops, it will end.

I think you are behaving appropriately and politely when you respect people's personal identification as "atheist." However, words do have particular definitions. If a person claims to be an atheist who believes in God, you would not be out of line if you pointed out that this is a contradiction in terms.

It's like if somebody claimed to be a German citizen even though they only held Australian citizenship. An inherent requirement of being a German citizen is to be a German citizen, by definition; an inherent requirement of being an atheist is being a-theos.

If somebody told you they were a Christian, they simply didn't believe in Jesus, the Bible, or any Christian doctrine, but instead believed in Zeus and the pantheon of Gods, what would you say to them?

I guess to me it's different as a Christian to question other Christians than it is for me to question an atheist about their belief (or lack of) just like I don't enjoy being questioned by atheists about my personal beliefs because I feel they don't understand it.

I am way different on physical claims than I am on metaphysical claims though, if my kid came in and claimed to be a giraffe I would question that, if she came in and said she has decided to be agnostic I might not, it's her thing, not mine to criticize.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11834737&postcount=123
one could say that I possibly don't know enough about atheist dogma to go around kicking people out of the church.
Especially since there is no atheist dogma. You've insulted atheists yet again.


I admit that I learned a new word today. I will NOT admit to or apologize for willfully insulting the atheists because I did not.
Yet you keep trying to justify your error.

How long will you keep trying to say that you were not in error?

Nah, I'm saying that if you want to communicate, you should use the correct word. Otherwise, people won't know what you're talking about. You DO want people to know what you're talking about, right? After all, that IS the purpose of communication, right?

Notice how your nonsense got throw back in your face.
I'm glad that it was throw back in my face. Who grammar said spelling and important day in and was age this?

Some might say that the implied, and clearly intended, meaning of the word was more important than the actual dictionary definition. But, as you show so clearly here in your post, that can't be the case at all.

Atheist, definitely. I was raised christian, and converted to Mormonism at 14, for pretty much all the wrong reasons - I was mostly trying to get closer to my stepmother, but frankly I now wonder why I bothered. I stopped going after she died, and haven't looked back.

My problems with religion/gods:

1: Lack of need. The universe seems to work just as well without gods.

2: Lack of universality. There are over two hundred recognized religions, and probably thousands that don't step over that line. All of them believe that they, and only they, are correct. Most are mutually incompatible. I figure they're probably all equally correct - as in, not at all.

3: If god has the capacity to prevent pain and suffering and doesn't, he's unworthy of my worship. If he's incapable of it, he's not a god.

4: To ascribe any importance to our incompetent little species, given the vastness of the universe, is a level of arrogance I cannot countenance.

5: If people stopped looking for a reward after they die, we might make some progress towards making a paradise out of this life.


That's pretty much it.

The problem is Smunkee keeps trying to justify an error by saying that it's not really an error. When she stops, it will end.

She's admitted her error of using the incorrect word, and therefore hasn't insulted anyone (because if you read her initial statement substituting the correct word, it has nothing to do with atheism). She has nothing to apologise for. You need to stop badgering her.

The problem is Smunkee keeps trying to justify an error by saying that it's not really an error. When she stops, it will end.
I admit the error of not knowing the correct term to call them behind their backs, I don't admit to slander, insult, or plain being a bitch. I won't by the way.

And he said that just because I thought it was insulting to say that 'I have faith because I'm lacking something', it didn't make it less true. Should I assume that he was lying?

I said it didn't necessarily mean it wasn't true. I challenge you to deny that. Is anything that you find unpleasant or hurtful necessarily untrue? You countered a suggestion by saying you found it insulting. My point is that it being "insulting" (or perceived as such) doesn't necessarily mean it's not true. Do you deny that?

In any case, as others have said, stating that your faith is in response to a need you must fulfil, be it psychological or otherwise, akin to physical survival needs, isn't intended as an insult. Unless you feel insulted by the need to remain hydrated, and take "you should drink regularly" as an accusation of weakness?

Especially since there is no atheist dogma. You've insulted atheists yet again.

atheists must have a dogma, if I have to research someone's motives for claim and reject their claim based on something set in stone as to who an atheist is. If you did not have dogma you would accept anyone who claimed to be atheist at face value.

which is what I had been doing assuming that atheism had no dogma.

If they are angry at god, they believe in god. I don't know why you're trying to justify your erroneous notion when you've admitted that it's wrong.

Wasn't the whole point that there are people who are angry at God and identify themselves as atheists? Surely it's beside the point whether they are atheists or not?

atheists must have a dogma, if I have to research someone's motives for claim and reject their claim based on something set in stone as to who an atheist is. If you did not have dogma you would accept anyone who claimed to be atheist at face value.

which is what I had been doing assuming that atheism had no dogma.

Dogma is a doctrine proclaimed without proof. Atheists have no more proof of the nonexistence of god than theists have of its existence. The "doctrine" of atheism is that there is no supernatural, therefore by definition, atheists have dogma.

I tire of this guy.

I'm glad that it was throw back in my face. Who grammar said spelling and important day in and was age this?
I missed an n. Thanks for the style over substance fallacy. You've hurt your case yet again.


