NationStates Jolt Archive

Who knows the real answer then ?
I believe that anyone who believes in Him has the right answer.

I believe that anyone who believes in Him has the right answer.

Which of the 5 million Hims would that be ? Humans are quite good at having different religions - and whichever you pick an overwhelming majority of humanity will disagree with you.

Which of the 5 million Hims would that be ? Humans are quite good at having different religions - and whichever you pick an overwhelming majority of humanity will disagree with you.
You are sidetracking from the point that I made. :D

I really don't think so.

Forgive me for sounding petty, but...

So?

If nothing else, you and I are equally qualified to judge who is qualified in this case. ;)


That is an irrational, arrogant assumption on your part.
I love this game. UP IS DOWN! BLACK IS WHITE!

It is irrational to conclude that humans don't possess factual knowledge of a supernatural being who is beyond our ability to test or rationally examine! It is arrogant to assert that I am equal to all other humans on this topic!

You are sidetracking from the point that I made. :D

Ah. I assume it indeed is possible that there is at least one person on this planet who has the right faith ;)

I believe that anyone who believes in Him has the right answer.

and how is that not "an irrational, arrogant assumption on your part"?

not that *I* would use that language, but since you used it with bottle, i think its a fair question.

since there can be no earthly proof of god, why is one opinion superior to another?

and how is that not "an irrational, arrogant assumption on your part"?

not that *I* would use that language, but since you used it with bottle, i think its a fair question.

since there can be no earthly proof of god, why is one opinion superior to another?
Heck, I think it's fair to ask why somebody who cannot correctly define "agnosticism" feels entitled to call anybody else ignorant on the subject of theology.

But I won't ask that, because I already know the answer.

Rofl, you guys...

Please, forgive me if I mistake this, but, a person who belives in something after the organic life and hasn't a religion is AGNOSTIC, not ATHEIST, right?

and how is that not "an irrational, arrogant assumption on your part"?

not that *I* would use that language, but since you used it with bottle, i think its a fair question.

since there can be no earthly proof of god, why is one opinion superior to another?

there can be no earthly proof of god? What does that mean?


There is proof of God, just look around you. Yeah, maybe an explosion caused all of this... maybe a grenade into a room full of apple cider will go off, and when you enter the room, a perfectly assembled Webster's dictionary will be there, without a word missing.



Or maybe we've never witnessed anything but microevolution, there is no proof in macroevolution, all other religions contain logical flaws and God did really send his Son to die for us, and there really is a Creator, and there is a Heaven and a Hell, and you're going to one either way.















Nah, that can't be right. That means I'd be accountable for myself. Atheism makes things so much easier. :rolleyes:

I believe that anyone who believes in Him has the right answer.

Him? Oh, you mean Alan Rickman? I don't see why anyone would not believe in him, or Him, as it were, given most of us have seen him on screen in one movie or another.

Please, forgive me if I mistake this, but, a person who belives in something after the organic life and hasn't a religion is AGNOSTIC, not ATHEIST, right?

You're mistaken. An agnostic is anyone who believes it is impossible to know whether or not god(s) exist. An atheist is either one who believes that gods do not exist, OR someone who simply does not believe in any gods.

I believe that anyone who believes in Him has the right answer.I believe that anyone who believes in Him has a mental dysfunction.

and how is that not "an irrational, arrogant assumption on your part"?

not that *I* would use that language, but since you used it with bottle, i think its a fair question.
How is it an irrational, arrogant, assumption on my part?

since there can be no earthly proof of god,
And you know this how?

why is one opinion superior to another?
Perhaps due to the fact that one is correct and the other is wrong?

As strange as this may sound: Physicists have long postulated that particles in our physical universe must coalesce and re-coalesce in the same patterns over and over again. That means that once a set of particles has been separated or modified, at some time it will be rearranged in the same configuration as before. In this sense, we are immortal, we are reincarnated, when we are dead, we are dead, and there is a God. We are, and we are not.
Each one of us is a set of unique particles that is indestructible.

there can be no earthly proof of god? What does that mean?

That there can be no proof, on earth, of god. It's really quite simple.


There is proof of God, just look around you. Yeah, maybe an explosion caused all of this... maybe a grenade into a room full of apple cider will go off, and when you enter the room, a perfectly assembled Webster's dictionary will be there, without a word missing.

Ah, yes, the "I don't know shit about physics, so I'm going to resort to bad analogies" approach. I haven't seen this one in a while, but it doesn't get any less chuckle-worthy every time I see it.


Or maybe we've never witnessed anything but microevolution, there is no proof in macroevolution, all other religions contain logical flaws and God did really send his Son to die for us, and there really is a Creator, and there is a Heaven and a Hell, and you're going to one either way.

*chuckle* We've never witnessed hell, heaven, or the creator either. Incidentally, in spite of your flawed understanding of the imaginary dividing line between "macro" and "micro" evolution, speciation has been observed. Unless by macroevolution you're going to start resorting to claims no scientist ever made or will ever make, that pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of your little...tirade.



Nah, that can't be right. That means I'd be accountable for myself. Atheism makes things so much easier. :rolleyes:

You are, if anything, more accountable for yourself in a world with no god than in one without. After all, you yourself said that despite being a despiccable, flawed, sinful human, you can be saved by telepathically telling your zombie master that you're his loyal servant, despite whatever horrible crimes you may have committed, either in his name or in spite of it.

there can be no earthly proof of god? What does that mean?

There is proof of God, just look around you. Yeah, maybe an explosion caused all of this... maybe a grenade into a room full of apple cider will go off, and when you enter the room, a perfectly assembled Webster's dictionary will be there, without a word missing.

Or maybe we've never witnessed anything but microevolution, there is no proof in macroevolution, all other religions contain logical flaws and God did really send his Son to die for us, and there really is a Creator, and there is a Heaven and a Hell, and you're going to one either way.

Nah, that can't be right. That means I'd be accountable for myself. Atheism makes things so much easier. :rolleyes:

uh

things existing is proof not only of "god" but the specific god of the bible?

how so?

(better to start a new thread than to hijack this one if you want to seriously defend that position)

You're mistaken. An agnostic is anyone who believes it is impossible to know whether or not god(s) exist. An atheist is either one who believes that gods do not exist, OR someone who simply does not believe in any gods.

Atheism in itself is illogical.

The point is: Atheists want to live a life without answering to someone, so they say there is no God or no proof for Him. We're all just a bunch of highly advanced animals, governed only by social standards.

Atheism means "without gods." Therefore, it's far more logical to say "there may be a God, but I don't know" than to say "there is no God" or "there is no proof for God".


Either way, you guys need a name change or a change or heart, because what you believe is bull that's been fed to you. You think you're a bunch of opinionated, intelligent and introspective people, when you're just as much sheep as the Catholic altar boy raised into a Catholic old man who would never dare change no matter what argument against Catholism is presented to him.

As strange as this may sound: Physicists have long postulated that particles in our physical universe must coalesce and re-coalesce in the same patterns over and over again. That means that once a set of particles has been separated or modified, at some time it will be rearranged in the same configuration as before. In this sense, we are immortal, we are reincarnated, when we are dead, we are dead, and there is a God. We are, and we are not.
Each one of us is a set of unique particles that is indestructible.

There's actually a very specific theorem related to this, that has not and can not ever be tested, and isn't actually held to be true by "Physicists." What I find most amusing about this post is the implication that I, a physicist, must somehow be plugged into the physicist hivemind and agree with everything going on in the physics community.

You know, not as if there's massive opposition in the community to string theory, or as if even something as useful and well-founded as quantum mechanics has its opposition from respected physicists.

No, clearly if one physicist puts forward an idea, we all must instantly believe in it, and defend it to our dying breath.

:rolleyes:

There is no life after death; or at least in terms of the traditional heaven and hell myths.

Or maybe we've never witnessed anything but microevolution, there is no proof in macroevolution

Hold it right there fella, didn't Darwin study the differences in finches on separate islands to show how evolution works? Now finches would not be micro organisms would they.



all other religions contain logical flaws and God did really send his Son to die for us, and there really is a Creator, and there is a Heaven and a Hell, and you're going to one either way.

As does Christianity.

Nah, that can't be right. That means I'd be accountable for myself. Atheism makes things so much easier. :rolleyes:

And that is really scary. Of course you are accountable for yourself, thats how God made it isn't it, free will and all.

Atheism in itself is illogical.

The point is: Atheists want to live a life without answering to someone, so they say there is no God or no proof for Him. We're all just a bunch of highly advanced animals, governed only by social standards.