Some might say that the implied, and clearly intended, meaning of the word was more important than the actual dictionary definition.
Some might say that the clear logical consequences of a statement are more important than what someone feels the statement might perhaps in some roundabout way possibly for a brief instant could just slightly mean.

But, as your statements show, that's not the case.

Wasn't the whole point that there are people who are angry at God and identify themselves as atheists? Surely it's beside the point whether they are atheists or not?

I think the correct term for them might be antitheists.

I think the correct term for them might be antitheists.

:p

Wasn't the whole point that there are people who are angry at God and identify themselves as atheists?
No.


Surely it's beside the point whether they are atheists or not?
No, that precisely IS the point.

I think the correct term for them might be antitheists.

I dare say it is.

I guess to me it's different as a Christian to question other Christians than it is for me to question an atheist about their belief (or lack of) just like I don't enjoy being questioned by atheists about my personal beliefs because I feel they don't understand it.

Ahhhhhh. That makes sense.

I don't personally feel that way, since I am comfortable criticizing people who have different beliefs, as well as having my beliefs criticized by them. But I think it's admirable that you apply the Golden Rule so consistently on this subject. If you don't like having your views questioned by people who you don't feel understand you, then it's really cool that you extend the same courtesy to them. Most people don't do this. :D


I am way different on physical claims than I am on metaphysical claims though, if my kid came in and claimed to be a giraffe I would question that, if she came in and said she has decided to be agnostic I might not, it's her thing, not mine to criticize.
Sounds sane to me.

My kid brother has become interested in Christianity since he attended a youth group run by a Christian fellow. I do question him about it, since I am interested in my brother and what goes on with him, and I want to understand why he chooses to pursue the things he does. I also want to make sure he's not being exploited or taken advantage of. But I respect his right to make his own choices and to hold his own personal philosophy. I don't try to convince him not to be Christian, I simply ask him questions about what he thinks and answer his questions when he has them.

If he chooses to be Christian, that's his call. I want him to be happy and to do the best that he can for himself, and if he ends up deciding that Christianity is the way to do this then I will respect his choice because he's his own person. I'll talk with him about it if he likes, and I'll drop the subject if he prefers. If I feel the need to rant about religiosity I can always come to NS General to vent! :D

I dare say it is.

I wouldn't group them together with aheists, just as I wouldn't put agnostics together with atheists. Although I know of plenty of agnostics walking around calling themselves atheists and being called atheists, too.

I missed an n. Thanks for the style over substance fallacy. You've hurt your case yet again.
You cut me as ever.

Some might say that the clear logical consequences of a statement are more important than what someone feels the statement might perhaps in some roundabout way possibly for a brief instant could just slightly mean.
Where the intended meaning of a word is clear, then the actual dictionary definition isn't particuarly relevant.

I realise that you maintain hope that this is not the case because you want to think that all those women who say 'fuck you' actually want to sleep with you, but alas, in reality, most of us can handle a slightly misplaced word.

She's admitted her error of using the incorrect word, and therefore hasn't insulted anyone (because if you read her initial statement substituting the correct word, it has nothing to do with atheism). She has nothing to apologise for. You need to stop badgering her.
*snore*

She's trying to justify using a term in a way that shouldn't be (like saying that war is peace and freedom is slavery). No matter that she said it was an error, she is STILL trying to use it in the original way she did. That just won't do.

There is no God. Simple.

There was, however, a group of rulers in every ancient tribe that had to explain where the world came from and come up with rules to govern the tribe. Every religion has a similar set of rules saying something like don't kill, don't steal, respect your elders. These help the tribe run smoothly and, knowing that being in this position was a sweet gig, these rulers also throw in there is only now religion and you will obey. Later rules to govern lesser aspects of behaviour, along with some good stories (disasters, magic etc) come later. The concept of reward/punishment comes too, or maybe this is a much later mistranslation of the original.

What if the original thought was not if you follow these commandments, when you die you'll get an afterlife with no pain or suffering and everything will be great, don't and its a world aflame. What if instead it was if we all obey these rules then life will be perfect, and the eternal aspect got added on to answer the awkward questions like what happens after?

I'd consider myself an agnostic theist. I believe that there is some kind of God or Gods, but we can't really know exactly what the nature of these deities is; all religions may reflect a certain interpretation or view of what God is, but are ultimately all interpreting on faith rather than any concrete evidence.

I'd probably lean almost towards Deism, but I think that's too concrete a definition of God to really align with my views; also, I do believe that there is objective morality even though we only encounter it very rarely if at all in normal life. The bulk of human experience is shades of gray.

I'd consider myself an agnostic theist. I believe that there is some kind of God or Gods, but we can't really know exactly what the nature of these deities is; all religions may reflect a certain interpretation or view of what God is, but are ultimately all interpreting on faith rather than any concrete evidence.

I'd probably lean almost towards Deism, but I think that's too concrete a definition of God to really align with my views; also, I do believe that there is objective morality even though we only encounter it very rarely if at all in normal life. The bulk of human experience is shades of gray.
Cool! A person who not only knows what agnostic theism is, but who actually identifies as one! I always try to explain how it's possible to be agnostic and also theist, but a lot of people don't believe me. :P

No, that precisely IS the point.

Oh, then might I ask, why do you care if other people incorrectly call themselves atheists?


Deja vu.

Cool! A person who not only knows what agnostic theism is, but who actually identifies as one! I always try to explain how it's possible to be agnostic and also theist, but a lot of people don't believe me. :P

My mom's one... although she claims to be Catholic most of the time :D

I admit the error of not knowing the correct term to call them behind their backs, I don't admit to slander, insult, or plain being a bitch. I won't by the way.
Then please stop trying to justify your incorrect usage! That's all I ask. You keep saying "Well, shouldn't I believe them when they say they are mad at god and atheists?" NO! You shouldn't. If you have to ask, you clearly have no concept of how to logically think through what a person has said. It's like believing a person who says s/he has a ball that is all-red and all-green at the same time and respect. You wouldn't believe that, would you?

I wouldn't group them together with aheists, just as I wouldn't put agnostics together with atheists. Although I know of plenty of agnostics walking around calling themselves atheists and being called atheists, too.

Well agnostic and atheist aren't mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible to be both.

There was, however, a group of rulers in every ancient tribe that had to explain where the world came from and come up with rules to govern the tribe. Every religion has a similar set of rules saying something like don't kill, don't steal, respect your elders. These help the tribe run smoothly and, knowing that being in this position was a sweet gig, these rulers also throw in there is only now religion and you will obey. Later rules to govern lesser aspects of behaviour, along with some good stories (disasters, magic etc) come later. The concept of reward/punishment comes too, or maybe this is a much later mistranslation of the original

But that's assuming "God" is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and monotheistic. For all we know, God might have just created the universe on a whim and let things run through there, or there might be multiple Gods each tending to a specific aspect of the natural world. God might be evil, totally arbitrary, or even simply a manifestation of some supreme essence or consciousness

I think the number one problem is that people automatically associate God, benevolence and morality. For all we know, morality may be a human concept designed to thwart the influence of an evil God on us, or even a tool used by a good God to stop the evil one from destroying his creation. There have been plenty of Gods throughout history whose morality was dubious at best, and many whose worship was outright deleterious to its followers.

atheists must have a dogma,
No, they mustn't. Not from atheism.

Then please stop trying to justify your incorrect usage! That's all I ask. You keep saying "Well, shouldn't I believe them when they say they are mad at god and atheists?" NO! You shouldn't. If you have to ask, you clearly have no concept of how to logically think through what a person has said. It's like believing a person who says s/he has a ball that is all-red and all-green at the same time and respect. You wouldn't believe that, would you?

I don't think you understand my postition.

Cool! A person who not only knows what agnostic theism is, but who actually identifies as one! I always try to explain how it's possible to be agnostic and also theist, but a lot of people don't believe me. :P

That's something I've never understood. Hell, the guy who came up with the word agnostic for describing his beliefs was a thiest.

My mom's one... although she claims to be Catholic most of the time :D
I happen to think that a whole lot of theists are agnostic theists, but a lot of people don't know what "agnostic" actually means. They think it's a synonym for "atheist," or that one can't believe in God while also being agnostic.

Hell, a whole lot of the Christians I know will specifically talk about how they believe in God out of FAITH, and that if you knew God existed then there wouldn't be faith. A central part of their belief system revolves around agnosticism! But a lot of them have reacted with hostility when I used that term, because they thought it was an attack or an insult. Obviously I don't mean it as such, since I am agnostic. :D

Dogma is a doctrine proclaimed without proof. Atheists have no more proof of the nonexistence of god than theists have of its existence. The "doctrine" of atheism is that there is no supernatural,
Prove it. Prove that is a doctrine of atheism.

This will be good.

No, they mustn't. Not from atheism.

either atheism has a dogma and there are certain beliefs, ideas and stances that go along with it, or they don't.

if they don't, then I can assume that anyone who self identifies as atheist actually is, if they do, then I must test what they say against atheistic dogma.

which is it?

Obviously I don't mean it as such, since I am agnostic. :D

You could be self-hating maybe?

Just tossin' out ideas...

Trilby63;11834852']That's something I've never understood. Hell, the guy who came up with the word agnostic for describing his beliefs was a thiest.
Indeed. And, as I said above, several religions specifically include agnosticism in their tennets. Many Christian sects insist that the whole point is to believe without knowing. Agnosticism is central to the value structure of the faith.

You cut me as ever.
And you ignore the substance, as ever.


Where the intended meaning of a word is clear,
It wasn't clear in this case.

I realize that you're trying piss-poor pop psych because you've nothing left. Thanks for conceding.

Prove it. Prove that is a doctrine of atheism.

This will be good.

if you believe that the dogma of atheism is not that there is no supernatural and that in fact there is no dogma at all of atheism then someone who is angry at God can be an atheist.

Oh, then might I ask, why do you care if other people incorrectly call themselves atheists?
The bolded part answers your question.

if you believe that the dogma of atheism is not that there is no supernatural and that in fact there is no dogma at all of atheism then someone who is angry at God can be an atheist.