Atheism means "without gods." Therefore, it's far more logical to say "there may be a God, but I don't know" than to say "there is no God" or "there is no proof for God".


Either way, you guys need a name change or a change or heart, because what you believe is bull that's been fed to you. You think you're a bunch of opinionated, intelligent and introspective people, when you're just as much sheep as the Catholic altar boy raised into a Catholic old man who would never dare change no matter what argument against Catholism is presented to him.

Hahahahah!

there can be no earthly proof of god? What does that mean?


There is proof of God, just look around you. Yeah, maybe an explosion caused all of this... maybe a grenade into a room full of apple cider will go off, and when you enter the room, a perfectly assembled Webster's dictionary will be there, without a word missing.

As a scientist, I would appreciate if you would actually take the time to learn about scientific theories before you insult the countless men and women who have spent their lifetimes exploring and examining the natural world.

It is dishonest and extremely rude of you to claim that the naturalist perspective on the universe is that "an explosion caused all of this." That is both a lie and also a slap in the face to every single scientist--theist and atheist alike--who has contributed to our understanding of reality.

If you have questions I would be happy to answer them as best I can. My background is primarily in vertebrate biology, but I have some fundamentals in chemistry, physics, and natural history. I do not claim to be an expert, but I can hopefully provide some basic information or sources which can give you more than the basics.


Or maybe we've never witnessed anything but microevolution, there is no proof in macroevolution, all other religions contain logical flaws and God did really send his Son to die for us, and there really is a Creator, and there is a Heaven and a Hell, and you're going to one either way.

1) Evolutionary theory, like all scientific theories, will never be proven. Science doesn't work that way. We can disprove a hypothesis or we can fail to disprove it.

2) You made a pretty amazing leap in this sentence of yours. How do you get from lack of proof of macroevolution to the assumption that the Christian God (which one?) is real?


Nah, that can't be right. That means I'd be accountable for myself. Atheism makes things so much easier. :rolleyes:
What does atheism have to do with lack of accountability?

I am held accountable by the laws of nature, since my choices will often result in inescapable consequences (example: if I choose not to dress properly in winter, I am likely to become ill). I am accountable to my friends, my family, my coworkers, my boss, and all the humans around me. Most importantly, I am accountable to my own conscience.

If you lack friends, family, other humans, and a conscience, and if pure pragmatism isn't enough to guide your actions, then I suppose you might find yourself with nobody and nothing to hold you accountable. I've yet to meet anybody like that, but you could be the first.

Atheism means "without gods." Therefore, it's far more logical to say "there may be a God, but I don't know" than to say "there is no God"

True. Of course, stating something is possible is a far cry from actually actively believing in it, let alone describing it in great detail and dismissing all alternatives.

Example:
1. I believe it is possible pixies exist, but doubt it.
2. I believe pixies exist and put milk out for them !
3. I believe pixies exist and that they are all blue, have one set of wings and came into being 5000 years ago when the great Lord Oberon founded his empire. Every other interpretation is heresy.

or "there is no proof for God".

Why ? There isn't. That is why people believe.

How is it an irrational, arrogant, assumption on my part?

it is as arrogant and irrational as bottle's opinon, in exactly the same way. if you would characterize her's as arrogant and irrational, then so is yours.

And you know this how?

through having no earthly evidence of god.


Perhaps due to the fact that one is correct and the other is wrong?

when you can prove that one is correct then you might have a point.

it is as arrogant and irrational as bottle's opinon, in exactly the same way. if you would characterize her's as arrogant and irrational, then so is yours.

Actually it is possible to interpret it as "it is extremely arrogant to state that there is no human on this planet that knows God".

That there can be no proof, on earth, of god. It's really quite simple.

Really quite bull, more like it. There can and is.


Ah, yes, the "I don't know shit about physics, so I'm going to resort to bad analogies" approach. I haven't seen this one in a while, but it doesn't get any less chuckle-worthy every time I see it.

I don't care about the fake and disproved physics that say unliving things can be changed to living things.


*chuckle* We've never witnessed hell, heaven, or the creator either. Incidentally, in spite of your flawed understanding of the imaginary dividing line between "macro" and "micro" evolution, speciation has been observed. Unless by macroevolution you're going to start resorting to claims no scientist ever made or will ever make, that pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of your little...tirade.


We've witnessed what he has created. If you can't believe the Bible, where the idea is a guy that's just more powerful than we can comprehend made us, then I'm surprised you're so quick to put all your faith in an explosion causing an eventual world in total balance and harmony.


You are, if anything, more accountable for yourself in a world with no god than in one without. After all, you yourself said that despite being a despiccable, flawed, sinful human, you can be saved by telepathically telling your zombie master that you're his loyal servant, despite whatever horrible crimes you may have committed, either in his name or in spite of it.

You obviously no nothing about what you're talking about. First, picking out "his name or inspite of it," that has nothing to do with anything, as si n is sin. Second, calling your Creator a zombie master isn't going to help you out much. Third, he created a system that would keep us out of Hell after our ancestor messed up big time. It's amazing how humans mock the greatest gift even given to man. And yeah, as corny as it sounds, it's true, and if you don't accept it, you will go to Hell.


uh

things existing is proof not only of "god" but the specific god of the bible?

how so?

(better to start a new thread than to hijack this one if you want to seriously defend that position)

Discussion of who the god(s) or God that created the world is is for another time, but it's still surprising that you find the concept of intelligent design so illogical. Again, just don't want to be subject to him apparently.

Atheism in itself is illogical.

Go ahead then, prove how it is illogical.

The point is: Atheists want to live a life without answering to someone, so they say there is no God or no proof for Him. We're all just a bunch of highly advanced animals, governed only by social standards.

Incorrect. Atheists, and I'm going to repeat this in bold so that it hopefully sinks in, DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD(S). There. See that? That's called a "fact" about atheists. What you just spewed, about answering to some mystical, invisible sky fairy, has no bearing on the beliefs of atheists. You are applying a definition that no sane, rational person would accept to a grouping term that already HAS an accepted definition.

You. Fucking. Fail.

Atheism means "without gods." Therefore, it's far more logical to say "there may be a God, but I don't know" than to say "there is no God" or "there is no proof for God".

Actually atheism falls into two main subsets, implicit and explicit atheism.
Implicit atheists do not believe in god(s).

This means that an implicit atheist (like GnI or myself) can say "there may be a god, as minute a possibility as that may be, but since I don't and can't ever know for sure, I won't believe in one of the thousands of possible gods out there."

Explicit atheists believe that god(s) do not exist.

Again. Fucking fail.

Either way, you guys need a name change or a change or heart, because what you believe is bull that's been fed to you. You think you're a bunch of opinionated, intelligent and introspective people, when you're just as much sheep as the Catholic altar boy raised into a Catholic old man who would never dare change no matter what argument against Catholism is presented to him.

Ah, I see. Rather than actually trying to present anything useful here, you decide to instead spew a paragraph (and a poorly written paragraph, no less) of worthless rhetoric, only adding to how horribly and totally you fail.

Out of curiosity, sparky, what is "a change or heart"? English not your thing?

Discussion of who the god(s) or God that created the world is is for another time, but it's still surprising that you find the concept of intelligent design so illogical. Again, just don't want to be subject to him apparently.

Surprising to you, perhaps. Really, though, that you're surprised by this isn't all that surprising.

The point is: Atheists want to live a life without answering to someone,

No, I don't. Nor do my parents (both atheist), my partner (atheist), or any of my atheist friends and peers.


so they say there is no God or no proof for Him. We're all just a bunch of highly advanced animals, governed only by social standards.

Yes, humans are animals. Yes, we are governed by social standards. We also are usually governed by our internal consciousness, though sometimes it can be interesting to try to say exactly where our internal opinions stop and the external information ends.


Atheism means "without gods." Therefore, it's far more logical to say "there may be a God, but I don't know" than to say "there is no God" or "there is no proof for God".

I don't understand your placement of "therefore" in this phrase.

It is simply a fact that there is no proof of God. Most theists will freely admit as much. (That's why it's called "faith," you know.) Some people note the lack of proof and choose to embrace faith in God. Others choose to be godless. Both can be rational choices.

The only people who are irrational are those who choose to CLAIM that proof (or conclusive disproof) exists, when it does not (and many of us believe it cannot).


Either way, you guys need a name change or a change or heart, because what you believe is bull that's been fed to you. You think you're a bunch of opinionated, intelligent and introspective people, when you're just as much sheep as the Catholic altar boy raised into a Catholic old man who would never dare change no matter what argument against Catholism is presented to him.
I do believe I'm opinionated and intelligent, but not because of my atheism or my agnosticism. Atheism doesn't cause a stupid person to magically become smart or anything like that.