Actually, atheists could believe in supernatural things, just not a god.

I don't think you understand my postition.
You said that you would have no reason to not believe that they are atheists, right, since they self-identify as atheists. That is what you stated. Thus, that is your position. If it is not your position, then you must've lied, since that is what you stated.

I therefore do not see how I do not understand your position.

Prove it. Prove that is a doctrine of atheism.

This will be good.

Doctrine (n):
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively.

There certainly is at least one principle/position advocated by atheism. It is also possible to teach this principle/position.

Indeed, my dictionary defines "atheism" as "the doctrine or belief that there is no God."

The bolded part answers your question.
You're some manner of control freak who can't handle people being wrong? Well I hate to tell you but humans have this strange tendedency to be fallible(though =POPE=s don't).

Prove it. Prove that is a doctrine of atheism.

This will be good.

Wtf? That's the definition of atheism! Do you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about? A doctrine is a belief. Atheists believe in the disbelief of the existence of dieties and/or the supernatural. Therefore, disbelief in the supernatural and/or the existence of god is part of atheist doctrine, and therefore part of atheist dogma. By definition. QED.

if you believe that the dogma of atheism is not that there is no supernatural and that in fact there is no dogma at all of atheism then someone who is angry at God can be an atheist.
No, that's logically not possible. That's like saying a ball can be all-red and all-green at the same time and respect. It's a statement which violates the law of non-contradiction.

And there still isn't any dogma of atheism. If there is, then there's a dogma of apathy, a dogma of asymmetry, a dogma of being apolitical....

Wtf? That's the definition of atheism!
Bullshit. The definition of atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. It does not say "there is no supernatural".

Do you have any idea of what you speak?

Philosopy just seems to be ignoring all my posts. Which is a shame; I'd have been curious to see him answer a few questions.

Your offering pleases Bottle. In our mercy, we decree that you shall be among the first to be eaten.

:D

Your religion sounds fun. Can I be a priest? :D

I happen to think that a whole lot of theists are agnostic theists, but a lot of people don't know what "agnostic" actually means. They think it's a synonym for "atheist," or that one can't believe in God while also being agnostic.

That's what I think as well. All "agnostic" means is literally "unknowable"; it doesn't imply doubt, it just implies that we can't know the concept's true nature. This applies in both the spiritual and physical worlds.

Wtf? That's the definition of atheism! Do you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about? A doctrine is a belief. Atheists believe in the disbelief of the existence of dieties and/or the supernatural. QED.

Actually, it's nothing to do with the supernatural in genereal, and is a lack of belief not "believe in the disbelief", whatever that really means...

Philosopy just seems to be ignoring all my posts. Which is a shame; I'd have been curious to see him answer a few questions.

Even if the post got responded to, the questions would be skirted around.

either atheism has a dogma and there are certain beliefs, ideas and stances that go along with it, or they don't.
It doesn't.


if they don't, then I can assume that anyone who self identifies as atheist actually is, if they do, then I must test what they say against atheistic dogma.
Non sequitur/false dichotomy. If a person tells you that s/he has a ball that is all-red and all-green at the same time and respect, do you need to test it to find out or do you believe the person? Hint: it's the same bullshit false dichotomy you just presented me with, so don't bitch and moan.

Philosopy just seems to be ignoring all my posts. Which is a shame; I'd have been curious to see him answer a few questions.
:confused: Sorry, I wasn't deliberately. I just thought that, unless I missed something, I'd answered the point you raised with my reply to Bottle.

You're some manner of control freak who can't handle people being wrong?
No.

Non sequitur/false dichotomy. If a person tells you that s/he has a ball that is all-red and all-green at the same time and respect, do you need to test it to find out or do you believe the person? Hint: it's the same bullshit false dichotomy you just presented me with, so don't bitch and moan.
you can not attribute physical reasoning to belief systems.

Even if the post got responded to, the questions would be skirted around.
Delightful to see you too. :rolleyes:

Doctrine (n):
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively.

There certainly is at least one principle/position advocated by atheism.
Which is?



Indeed, my dictionary defines "atheism" as "the doctrine or belief that there is no God."
Your dictionary is incorrect.

you can not attribute physical reasoning to belief systems.
Cop-out.

Please answer my question.

Doctrine (n):
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively.

There certainly is at least one principle/position advocated by atheism. It is also possible to teach this principle/position.

Indeed, my dictionary defines "atheism" as "the doctrine or belief that there is no God."
Mine too.

Cop-out.
no it isn't.

Please answer my question.
I already did.

if you believe that the dogma of atheism is not that there is no supernatural and that in fact there is no dogma at all of atheism then someone who is angry at God can be an atheist.
Technically speaking, disbelief in the supernatural is NOT part of atheism. Atheism refers to the disbelief in GOD(S), specifically, not to all things supernatural.

In terms of the "dogma" of atheism, it gets a bit muddier.

Dogma is:
1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

The only principle or doctrine of atheism is the a-theism. The lack of belief in God is it. There is no require system of beliefs, moral code, value system, or anything else that must necessarily go along with atheism. So the "dogma" of atheism is simply the lack of God-belief. Anything else that an individual atheist chooses to believe, whether as a result of their atheism or not, is separate and does not constitute "atheist dogma" or "atheist doctrine."

no it isn't.
Certainly is.


I already did.
Then you admit that you're wrong. Thanks.

The only principle or doctrine of atheism is the a-theism. The lack of belief in God is it.
Then you have the self-contradictory statement that a lack of belief is a belief.

Which is?
The disbelief (/lack of belief) in God/gods.


Your dictionary is incorrect.
Um. I don't quite know what to do with a person who claims that the OED is simply incorrect. If you don't accept the definitions of words as given in an English dictionary, then I don't know where the conversation can really go. I'm not going to simply accept that you, a random internet poster, are the authority on the English language.

I'm agnostic. I started out as a christian (well, when I could form memories et c I was a christian) and well into highschool I went to church every Sunday, prayed most nights, was active in the youth group et c. There were questions that my Sunday school teachers couldn't answer to my satisfaction, but I kind of let them slide. At any rate, one weekend we went to this big christian youth event in Detroit (or just outside of it at any rate) and it was fun, I got to spend time with my friends and there was some music that wasn't absolutely awful (I was never a huge fan of christian rock in the first place) and on the last day there, there was an altar call. We were to go up and open our hearts to Jesus and let his love in or whatnot... I went up, I opened my heart to Jesus and then nothing... everywhere around me people were crying and hugging and I just felt empty and alone. When we got back, I delved into studying the Bible, but the more I read, the more it didn't feel right. Eventually I stopped going to church and going out to youth group events, they'd have little talks about why god has to exist and use these horrible analogies that I simply couldn't stand anymore.
I read about other religions and didn't find any that particularly fit me so well and then I came to the conclusion that no one really has a good idea of what's really going on. All they have is their faith in whatever it is they have faith in and that chances are, no one will find out what's really going on during this lifetime. So I figured that I would just live my life and try to help other people when I can, becasue this might just be the only life we get and we should all try to enjoy ourselves for its duration.
I really started to feel a lot better about myself when I stopped believing that I was inherently sinful too. Life is definitely too short to feel that way about yourself.

Technically speaking, disbelief in the supernatural is NOT part of atheism. Atheism refers to the disbelief in GOD(S), specifically, not to all things supernatural.

In terms of the "dogma" of atheism, it gets a bit muddier.

Dogma is:
1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

The only principle or doctrine of atheism is the a-theism. The lack of belief in God is it. There is no require system of beliefs, moral code, value system, or anything else that must necessarily go along with atheism. So the "dogma" of atheism is simply the lack of God-belief. Anything else that an individual atheist chooses to believe, whether as a result of their atheism or not, is separate and does not constitute "atheist dogma" or "atheist doctrine."

so if atheist doctrine is basically a lack of a belief in God(s) then you do have a doctrine. Why the claim by some then that you do not?
I am seriously confused?

Delightful to see you too. :rolleyes:

Ah, but the pleasure is mine. :)

so if atheist doctrine is basically a lack of a belief in God(s) then you do have a doctrine. Why the claim by some then that you do not?
I am seriously confused?

The atheist doctrine is not believing in a god
not beliving in a god is not being a theist
not being a theist is being an atheist
Therefore, The atheist doctrine is being an atheist.

If that's dogma, then you get all sorts of things. The black dogma, being a black person. The gay dogma, the Ohian dogma, the French dogma.

The disbelief (/lack of belief) in God/gods.
How can a lack of belief be a doctrine or dogma? Doctrines/dogmas require a belief, not a lack of belief.


Um. I don't quite know what to do with a person who claims that the OED is simply incorrect.
Easy: you believe him, since the dictionary has something self-contradictory in it.

QED.

Unless, of course, you think that the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold wrt definitions. You don't believe that, do you?

Then you have the self-contradictory statement that a lack of belief is a belief.
Unless atheism is defined (as it is in TWO dictionaries I own) as "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings." That's the secondary definition, right under the one about it being a doctrine.

But since we aren't allowed to use the actual definitions of words, I don't really see why you bother trying to talk with me. I'm not going to embrace whatever definitions you make up, and you're not going to accept that the dictionary is a reliable source for the meanings of words. So we can't really converse in any meaningful way.

Unless atheism is defined (as it is in TWO dictionaries I own) as "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."
Disbelief != belief in lack.

But since we aren't using the actual definitions of words, feel free to ignore that fact.

so if atheist doctrine is basically a lack of a belief in God(s) then you do have a doctrine. Why the claim by some then that you do not?

Because some atheists disbelive in dictionaries as well as Gods, I guess. I don't understand them any more than you do.

:confused: Sorry, I wasn't deliberately. I just thought that, unless I missed something, I'd answered the point you raised with my reply to Bottle.

My post is on page 10. Though yes, I suppose you've mostly addressed it through your reply to Bottle.