It seems like you've got some very personal beef with atheists. I wish I could claim to care, but I don't. Listening to you make baseless generalizations about atheists is boring. Let's stick to more interesting subjects, shall we?

Discussion of who the god(s) or God that created the world is is for another time, but it's still surprising that you find the concept of intelligent design so illogical. Again, just don't want to be subject to him apparently.

what is so logical about a theory that supposes that everything was created by an uncreated creator?

Go ahead then, prove how it is illogical.

Just said it.

Incorrect. Atheists, and I'm going to repeat this in bold so that it hopefully sinks in, DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD(S). There. See that? That's called a "fact" about atheists. What you just spewed, about answering to some mystical, invisible sky fairy, has no bearing on the beliefs of atheists. You are applying a definition that no sane, rational person would accept to a grouping term that already HAS an accepted definition.

You. Fucking. Fail.

Uh, no.

Actually atheism falls into two main subsets, implicit and explicit atheism.
Implicit atheists do not believe in god(s).

This means that an implicit atheist (like GnI or myself) can say "there may be a god, as minute a possibility as that may be, but since I don't and can't ever know for sure, I won't believe in one of the thousands of possible gods out there."

Explicit atheists believe that god(s) do not exist.

Again. Fucking fail.

Excuse for wrong categorization, but the "no god-ers" are what I'm used to.

Ah, I see. Rather than actually trying to present anything useful here, you decide to instead spew a paragraph (and a poorly written paragraph, no less) of worthless rhetoric, only adding to how horribly and totally you fail.

Out of curiosity, sparky, what is "a change or heart"? English not your thing?

Horribly spelled because of a misplaced r?

Yeah, okay.

what is so logical about a theory that supposes that everything was created by an uncreated creator?

Because this shit can't just fall into place in perfect balance.

Because this shit can't just fall into place in perfect balance.
Who is claiming it did?

Please, point to the specific naturalist theory which states that everything in the universe "just fell into place in perfect balance."

While you're at it, you might want to do another little bit of research. There's this passage of the Bible I'm trying to remember and maybe you can find it for me...something about "bearing false witness" or something like that...

Because this shit can't just fall into place in perfect balance.

You used that phrase earlier along with harmony. Do you really believe that we live in a perfectly balanced, harmonious world then?

which IT are we talking about?

i get lost rather easily.

The clown of course.

Actually it is possible to interpret it as "it is extremely arrogant to state that there is no human on this planet that knows God".

which IT are we talking about?

i get lost rather easily.

You used that phrase earlier along with harmony. Do you really believe that we live in a perfectly balanced, harmonious world then?
I can't speak for him, but I can tell you that science sure as fuck doesn't think that.

Hell, evolutionary theory (which he was bitching about earlier) specifically states that there WON'T be evolution if a species is in perfect balance with its environment. Evolution occurs because of the LACK of perfect balance.

huh?

and that means there MUST be an uncreated creator because....

ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE
(1) I don't understand evolution; I mean how could there be nothing then something?
(2) (Well informed Atheist gives articulate explanation of evolution and gently explains that the beginning of the universe has nothing to do with evolution.)
(3) Well it seems way too complicated and unlikely to me. Plus I don't want to live my life thinking I evolved from a monkey.
(4) Therefore, God exists and Jesus died for our sins.
(5) (Atheist argues that theist's ignorance of evolution does not logically lead to the conclusion that there is a god, let alone the Christian god.)
(6) Says you! God bless.
(7) Therefore, God exists.

-http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Because this shit can't just fall into place in perfect balance.

huh?

and that means there MUST be an uncreated creator because....

it is as arrogant and irrational as bottle's opinon, in exactly the same way. if you would characterize her's as arrogant and irrational, then so is yours.
I disagree. I humbly stated what I believe to be true. Bottle statement was indeed an irrational, arrogant, assumption:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13342751&postcount=240

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13343355&postcount=246

through having no earthly evidence of god.
As far as you know, there is none. That does not mean that there IS none.

when you can prove that one is correct then you might have a point.
I do not have to prove anything. One of is right and the other is wrong period.

I disagree. I humbly stated what I believe to be true. Bottle statement was indeed an irrational, arrogant, assumption:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13342751&postcount=240

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13343355&postcount=246

You've yet to establish anything irrational or arrogant about either of those posts.

Simply stating that you think they are doesn't actually count as evidence of anything more than your opinion.

You also have still failed to explain why it's arrogant for me to assert that I am equally qualified to judge on this subject, while you are not arrogant for asserting that you are MORE qualified to do so than anybody who has reached a conclusion different from your own.


I do not have to prove anything. One of is right and the other is wrong period.
Again, simply stating something doesn't really accomplish much. Why bother posting if you aren't going to say anything?

I disagree. I humbly stated what I believe to be true. Bottle statement was indeed an irrational, arrogant, assumption:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13342751&postcount=240

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13343355&postcount=246


As far as you know, there is none. That does not mean that there IS none.


I do not have to prove anything. One of is right and the other is wrong period.

well then when there IS proof and when one CAN be shown to be correct, ill worry about it.

until then, im not going to hold my breath wating for it.

You can be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist
I've never understood that. Agnostic athiest, sure. I usually could agnosticism as a subset of atheism. But agnostic theism I don't understand.

How can you believe something to be true while being aware of your uncertainty?

Maybe I just don't understand how belief works (if pressed, I might argue that it doesn't).

I've never understood that. Agnostic athiest, sure. I usually could agnosticism as a subset of atheism. But agnostic theism I don't understand.

How can you believe something to be true while being aware of your uncertainty?

Maybe I just don't understand how belief works (if pressed, I might argue that it doesn't).

Agnosticism isn't being uncertain, it's believing that one can never know whether there is a god/s with total certainty. Which makes sense if god is an entity outside our universe/not bound by its rules.

You've yet to establish anything irrational or arrogant about either of those posts.
I have been reading your arrogant mockery of religion for almost 4 years now. Those posts are standard fare for you. Proclaiming that God does not exist is arrogant and irrational, since you cannot prove your assertion.

Simply stating that you think they are doesn't actually count as evidence of anything more than your opinion.
Definitely my opinion. Others may agree or disagree if they wish. It doesn't really matter. I am just calling you on your shit. :D

You also have still failed to explain why it's arrogant for me to assert that I am equally qualified to judge on this subject,
I didn't say that you weren't qualified to make a judgment, I stated that you were not qualfied to make any proclamation as to the non-existence of God.

while you are not arrogant for asserting that you are MORE qualified to do so than anybody who has reached a conclusion different from your own.
I never suggested that I was more qualified than you. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Again, simply stating something doesn't really accomplish much. Why bother posting if you aren't going to say anything?
One could ask you the same question? What have you accomplished over the past 4 years posting on this topic? Got a slew of notches on your holster? And since you don't believe in life after death, I find it kind of ironic that you are wasting your precious time trying to tell people like me that there is no God. More irrational thinking?

Agnosticism isn't being uncertain, it's believing that one can never know whether there is a god/s with total certainty.
So agnosticism is not uncertainty, it's awareness of uncertainty. Which necessarily requires uncertainty.

Where's the belief?

So agnosticism is not uncertainty, it's awareness of uncertainty. Which necessarily requires uncertainty.

Where's the belief?

well, you can see from this forum that for some people the belief that the universe must have a creator leads them to believe that it is the bliblical god with jesus as his son and our messiah.

for a theistic agnostic, the belief that there must be a "god" does NOT lead them to a specific belief. they realize that there is no way to know just what this thing that we label "god" is. so they carry no specific belief about the nature of that which they know must exist.

as opposed to the atheistic agnostic who knows that there is no way to know what "god" might be if "god" exists at all. they have no belief in any god so they are atheists even though they acknowledge that if "god" should exist, there is no way for them to know it.

So agnosticism is not uncertainty, it's awareness of uncertainty. Which necessarily requires uncertainty.
No, it's believing that it is impossible to ever be certain about certain things, most often the existence of god/gods.

Where's the belief?

No, it's believing that it is impossible to ever be certain about certain things, most often the existence of god/gods.