Still, I'd be interested to see you (or any other believer) answer this:


First, there's the issue of the soul. How and when did the soul appear? If we assume that only human beings have souls (and that horses, spiders, dogs, lobsters and so forth haven't), at what point during evolution did the soul appear? As I see it, there are two hypotheses:

1) The soul evolved. This seems self-contradictory. You've either got a soul or you haven't; you can't have a partially developed, partially-evolved soul, surely. Which brings us to the second hypothesis.

2) The soul appeared, full and complete, all of a sudden. Presumably, in one particular generation. This is asking us to believe that parents without souls somehow gave birth to children with souls. Which strikes me as somewhat difficult to accept.

Then there's the whole issue of religion. Why would God demand my worship? Is he lacking something? Many Christians (and, I assume, members of other religions) seem to assume that those of us who don't believe in God were given the option of believing, and rejected it. That's incorrect. You cannot force yourself to believe when your reason tells you it would be irrational. I am not capable of sincerely believing in any deity. And I am to be punished for this?

As I've said elsewhere, if God wants to send me to hell for all eternity for daring not to worship him, I will spend eternity basking in the triumphant knowledge that I am a better person than God.

Unless atheism is defined (as it is in TWO dictionaries I own) as "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings." That's the secondary definition, right under the one about it being a doctrine.

But since we aren't allowed to use the actual definitions of words, I don't really see why you bother trying to talk with me. I'm not going to embrace whatever definitions you make up, and you're not going to accept that the dictionary is a reliable source for the meanings of words. So we can't really converse in any meaningful way.

So, if Baawa isn't going to use the actual definition of a word, but then call me out on not using his personal preference for a word when I tried to explain my own experience with other people using a certian word..........:confused: :headbang:

So, if Baawa isn't going to use the actual definition of a word,
I do.

I do.

explain to me.....wait, let's use the correct word

define atheist for me. include a source.

Because some atheists disbelief in dictionaries as well as Gods, I guess. I don't understand them any more than you do.
Yeah, I don't understand how disbelief = belief. Disbelief = lack of belief.

Unless, of course, we've always been at war with Eastasia.

Disbelief != belief in lack.

Instead of saying what it is not, why not say what it is?

Disbelief: the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

Alternatively: doubt about the truth of something [syn: incredulity, skepticism, mental rejection], a rejection of belief.

For example, I reject the belief that whites are superior to blacks; this constitutes disbelief on my part.


But since we aren't using the actual definitions of words, feel free to ignore that fact.
Are "actual" definitions anything like the definitions used in reputable English dictionaries? Because in that case, I guess you're just using the royal "we," huh?

My post is on page 10. Though yes, I suppose you've mostly addressed it through your reply to Bottle.

Still, I'd be interested to see you (or any other believer) answer this:

Well, if the soul were in fact a single point mutation...And then you could easily have souless people.

explain to me.....wait, let's use the correct word

define atheist for me. include a source.
a + theos + ism

lacking/without god belief

Thus, an atheist is one who is lacking or without god belief.

How much more simple can I make it?

Yeah, I don't understand how disbelief = belief. Disbelief = lack of belief.

Then all you are saying is that you do not use the word "disbelief" as it is actually defined.


Unless, of course, we've always been at war with Eastasia.
I don't understand your hostility on this subject. What's wrong with admitting that there is a doctrine of atheism? Is it because "doctrine" carries religious connotations to you? Do you think that something being "doctrine" automatically makes it less valid or less true?

Still, I'd be interested to see you (or any other believer) answer this:
I don't believe that God does send people to Hell for not believing. To me, that is a contradictory statement that is incompatable with the concept of a loving God who grants us free will.

As for when the soul appeared, I'm afraid that I'm in no way qualified to answer that. There are people who have studied the issue all their lives and still haven't come up with a conclusion. All I can give is the answer 'when God intended it', as unsatisfactory as that will be to non-believers.

Instead of saying what it is not, why not say what it is?
Lacking belief. Not believing. It doesn't require active belief against.



Are "actual" definitions anything like the definitions used in reputable English dictionaries?
Oh, you mean the ones that have self-contradictory definitions?

a + theos + ism

lacking/without god belief

Thus, an atheist is one who is lacking or without god belief.

How much more simple can I make it?

That's the ethymology of the word, not it's current meaning or usage.

a + theos + ism

lacking/without god belief

Thus, an atheist is one who is lacking or without god belief.

How much more simple can I make it?
You can make it very very simple by including one single source to back up your choice of definition. Remember, your personal opinion does not constitute evidence of anything. That's kind of the oblique point of this thread. :D

Then all you are saying is that you do not use the word "disbelief" as it is actually defined.
I'm saying that I do.


I don't understand your hostility on this subject. What's wrong with admitting that there is a doctrine of atheism?
What's wrong with admitting that there is a doctrine of apathy? What's wrong with admitting that there is a doctrine of asymmetry?

Care to answer those? Or will you evade the salient point that a lack of belief is not a doctrine?

I really have no problem with JEsus at all, it's just that he was simply a mortal man who had good ideas. I'd readily get mad at someone who started talkign smack but actually saying he's the son of God is a bit extreme in my opinion. He died for his opinions because the Romans felt threatened. Jesus is a hero but not necessarily the son of any god there may be, and certainly not the Abrahamic one (unless he was a mama's boy).