It is one thing to claim that you believe that there is/are no God(s), and quite another to proclaim that there is/are no God(s). Although you have every right to make such a proclamation, I don't see where you are qualified to do so.
Yes. Well actually, no. I mean, yes. Err...
While I agree that it is impossible to prove through science or mathematical logic there is or is not an Abrahamic God, that it is just a belief, et cetera, et cetera, I think anyone who really believes or disbelieves in one "knows" He exists. What I mean by that is that to a truly devout Christian, the fact that God exists is just as much a fact as whether or not the material world around them exists. Sure, they may have doubts, just as people may have doubts about the existence of the material world, but for all intents and purposes, it is a known fact. And while I can't speak from experience, I imagine that other religions, including atheism, have something similar.

Now, only one of these groups is right: either God exists or He doesn't. And to state your belief as fact, especially with something as touchy a subject as this, is a little tactless. But belief is not the same thing as uncertainty.

While purusing the list of atheists who voted on this poll, it would appear that the greater percentage of votes derive from puppet accounts. My guess is that anywhere from 50 to 75% of voters are puppet accounts. My guesstimate is based on the number of posts by a voter, posts per day by voter, their last post to NSG and their join date. So many zero posts, and so many of these: Total Posts: 11 (0.02 posts per day) Join Date: 26-04-2006.

I surmise that there are a lot less atheists on this board than there appears to be. Either that or they would rather just vote in polls rather than debate their views.

While purusing the list of atheists who voted on this poll, it would appear that the greater percentage of votes derive from puppet accounts. My guess is that anywhere from 50 to 75% of voters are puppet accounts. My guesstimate is based on the number of posts by a voter, posts per day by voter, their last post to NSG and their join date. So many zero posts, and so many of these: Total Posts: 11 (0.02 posts per day) Join Date: 26-04-2006.

I surmise that there are a lot less atheists on this board than there appears to be. Either that or they would rather just vote in polls rather than debate their views.

...Why does that matter?

And maybe there are just lurkers who decided to vote?

While purusing the list of atheists who voted on this poll, it would appear that the greater percentage of votes derive from puppet accounts. My guess is that anywhere from 50 to 75% of voters are puppet accounts. My guesstimate is based on the number of posts by a voter, posts per day by voter, their last post to NSG and their join date. So many zero posts, and so many of these: Total Posts: 11 (0.02 posts per day) Join Date: 26-04-2006.

I surmise that there are a lot less atheists on this board than there appears to be. Either that or they would rather just vote in polls rather than debate their views.
Or perhaps the poll options are insufficient, as GnI pointed out earlier. I've been participating in this thread a fair bit, but I didn't vote in the poll because none of the options are accurate statements for me.

I have been reading your arrogant mockery of religion for almost 4 years now. Those posts are standard fare for you. Proclaiming that God does not exist is arrogant and irrational, since you cannot prove your assertion.

Would you prefer that god most likely doesn't exist, due to a major lack of physical & scientific evidence?

One could ask you the same question? What have you accomplished over the past 4 years posting on this topic? Got a slew of notches on your holster? And since you don't believe in life after death, I find it kind of ironic that you are wasting your precious time trying to tell people like me that there is no God. More irrational thinking?

...Its not like she's gonna drop dead tommorow?

I surmise that there are a lot less atheists on this board than there appears to be. Either that or they would rather just vote in polls rather than debate their views.
There's plenty of reasons why this should be the case; your poll is hardly scientific.

I have been reading your arrogant mockery of religion for almost 4 years now. Those posts are standard fare for you. Proclaiming that God does not exist is arrogant and irrational, since you cannot prove your assertion.

Good thing I don't assert that.

One would think that four years of reading my posts would have clued you in to that, seeing as how it's pretty much the center point of my religious views.


Definitely my opinion. Others may agree or disagree if they wish. It doesn't really matter. I am just calling you on your shit. :D

Again, your opinion does not constitute "calling me on my shit," any more than my personal dislike of broccoli might constitute a valid criticism of a chef's efforts. Just because YOU don't like something doesn't mean it's shit.


I didn't say that you weren't qualified to make a judgment, I stated that you were not qualfied to make any proclamation as to the non-existence of God.

Sure I am. We're all equally qualified to make proclamations about the existence of God. This is because no qualification is necessary on this subject, save for a grasp of the linguistic concepts at issue.

Of course, all of this is irrelevant since I'm not actually making a proclamation about the existence of God. I do make proclamations about certain IMAGES of God which are internally inconsistent and/or logically impossible, or which are falsifiable by virtue of their own definitions, but I think "god" is a word that means whatever the fuck each person wants it to mean. It's impossible to disprove the existence of "god," because "god" can be anything and everything.

Which I've been saying all along, for all the years I've been here. Read more carefully.


One could ask you the same question? What have you accomplished over the past 4 years posting on this topic?

I've examined my own views and tested my own reasoning many times over.

I've learned about the beliefs and the philosophical reasoning of the people who share this world with me, and come to understand how people may reach some of the different conclusions on this topic.

I've gotten to know people who I respect profoundly, yet who differ with me on this subject, and I've learned about how that is possible.

On many occasions I have been told that I directly and significantly impacted another person's world view on this subject. Two people (on separate occasions) told me I "converted" them, though I take that with a grain of salt.

I've had fun.


Got a slew of notches on your holster?

Is that what you're after? Because I'm not. That might explain why we butt heads on this subject.


And since you don't believe in life after death, I find it kind of ironic that you are wasting your precious time trying to tell people like me that there is no God.

There are several misconceptions in this single sentence.

1) You assume that lack of belief in life after death would somehow require me to dislike "wasting time." Why? I like to waste time every now and then. It can be quite relaxing.

2) You assume it would be a waste of time to try to tell other people there is no God. I don't know that this is the case.

3) You assume that I'm posting in these topics to tell people like you that there is no God. I'm not.

4) You (somewhat arrogantly) assume that my purpose in these threads is to convince people like you of something. It's not. I sometimes manage to do that anyhow, but it's not really something that's high on my list of priorities.


More irrational thinking?
Why do you continue with this riff? You're obviously not interested in providing any evidence of this, so you're obviously not interested in convincing anybody else (least of all me). So are you just doing it to be annoying? Are you doing it because it makes you feel good? If so, why?

I'll admit, I was annoy by it for a bit, but now I'm just curious. I can't figure out why you'd bother.

I've never understood that. Agnostic athiest, sure. I usually could agnosticism as a subset of atheism. But agnostic theism I don't understand.

How can you believe something to be true while being aware of your uncertainty?

Maybe I just don't understand how belief works (if pressed, I might argue that it doesn't).

Simple - you acknowledge that, while you believe in god (or gods), you admit you don't think it will ever be possible to be SURE (at least, within our mortal confines).

How can one measure an infinite god? How can one verify that what one knows of God, describes his (her) totality?

We should all admit to a degree of agnosticism.

Atheism in itself is illogical.

The point is: Atheists want to live a life without answering to someone, so they say there is no God or no proof for Him. We're all just a bunch of highly advanced animals, governed only by social standards.

Atheism means "without gods." Therefore, it's far more logical to say "there may be a God, but I don't know" than to say "there is no God" or "there is no proof for God".


"Theism" would be a belief in gods. A-theism would be a lack of belief in gods.


Either way, you guys need a name change or a change or heart, because what you believe is bull that's been fed to you. You think you're a bunch of opinionated, intelligent and introspective people, when you're just as much sheep as the Catholic altar boy raised into a Catholic old man who would never dare change no matter what argument against Catholism is presented to him.

I used to be a Christian. I arrived at atheism through years of self-study, and individual study of the available evidence. Nothing was fed to me.

And you know this how?


God is beyond our finite reality - if he really is omnipresent, omniscient, omnisexual or whatever. The infinite cannot be measured or verified in our finite capacity.

Thus - there can be no earthly proof of god.

Good thing I don't assert that.

One would think that four years of reading my posts would have clued you in to that, seeing as how it's pretty much the center point of my religious views.

Again, your opinion does not constitute "calling me on my shit," any more than my personal dislike of broccoli might constitute a valid criticism of a chef's efforts. Just because YOU don't like something doesn't mean it's shit.

Sure I am. We're all equally qualified to make proclamations about the existence of God. This is because no qualification is necessary on this subject, save for a grasp of the linguistic concepts at issue.

Of course, all of this is irrelevant since I'm not actually making a proclamation about the existence of God. I do make proclamations about certain IMAGES of God which are internally inconsistent and/or logically impossible, or which are falsifiable by virtue of their own definitions, but I think "god" is a word that means whatever the fuck each person wants it to mean. It's impossible to disprove the existence of "god," because "god" can be anything and everything.

Which I've been saying all along, for all the years I've been here. Read more carefully.

I've examined my own views and tested my own reasoning many times over.

I've learned about the beliefs and the philosophical reasoning of the people who share this world with me, and come to understand how people may reach some of the different conclusions on this topic.

I've gotten to know people who I respect profoundly, yet who differ with me on this subject, and I've learned about how that is possible.

On many occasions I have been told that I directly and significantly impacted another person's world view on this subject. Two people (on separate occasions) told me I "converted" them, though I take that with a grain of salt.

I've had fun.

Is that what you're after? Because I'm not. That might explain why we butt heads on this subject.

There are several misconceptions in this single sentence.

1) You assume that lack of belief in life after death would somehow require me to dislike "wasting time." Why? I like to waste time every now and then. It can be quite relaxing.

2) You assume it would be a waste of time to try to tell other people there is no God. I don't know that this is the case.

3) You assume that I'm posting in these topics to tell people like you that there is no God. I'm not.

4) You (somewhat arrogantly) assume that my purpose in these threads is to convince people like you of something. It's not. I sometimes manage to do that anyhow, but it's not really something that's high on my list of priorities.

Why do you continue with this riff? You're obviously not interested in providing any evidence of this, so you're obviously not interested in convincing anybody else (least of all me). So are you just doing it to be annoying? Are you doing it because it makes you feel good? If so, why?

I'll admit, I was annoy by it for a bit, but now I'm just curious. I can't figure out why you'd bother.
Why do I continue? Like I said, I am just calling you on your shit. I wish I had lots of time to make a fully detailed reply, but unfortunately I just don't have as much time on my hands like I used to.

And you did make a proclamation to the non-existence of God.
And you do mock people of faith.
And you do so arrogantly, by questioning their intelligence.
And I do read your posts carefully because you like to play with words.

And although you call yourself an atheist now, two years ago you stated that you're an agnostic (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10270135&postcount=70), yet your posts were certainly not reflective of an agnostic. As a result, someone called you on your shit then too (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10270526&postcount=74).

And while I can respect your atheism, you seem to have zero tolerance for those of faith (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10269812&postcount=62). You like to "belittle" those who don't share your views.

And there is a neat little summary (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10271225&postcount=81).

In conclusion, all I can say is that there is A God and you are not Him/Her. And no, I can't prove that to you, but it is what I believe. :D

God is beyond our finite reality - if he really is omnipresent, omniscient, omnisexual or whatever. The infinite cannot be measured or verified in our finite capacity.
I can agree with that.

Thus - there can be no earthly proof of god.
I disagree. Some would say take a look around you and marvel at all of God's creations. Others might suggest that the proof is there, yet we have not discovered it.

...Why does that matter?

And maybe there are just lurkers who decided to vote?
I noted one voter who has 7 posts in 3 years. Lurk-gasmic.
And although you call yourself an atheist now, two years ago you stated that you're an agnostic (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10270135&postcount=70), yet your posts were certainly not reflective of an agnostic.

I'll leave the rest of the post to Bottle, since it seems to deal with you knowing her beliefs and posting history better than her. Whatever. I'm going to go after my pet peeve; the misuse of the word agnostic and its cognates.

You seem to suggest that Bottle's claim to be an atheist is somehow invalidated by a previous claim of being agnostic. This implies that one cannot be an atheist and an agnostic. This is about as wrong as it is humanly possible to be without the universe rejecting you like a badly transplanted organ(sorry, I've been watching zero punctuation). While being gnostic or agnostic is related to being a theist or atheist, they are totally different things. Kind of like how being tall or short is related to being overweight or underweight, except not that closely related(but feck off, I can't think of a better analogy).

The point is: Atheists want to live a life without answering to someone, so they say there is no God or no proof for Him. We're all just a bunch of highly advanced animals, governed only by social standards.Heh. Prove it, and then, prove otherwise.

Either way, you guys need a name change or a change or heart, because what you believe is bull that's been fed to you. You think you're a bunch of opinionated, intelligent and introspective people, when you're just as much sheep as the Catholic altar boy raised into a Catholic old man who would never dare change no matter what argument against Catholism is presented to him.Sounds like someone's kinda wounded about the way things really are, and prefers instead to have a fantastic control structure in place to make them feel more important.
Just sounds that way, anyway.

haven't voted since i am no atheist (or at least i don't think i am one)... But i don't believe in religion, so maybe i am?

About the poll, i do think the possibility "i am an atheist and i really don't know" is missing ;)

haven't voted since i am no atheist (or at least i don't think i am one)... But i don't believe in religion, so maybe i am?
I don't expect non-atheists to vote. You can believe in a god or creator without believing in a "religion".

About the poll, i do think the possibility "i am an atheist and i really don't know" is missing ;)
I wasn't looking for any maybe votes.

I disagree. Some would say take a look around you and marvel at all of God's creations. Others might suggest that the proof is there, yet we have not discovered it.

1) "look around and marvel at all... creation". Good idea - it is evidence, though - not proof.

2) ...and not defeinitvely evidence of your 'god'. It's just as good as evidence of a thousand others.

3) If god is infinite, how could we possibly EVER get definitive proof? ANY proof we got MUST be finite, and thus must - by definition - fail to prove the infinite nature of god. If we can't verify ALL of god, how do we know we are 'proving' the right one, or accurately proving the one we think we're proving?

I wasn't looking for any maybe votes.

You weren't really looking for anything that represented the actual positions, apparently.

There is no option to show atheists like Bottle or I - there is no way to know quite how many people simply chose not to vote in your broken poll - except where we have implicitly stated such. As such - your statistics are broken, because your sample size is greater than the number of votes cast... but with no way to work out HOW MANY votes were left unused.

Similarly - your statistics are also wrong on another front - since your options were 'believe there to be no after' or 'believe there to be an afterlife', anyone for whom it simply isn't a matter of belief must either abstain (an uncounted vote), or cast a vote for a 'belief' - despite that clearly being the wrong answer. It then becomes a matter of picking pretty much equally objectionable statements of faith. How many of the people that voted for either option REALLY feel that way? Did you corroborate votes against posts, and only accept those that explicitly stated their vote was an actual representation of their beliefs? I doubt it.


The poll is clearly broken, unrepresentative, and ultimately worthless. The worrying thing is - you seem to be willing to defend that. It makes me wonder what your real agenda is - it clearly isn't pursuit of truth.

And you did make a proclamation to the non-existence of God.
And you do mock people of faith.
And you do so arrogantly, by questioning their intelligence.
And I do read your posts carefully because you like to play with words.

Im sorry, where you NOT just calling Bottle arrogant for her outspokenness against your faith?

Pot, kettle, black much?

If mocking people for believing in silly fairy tales is wrong, baby, I dont wanna be right.
It would be no different for any christian who ever mocked any other religion, or wishing a muslim a "merry christmas" or some such silliness.

Course, historically speaking, a christians idea of friendly mocking someones religion, usually involved burning them to death.

No - the difference is not sophistry.

If I believe something, I hold it to be true.

If I believe there is an absence of a thing (like god), it means I hold it to be true that there is no god.

If I have an absence of belief regarding a thing (like god), it means I do NOT hold a position to be true... I neither claim there to be NO god, nor accept a god. It's the default setting - it's what you have when the concept of god is unrecognised. It's what is left when there is no faith for or against 'gods'.Late reply here..

You misunderstood me, though perhaps I should have written "lack of sophistry". The difference between the original statement & your correction, is that the original is carefully worded to present it as a positive claim, thus committing the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

In other words, I was simply backing you up.

Simple - you acknowledge that, while you believe in god (or gods), you admit you don't think it will ever be possible to be SURE (at least, within our mortal confines).

How can one measure an infinite god? How can one verify that what one knows of God, describes his (her) totality?

We should all admit to a degree of agnosticism.
I was honestly surprised to learn how many theists hold ignorant or negative views of agnosticism, since I though agnosticism was like a central part of at least the Abrahamic religions. I mean, they're all about FAITH, and if you actually know for a fact that God exists then you can't really have faith. If you have proof of God, then faith isn't necessary, and I thought the "leap of faith" was key to those belief systems. Hell, whenever I ask "Why doesn't God just show up and let us know he's real," they respond that this would remove the need for FAITH.

So I always thought they would self-identify as agnostic theists. But many of them are offended when I suggest that.

And you did make a proclamation to the non-existence of God.

Feel free to quote it.


And you do mock people of faith.

I mock pretty much everybody, including myself.


And you do so arrogantly, by questioning their intelligence.