He did NOT die for His or anyone else's opinions, He died TO SAVE SINNERS.

But then, atheists and agnostics don't think of themselves as "sinners," and in fact often deny the existence of sin.

So it would appear that Jesus did atheists absolutely no good whatsoever when He died for their sins, because (according to their own profession) they don't HAVE any sins, at least not by the Bible definition of "sins."

And Jesus most certainly WAS God; how could a mere mortal man give sight to a blind man or raise the dead?

For me, it's two things, really.

Firstly, religion implies servility - it implies that we should see Good in some higher being, some entity superior to us, and we should worship and serve this being. I don't think anyone or anything deserves to be worshipped and served.

Secondly, the argument from evil really destroys the notion of a being simultaneously omnipotent and benevolent. Giving people the "freedom" to commit atrocities is not a good thing at all; nor is permitting horrific natural disasters.

I have problems with religious fundamentalists of any type, but I tend to respect most religions and religious people.

So evidently you believe God should let people do just whatever the $@#&%! they want WITHOUT LETTING THEM SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OR JUDGING THEM FOR DISOBEYING HIM? Why do you think He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?

Galatians 6:7 says "whatsoever a man soweth, THAT SHALL HE ALSO REAP" [emphasis mine].

I think you have to keep in mind that the gospels were written by ardent, possibly even fanatic followers of his teachings, not by people who had actually known the person Jesus.
I wouldn't accuse them of lying, but they wrote down what they believed, not necessarily what actually happened.

No, the writers of the Gospels most certainly DID personally know Jesus. In fact, John is referred to in some places in the N.T. as "that disciple, whom Jesus loved," and is to this day known as "John the beloved." And Matthew was a tax collector when Jesus called him and said "Follow me."

Lack of belief in a god could be applied to agnosticism. However, atheism is the active belief that a deity does not exist. Hence, a belief.

Oh, and to answer the OP. I'm an atheist, because;
- I have yet to see the proof of any evidence for God. Faith is all well and good, and that's fine for you if you have your own faith in God, but I'll believe it when I see it.
- If he exists, it would appear he's a jerk. What with the smiting and all.

You can make it very very simple by including one single source to back up your choice of definition.
I did: the roots.

Lacking belief. Not believing. It doesn't require active belief against.

Again, why do you try to discuss this with me? You are choosing to reject the definitions of several terms, for reasons that you don't seem to feel like sharing. Nothing will be accomplished by your continuing to state your opinion, since I'm not in the habit of accepting people's opinions as fact, particularly without any evidence whatsoever.


Oh, you mean the ones that have self-contradictory definitions?
I have demonstrated why it is not self-contradictory. If you choose to also reject the definitions of words like "disbelief" and "doctrine," then there's nothing more I can do for you.

explain to me.....wait, let's use the correct word

define atheist for me. include a source.

You probably wouldn't like it, how'zabout you make your own with the available pieces?

a-; without, not
theos; god
-ism; act or pratice of; quality or condition of being a; dotrine, theory, system, or practice of

I did: the roots.

external source, give me a website.

That's the ethymology of the word, not it's current meaning or usage.
That's the meaning of the word, in this case.

Some people say that atheism = communism. However, that's using a word incorrectly, isn't it? Similarly, appealing to common usage just doesn't work, since common usage of atheism back in the 1950s in the US was a synonym for communism. It, however, is not a synonym thereto.

That's the ethymology of the word, not it's current meaning or usage.

If so, wouldn't that become a "current meaning or usage" as soon as someone means or uses it in that manner?

external source, give me a website.
www.m-w.com

I don't believe that God does send people to Hell for not believing. To me, that is a contradictory statement that is incompatable with the concept of a loving God who grants us free will.


Thank you. That's interesting. What do you believe the afterlife is, then?


As for when the soul appeared, I'm afraid that I'm in no way qualified to answer that. There are people who have studied the issue all their lives and still haven't come up with a conclusion. All I can give is the answer 'when God intended it', as unsatisfactory as that will be to non-believers.

*nods* I'm sure you can see why it's a point of concern, then.

What made you choose the path you did? What do you think of Christians? Jews? Muslims? Everyone else? Do you think religion is falt-out wrong, or that it could be right but not for you (or everyone)?


Personally I am an Irish Reconstructionist (you could also say Pagan). I chose this path partially based on my interest in mythology and the past, partially based on personal intuition, and partially based on a near death experience I had at the age of 13 wherein I met my patron goddess, Brighid, who told me that I was hers and to quit barking up the wrong tree (aka Christianity). This experience is what I consider my formal conversion to Paganism.

I think most Christians are wonderful, loving people who attempt to live their life according to the messages that Jesus brought to earth. I think that there are bad people everywhere, so this is no different for Christianity and there are bad people there. The only thing I wish Christians (generally and as a blanket statement or stereotype) would do would be to let everyone follow the religion that speaks to their soul and cut down on the prostelytizing (I know some don't do this, and I really appreciate it). I think the best way to try to "convert" someone if it must be done, is to lead by example, not by "do as I say, not as I do".