It is not necessarily arrogant to question another person's intelligence, for one thing, but for another I actually don't question the intelligence of people of faith. I know, from personal experience, that a great many very smart people also believe in God/gods/pixies. One of the smartest women I know is also a part-time ghost buster. I'm not making that up.


And I do read your posts carefully because you like to play with words.

It honestly seems that you have completely missed some of the most fundamental points in what I post. I would assume this is because I'm being too playful with words, except that so many other people have understood me just fine. If you want to ask me questions when something is unclear, I would be happy to answer them. For whatever it is worth, I do my absolute best to never mock people who are asking honest questions. I don't believe there is any shame whatsoever in admitted that you don't know something, or in asking somebody who you think might know it.


And although you call yourself an atheist now, two years ago you stated that you're an agnostic (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10270135&postcount=70), yet your posts were certainly not reflective of an agnostic. As a result, someone called you on your shit then too (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10270526&postcount=74).
See, and this is what I'm talking about.

PAGES of this thread were spent explaining how agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. I personally posted about how I am an AGNOSTIC ATHEIST. In this thread. Right in front of you.

How can you expect me to believe that you read my posts carefully, when I specifically and directly addressed this, yet you still claim that your misunderstanding of the terms constitutes "calling me on my shit"?


And while I can respect your atheism, you seem to have zero tolerance for those of faith (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10269812&postcount=62). You like to "belittle" those who don't share your views.

I belittle those who do share my views, too. I make fun of just about everyone. If you'd really been reading my posts for four years, you'd know that.

But I also am very tolerant of people of faith. As evidenced by how I totally disagree with their beliefs, yet I also staunchly support their right to hold those beliefs, to practice their faith in the appropriate venues without government or outside interference, and to live their lives as they see fit (provided they follow the same laws as the rest of us). That's what tolerance is. It doesn't mean you have to LIKE somebody. It doesn't require that you RESPECT them, or AGREE with them. Tolerance is what you get when people don't particularly like each other or agree with each other, but they agree to give each other some fucking breathing room and get on with their lives. That's what I do. I'm just loud about it.


And there is a neat little summary (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10271225&postcount=81).
I gotta say, I do appreciate you posting some of these links. That one of me going off on Joc was particularly fun to read.

I also have noticed several places where my views have changed. For instance, in one of those rants I said that I lose all respect for a person who embraces superstition. That's not true any more. I do lose respect for them, but not all of it. I've become more tolerant over the years, and I think NSG has actually had a part in that.


In conclusion, all I can say is that there is A God and you are not Him/Her. And no, I can't prove that to you, but it is what I believe. :D
Why bother to conclude with this? At least the rest of your post contained real points, with links even, and substance that could be discussed. This last little bit is no different than you saying, "All I can say is that you're a big poopy head and that's what I think so there." Yeah, great, you have an opinion, congrats on that.

The poll is clearly broken, unrepresentative, and ultimately worthless. The worrying thing is - you seem to be willing to defend that. It makes me wonder what your real agenda is - it clearly isn't pursuit of truth.
After pages of explanation on agnosticism and atheism, he still wants to claim that it's not possible for me to be an agnostic atheist. Truth clearly does not figure into this fellow's agenda in any form.

The next time a theist makes a thread whining about how everybody assumes the religious are willfully ignorant, I'm linking to this thread. It's basically a 20+ page example of a Believer sticking their fingers in their ears and going "la la la" while claiming to be interested in discussion.

You weren't really looking for anything that represented the actual positions, apparently.

There is no option to show atheists like Bottle or I - there is no way to know quite how many people simply chose not to vote in your broken poll - except where we have implicitly stated such. As such - your statistics are broken, because your sample size is greater than the number of votes cast... but with no way to work out HOW MANY votes were left unused.

Similarly - your statistics are also wrong on another front - since your options were 'believe there to be no after' or 'believe there to be an afterlife', anyone for whom it simply isn't a matter of belief must either abstain (an uncounted vote), or cast a vote for a 'belief' - despite that clearly being the wrong answer. It then becomes a matter of picking pretty much equally objectionable statements of faith. How many of the people that voted for either option REALLY feel that way? Did you corroborate votes against posts, and only accept those that explicitly stated their vote was an actual representation of their beliefs? I doubt it.


The poll is clearly broken, unrepresentative, and ultimately worthless. The worrying thing is - you seem to be willing to defend that. It makes me wonder what your real agenda is - it clearly isn't pursuit of truth.
Nice rant, but I do not agree with your conclusions. The fact that you and Bottle, and a few others are unsure, uncertain, and/or are confused as to whether you believe there is an afterlife or not is irrelevant. Perhaps it is an indication that you do not want to be pinned down to any kind of belief?

As I asked another poster (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13338588&postcount=208), so shall I ask you:

"Okay then, what poll option would you write for yourself and what would your answer be?"

Here is the OP to help you out (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13329608&postcount=1).

Some atheists appear to have no problem voting and giving their response, such as Ashmoria (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13329645&postcount=13).

I was honestly surprised to learn how many theists hold ignorant or negative views of agnosticism, since I though agnosticism was like a central part of at least the Abrahamic religions. I mean, they're all about FAITH, and if you actually know for a fact that God exists then you can't really have faith. If you have proof of God, then faith isn't necessary, and I thought the "leap of faith" was key to those belief systems. Hell, whenever I ask "Why doesn't God just show up and let us know he's real," they respond that this would remove the need for FAITH.
I totally disagree. If God was standing right in front of me, despite that being a totally awesome experience, my faith would be still be required and greatly strengthened. Such an experience would also help me to spread the faith to others.

So I always thought they would self-identify as agnostic theists. But many of them are offended when I suggest that.
And I can understand why they would be offended if they in fact believe in the existence of a particular God(s).

I totally disagree. If God was standing right in front of me, despite that being a totally awesome experience, my faith would be still be required and greatly strengthened.

Sorry, but your faith would be required? Just what sort of statement is that to supossed to be? If you don't say to yourself the whole time what a good bloke god is, baby jesus will cry? Or is he just worried that he might run out of male groupies?

I totally disagree. If God was standing right in front of me, despite that being a totally awesome experience, my faith would be still be required and greatly strengthened. Such an experience would also help me to spread the faith to others.
That wouldn't be faith, that'd be acknowledging a fact. I don't have faith that I'm sitting in front of my computer, because I can plainly see the computer in front of me, and the chair underneath me. I don't have faith that I'm wearing my ring, because I can feel it, and see it. Similarly, if I were to turn around and discover God standing behind me, I would not need faith to conclude that he exists.


Well, I wouldn't accept him as god right away, but that's beside the point.


And I can understand why they would be offended if they in fact believe in the existence of a particular God(s).
Why would it be offensive to a theist to suggest that they are agnostic? Unless of course that theist had a flawed understand about what exactly the word agnostic means, something common among theists and atheists.

The fact that you and Bottle, and a few others are unsure, uncertain, and/or are confused as to whether you believe there is an afterlife or not is irrelevant. Perhaps it is an indication that you do not want to be pinned down to any kind of belief?
No, it is just that we do not HAVE any beliefs, when we have no good evidence either one way or the other, nor any strong interest in the subject. And this is true of the majority of the group you pretend you want to study (in my subjective impression, but I do believe that I know a lot more people who lack any traditional religious beliefs, and know more about them than you do).

Perhaps we should re-run this poll with an option for "I neither believe nor disbelieve", or perhaps two such options: "I don't know, but would like to know (if it is possible to know)" and "I don't know, and really don't care."
Assuming those 3 options were on the poll, which option would you choose?

While purusing the list of atheists who voted on this poll, it would appear that the greater percentage of votes derive from puppet accounts. My guess is that anywhere from 50 to 75% of voters are puppet accounts. My guesstimate is based on the number of posts by a voter, posts per day by voter, their last post to NSG and their join date. So many zero posts, and so many of these: Total Posts: 11 (0.02 posts per day) Join Date: 26-04-2006.

I surmise that there are a lot less atheists on this board than there appears to be. Either that or they would rather just vote in polls rather than debate their views.
No fair! It's not my fault that my puppet happens to be an atheist.

But I also am very tolerant of people of faith. As evidenced by how I totally disagree with their beliefs, yet I also staunchly support their right to hold those beliefs, to practice their faith in the appropriate venues without government or outside interference, and to live their lives as they see fit (provided they follow the same laws as the rest of us). That's what tolerance is. It doesn't mean you have to LIKE somebody. It doesn't require that you RESPECT them, or AGREE with them. Tolerance is what you get when people don't particularly like each other or agree with each other, but they agree to give each other some fucking breathing room and get on with their lives. That's what I do. I'm just loud about it.

I also have noticed several places where my views have changed. For instance, in one of those rants I said that I lose all respect for a person who embraces superstition. That's not true any more. I do lose respect for them, but not all of it. I've become more tolerant over the years, and I think NSG has actually had a part in that.
You have become more tolerant? The following post from a couple of days ago suggests otherwise.

No, you don't. You know that you experienced something which you are choosing to name "God."

I really wish people would quit claiming that their personal, subjective "faith" experiences had anything to do with knowing about the existence of God.

You don't know shit about whether or not God exists. None of us do. If something happened that made you want to believe in God, that's your business. Good for you. But, given that you've rejected Catholicism, you probably shouldn't start off your new-found life of faith by lying so blatantly and arrogantly to random strangers.
Yeah....how tolerant of you. How arrogant of you to try and discount the posters personal experience. Also, you failed to reply a few subsequent posts:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13343430&postcount=53

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13343487&postcount=56

Well, I'd like to point out she wasn't attacking him directly, nor was she attacking him for believing in God at all. She was attacking his claim that God exists due to a totally subjective experience that was not actually related to God existing at all.
And she did explicitly state all this (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13343402&postcount=50).
What do you expect her to do, congratulate the guy?

EDIT: And of course, the very next post points out it is really nitpicking over semantics. (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13343416&postcount=51)

EDIT2: And in my totally subjective opinion, you are every bit as arrogant as Bottle was at her worst, and a whole lot less vulnerable to logic.
And the poll sucks because you don't have "I am an atheist and do not believe in life after death." You could even replace, "I am an atheist and believe there is no life after death."

Im sorry, where you NOT just calling Bottle arrogant for her outspokenness against your faith?

Pot, kettle, black much?

If mocking people for believing in silly fairy tales is wrong, baby, I dont wanna be right.
It would be no different for any christian who ever mocked any other religion, or wishing a muslim a "merry christmas" or some such silliness.

Course, historically speaking, a christians idea of friendly mocking someones religion, usually involved burning them to death.

I always wonder why people think it's so appropriate to treat Christians as if they were a homogenous group, when those same people would be wildly upset by such treatment of other groups.

Quick tell me when I've mocked other beliefs regarding the existence of god(s). Wait, don't answer that. I mean, tell me when I've done it when I wasn't just being playful.

I promise not to lump you in with lunatics who claim to believe things that are similar to you or call their beliefs by the same name as your beliefs. How about you extend me the same courtesy? If I ever call YOU a lunatic, it'll be because YOU will have demonstrated that YOU are (not calling you one, by the way).

I also won't judge you by people who look like you, or have the same sex organs as you, or were the same color clothes as you, etc. It's wildly illogical to group individuals with a faith system they actually broke away from. A large portion of Christians broke away from the Catholic Church, the orthadox Christian organization that committed most of the atrocities that people attribute to ALL Christians, instead of just the groups that did. What more is required than leaving that group and forming another non-political entity. Or in my case breaking away from being affilitiated with any organized church.

EDIT: Have you argument with Canuck if you like, particularly to point the error in his definition of agnosticism, but how about you don't attack everyone because a subsection of some group hurt you.

Me: Perhaps we should re-run this poll with an option for "I neither believe nor disbelieve", or perhaps two such options: "I don't know, but would like to know (if it is possible to know)" and "I don't know, and really don't care."

Canuck: Assuming those 3 options were on the poll, which option would you choose?

I am more in the "don't care" category. I do what I think is right in this life, and am not to be influenced in my behavior by speculations about invisible otherworlds. If there is an afterlife, I will go where people who try to help other people go. If not, I will try to help other people anyway, for their sakes, not on account of any bribe I am offered for it.

I see no reason to think so, as there is not any evidence for one.When will people learn they neither can prove that the other one is wrong, save for evolution and a number of medical pratices.:rolleyes:

I always wonder why people think it's so appropriate to treat Christians as if they were a homogenous group, when those same people would be wildly upset by such treatment of other groups.

Maybe its because its only been recently where its been deemed socially unacceptable for Christians to do so. Fifty years ago it was par for the course. Perhaps I feel as though "its thier turn", or perhaps I just like to get a rise out of a few of them.


Quick tell me when I've mocked other beliefs regarding the existence of god(s). Wait, don't answer that. I mean, tell me when I've done it when I wasn't just being playful.

How do you know Im not?
If I wanted to get truly nasty, rest assured, Im quite capable of it.


I promise not to lump you in with lunatics who claim to believe things that are similar to you or call their beliefs by the same name as your beliefs. How about you extend me the same courtesy? If I ever call YOU a lunatic, it'll be because YOU will have demonstrated that YOU are (not calling you one, by the way).

I'll tell you what, the second I publicly display such behaviour, I give you permission to do just that. Privately, I act like a lunatic all the time.


I also won't judge you by people who look like you, or have the same sex organs as you, or were the same color clothes as you, etc. It's wildly illogical to group individuals with a faith system they actually broke away from. A large portion of Christians broke away from the Catholic Church, the orthadox Christian organization that committed most of the atrocities that people attribute to ALL Christians, instead of just the groups that did. What more is required than leaving that group and forming another non-political entity. Or in my case breaking away from being affilitiated with any organized church.

There are no "innocent" subgroups. All of them are guilty of one thing or another, and usually, suffering of others was the result. Having said that, there arent any "innocent" factions of any other religions either. This tends to happen when religions are comprised of humans.


EDIT: Have you argument with Canuck if you like, particularly to point the error in his definition of agnosticism, but how about you don't attack everyone because a subsection of some group hurt you.

You could probably care less, but just for the purposes of arguement, Im not targeting the whole out of anger at any subsection. Im targeting all of them, becuase Ive dealt with all of them.

In my little town we have more churches per capita than anywhere else in the world. (pretty sure we still have that title, maybe another town has it now?)
We have ALL of em, even a Unitarian Universalist.
Ive dealt with people from every denomination of Christianity.
Theres assholes in all of them, wich is not to say that all of them are assholes.
It would be entirely impossible to not get along with them given my location.
I would have been run out of town years ago.

The only ones I have issues with, are the ones who insist thier silly books give them a right to opress others, or ones that simply wont take "no" for an answer.
Ive known several of these types, even had a "religious stalker" or two.

If you feel you have never done this to anyone, then Im probably not talking to you.

I wonder why there isn't a thread around with a title similar to:

Believers, is there life before death?

As most who tend to believe in faiths see the afterlife as being in everyway better than and thus preferable to this life.

I was honestly surprised to learn how many theists hold ignorant or negative views of agnosticism, since I though agnosticism was like a central part of at least the Abrahamic religions. I mean, they're all about FAITH, and if you actually know for a fact that God exists then you can't really have faith. If you have proof of God, then faith isn't necessary, and I thought the "leap of faith" was key to those belief systems. Hell, whenever I ask "Why doesn't God just show up and let us know he's real," they respond that this would remove the need for FAITH.

So I always thought they would self-identify as agnostic theists. But many of them are offended when I suggest that.

I know some 'agnostic theists', so it's not all hopeless.

Reminds me of my favourite scene from the movie Constantine, where Gabriel explains to Constantine that he, of all people, lacks faith. He doesn't 'believe'... he 'knows'.

Nice rant,


Pointing out the flaws in your poll is a rant?

Ivory tower, or just really tall horse?


but I do not agree with your conclusions. The fact that you and Bottle, and a few others are unsure, uncertain, and/or are confused


I'm not unsure, uncertain, or confused. I lack a belief. There is no uncertainty there. It's not like I THINK I lack belief... I'm sure of it, I'm certain of, and I'm not even vaguely confused about it.

I lack belief in an afterlife. I lack belief in god. I lack belief in a lot of things, and I don't have to be even slightly confused, unsure or uncertain about it with any of them.


...as to whether you believe there is an afterlife or not is irrelevant.


Apparently so, but only because your poll was so fatally flawed.


Perhaps it is an indication that you do not want to be pinned down to any kind of belief?


What would be the point of 'pinning me down' to a belief I don't have?

That's like me asking if you keep saying you're a christian just because you don't want people to know you are a satanist.

Your rhetorical tomfoolery is on a par with the 'did you stop beating your wife' highlights.


As I asked another poster (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13338588&postcount=208), so shall I ask you:

"Okay then, what poll option would you write for yourself and what would your answer be?"


I've answered this a number of times, I think.

My poll option would be "I'm an Atheist, and do not believe there is life after death".


Some atheists appear to have no problem voting and giving their response, such as Ashmoria (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13329645&postcount=13).