I think Jews are wonderful, loving people as well. I don't have as much experience with Jews as I do with Christians (though I have a few personal friends who are non-practicing or formerly converted to Judaism). As I said above, there are bad people everywhere, so there will be bad people in Judaism as well.

I also think that the vast majority of Muslims are wonderful, loving people as well. I have personally known Muslims and studied the religion in school and I think the premises upon which the religion was built are sound and good influences as to living a good life. Every religion is exposed to the possibility of being twisted to the ends of evil people, and Islam is no exception. I don't think it's much of an issue in the West, but proselytizing and forced conversion are things that I wish would fall to the wayside for Islam as well.

As for everyone else, I think people should be allowed to follow whatever religion they feel pulls their spirit to it. I do think that each religion should conform to the laws (especially criminal) of the society in which the religion resides. What I'm referring to here is things like human sacrifice, cannibalism, etc. Not moral issues, but societal safety issues (that are not necessarily tied to a moral compass).

I think that everyone should be free to believe or not believe as they will. I will never try to convert someone, but I may try to get someone to think outside the box of their safety zone. I try to be as open minded as possible and I also ask that others attempt the same thing (though the extent of their ability (due to life experience, etc) to be open minded may be "less expanisve" than someone else's ability). The existence or lack thereof of belief in a spirit or higher power may be an important factor of how someone views the world, and I believe that they are entitled to believe as they feel is correct.

(note. I have not read all 16 or so pages of this thread.)

Again, why do you try to discuss this with me?
I ask of you the same question.


You are choosing to reject the definitions of several terms, for reasons that you don't seem to feel like sharing.
I've shared my reasons.


I have demonstrated why it is not self-contradictory.
Where did you do that? And you will then also have to demonstrate that there is a doctrine of apathy and doctrine of aysmmetry.

If you choose to believe something self-contradictory, there is no hope for you.

No, the writers of the Gospels most certainly DID personally know Jesus. In fact, John is referred to in some places in the N.T. as "that disciple, whom Jesus loved," and is to this day known as "John the beloved." And Matthew was a tax collector when Jesus called him and said "Follow me."

Er... no he isn't. The John who appears in the gospels and the John who wrote one of the Gospels are not the same person.
The gospel of John was written towards the end of the first century AD (
linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_according_to_John)), so it's highly unlikely that one of the disciples wrote it.

Thank you. That's interesting. What do you believe the afterlife is, then?
Heaven, which I can only describe as being with God. What form that will take I do not know; all I can say is what I believe what will not happen. In this case, it is the idea of God punishing us eternally for a mere lifetime of sin.

I know many theologians and clergy who argue that Hell need not be a 'punishment' but simply 'without God', but, as far as I am concerned, the two are exactly the same thing.

external source, give me a website.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/a-#Prefix_5
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B8%CE%B5%CF%8C%CF%82#Noun
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ism#Suffix

Lack of belief in a god could be applied to agnosticism. However, atheism is the active belief that a deity does not exist. Hence, a belief.
No, it's the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. Otherwise, bald is a haircolor and health is a disease.

I did: the roots.
The roots of many English words are inconsistant with their meanings.

For instance, "woman" is from the roots, "wombed-man." Yet "woman" also correctly refers to female human beings who have had their wombs removed, or who were born without wombs. They are neither men nor are they womb-ed, yet they are women.

An example that comes up around here a lot is "homophobia." Literally traced, it means "fear of same." Of course, that's not what the word "homophobia" actually means.

www.m-w.com

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity


http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist

oh, look active belief.

No, it's the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. Otherwise, bald is a haircolor and health is a disease.
'Bald' may not be a hair colour, but 'none' probably would be.

'Bald' may not be a hair colour, but 'none' probably would be.

None? What, it's like, transparent?

That's the meaning of the word, in this case.

Some people say that atheism = communism. However, that's using a word incorrectly, isn't it? Similarly, appealing to common usage just doesn't work, since common usage of atheism back in the 1950s in the US was a synonym for communism. It, however, is not a synonym thereto.

You may be surprised that common usage in the USA does not consitute common usage as such. Especially when it comes to words that are almost identical in most languages.

If so, wouldn't that become a "current meaning or usage" as soon as someone means or uses it in that manner?

I think a single person wouldn't be enough to consitute a change in meaning...

The roots of many English words are inconsistant with their meanings.
Then I'd like to see how the etymological roots of "atheism" are inconsistent with the meaning of atheism. By all means--please demonstrate it.

I ask of you the same question.

I respond to you because it is polite to respond. Since you do not appear to appreciate the courtesy, I will stop.

Then I'd like to see how the etymological roots of "atheism" are inconsistent with the meaning of atheism. By all means--please demonstrate it.
Perhaps you missed the two or three dictionary definitions, as well as a definition given from your own site? :rolleyes:

You may be surprised that common usage in the USA does not consitute common usage as such.
No, it doesn't. Yet it was common usage in the US. Therefore, that must've been the definition in the US.

Or not, right? Maybe it wasn't the definition, but just some hysterical nonsense.

Are you seeing the point now?

I think a single person wouldn't be enough to consitute a change in meaning...

How many then?