But is it a right fit, or a best fit?

Quick tell me when I've mocked other beliefs regarding the existence of god(s). Wait, don't answer that. I mean, tell me when I've done it when I wasn't just being playful.


You turned me into a newt!

You turned me into a newt!

You'll get better.

Maybe its because its only been recently where its been deemed socially unacceptable for Christians to do so. Fifty years ago it was par for the course. Perhaps I feel as though "its thier turn", or perhaps I just like to get a rise out of a few of them.



How do you know Im not?
If I wanted to get truly nasty, rest assured, Im quite capable of it.



I'll tell you what, the second I publicly display such behaviour, I give you permission to do just that. Privately, I act like a lunatic all the time.



There are no "innocent" subgroups. All of them are guilty of one thing or another, and usually, suffering of others was the result. Having said that, there arent any "innocent" factions of any other religions either. This tends to happen when religions are comprised of humans.



You could probably care less, but just for the purposes of arguement, Im not targeting the whole out of anger at any subsection. Im targeting all of them, becuase Ive dealt with all of them.

In my little town we have more churches per capita than anywhere else in the world. (pretty sure we still have that title, maybe another town has it now?)
We have ALL of em, even a Unitarian Universalist.
Ive dealt with people from every denomination of Christianity.
Theres assholes in all of them, wich is not to say that all of them are assholes.
It would be entirely impossible to not get along with them given my location.
I would have been run out of town years ago.

The only ones I have issues with, are the ones who insist thier silly books give them a right to opress others, or ones that simply wont take "no" for an answer.
Ive known several of these types, even had a "religious stalker" or two.

If you feel you have never done this to anyone, then Im probably not talking to you.

Ah, I didn't realize we were taking turns. So you in turn justify the nonsensical belief that Christians are being persecuted. Hey, maybe if we're lucky, Christians will dish back out what they get whenever they can. Yeah, that'll be fun. Let's do that. And black people can be racist, cuz that'll make the world a better place. And since there appears to have been a time when Christians were "recieving" they were justified too. Gosh, I sure hope no ever stops that particular cycle. Productive, that is.

As far as being nasty, that you're staying within the rules of the site isn't something to be proud of. It's expected. However, it's not playful to call black people criminals and mean it. Are you claiming you don't mean the things you say about Christian? Or are you trolling, as you hint at in this post?

You're not addressing your statements to the "assholes". That's the problem. There are "assholes" who are black, but if I use them as an excuse to deride the entire group, guess what I am?

You'll get better.

I did!

Ah, I didn't realize we were taking turns. So you in turn justify the nonsensical belief that Christians are being persecuted.

Uhh...what?




As far as being nasty, that you're staying within the rules of the site isn't something to be proud of. It's expected. However, it's not playful to call black people criminals and mean it. Are you claiming you don't mean the things you say about Christian? Or are you trolling, as you hint at in this post?

You need to rephrase, becuase your not making any sense.


You're not addressing your statements to the "assholes". That's the problem. There are "assholes" who are black, but if I use them as an excuse to deride the entire group, guess what I am?

Let's see...

First off, the post you are quoting wasnt even directed to you. It was directed at Canuck, when he was being a hippocrite. (calling Bottle arrogant, and claiming she was persecuting HIM, when he is pretty much well known around here for the very same outspokenness as Bottle.)
Pot, Kettle, black.
6= 1/2 dozen.

Secondly, you seem to be unable to understand exactly whom I was directing such posts at entirely, so Im afraid your point is rather null.

I did!

Its a fair cop!

Uhh...what?





You need to rephrase, becuase your not making any sense.



Let's see...

First off, the post you are quoting wasnt even directed to you. It was directed at Canuck, when he was being a hippocrite. (calling Bottle arrogant, and claiming she was persecuting HIM, when he is pretty much well known around here for the very same outspokenness as Bottle.)
Pot, Kettle, black.
6= 1/2 dozen.

Secondly, you seem to be unable to understand exactly whom I was directing such posts at entirely, so Im afraid your point is rather null.

If you'd like to address your posts at individuals instead of people of faith, or at Christians, please do. Until then, you're not just hitting Canuck with you're poorly aimed attacks.

"If mocking people for believing in silly fairy tales is wrong, baby, I dont wanna be right." What would make you think that this could be accurately directed at CanuckHaven without attacking every person who shares his faith, whether they've attacked you or not.

"If mocking people for believing in silly fairy tales is wrong, baby, I dont wanna be right." What would make you think that this could be accurately directed at CanuckHaven without attacking every person who shares his faith, whether they've attacked you or not.


Uhh..maybe becuase that line in particular, was meant as little more than jest?
Did you lose your sense of humor, as well as your faith?

I always wonder why people think it's so appropriate to treat Christians as if they were a homogenous group, when those same people would be wildly upset by such treatment of other groups.

Quick tell me when I've mocked other beliefs regarding the existence of god(s). Wait, don't answer that. I mean, tell me when I've done it when I wasn't just being playful.

I promise not to lump you in with lunatics who claim to believe things that are similar to you or call their beliefs by the same name as your beliefs. How about you extend me the same courtesy? If I ever call YOU a lunatic, it'll be because YOU will have demonstrated that YOU are (not calling you one, by the way).

Joc, hopefully you know that I do respect you and tend to think you're a swell person, and I don't think of you as a lunatic. I don't lump you in with the radical religious fringe. That would be stupid.

But, in all honesty, I believe that your superstitious beliefs are every bit as lunatic as pretty much all the other lunatic superstitious beliefs out there. I regard all superstition as equally loony, though people may choose to ACT on their superstitions in more loony or more rational ways.

In other words, my opinion that superstition is loony does not equate to me lumping you in with all superstitious people. It means that I think superstition is loony, and if you have superstitious faith then I think your faith is loony, whatever it is. I'm even-handed about it.


I also won't judge you by people who look like you, or have the same sex organs as you, or were the same color clothes as you, etc.

You're not born Christian or born religious. It's not an innate biological trait. It's your beliefs. You choose to hold them. The whole reason why it's stupid to judge people on their skin color is because it's got nothing to do with their personal choices. Beliefs, however, do. And I judge people by their chosen beliefs and their actions.


It's wildly illogical to group individuals with a faith system they actually broke away from.

True.


A large portion of Christians broke away from the Catholic Church, the orthadox Christian organization that committed most of the atrocities that people attribute to ALL Christians, instead of just the groups that did.

In all fairness, they were one and the same when said atrocities happened, so historically speaking you can see where the confusion might be. Non-Christians often have a bit of trouble figuring out what the hell went down during the Reformation. (I was 15 or 16 before I really understood it.)

But I agree with you. There are plenty of Protestant atrocities that people should cite instead.


What more is required than leaving that group and forming another non-political entity. Or in my case breaking away from being affilitiated with any organized church.

Fair enough, and a valid point.


EDIT: Have you argument with Canuck if you like, particularly to point the error in his definition of agnosticism, but how about you don't attack everyone because a subsection of some group hurt you.
Sorry for butting in when you were talking to somebody else, I just wanted to put in my two cents. If I said lame stuff please don't anybody attribute it to BackwoodsSquatches

Well, I'd like to point out she wasn't attacking him directly, nor was she attacking him for believing in God at all. She was attacking his claim that God exists due to a totally subjective experience that was not actually related to God existing at all.
And she did explicitly state all this (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13343402&postcount=50).
What do you expect her to do, congratulate the guy?

Yes, they did expect me to congratulate the guy. Because that's the rule when it comes to religion. You aren't allowed to subject it to the same kind of critical thinking and examination that we apply to other beliefs or systems of thought. You have to coddle it.


EDIT: And of course, the very next post points out it is really nitpicking over semantics. (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13343416&postcount=51)

For me, it's an important distinction. When people use the word "know" about God in this manner, it's like hearing a man claim he "loves" his wife as he's beating her head in with a golf club. It strips the word of all meaning and value, and that annoys me because words are supposed to help communicate instead of being vague fluff terms.

"If mocking people for believing in silly fairy tales is wrong, baby, I dont wanna be right." What would make you think that this could be accurately directed at CanuckHaven without attacking every person who shares his faith, whether they've attacked you or not.
What about, "If mocking people for believing in racism is wrong, baby, I don't want to be right."

Yeah, it applies to anybody who believes in racism. I'm totally okay with that.

Joc, hopefully you know that I do respect you and tend to think you're a swell person, and I don't think of you as a lunatic. I don't lump you in with the radical religious fringe. That would be stupid.

But, in all honesty, I believe that your superstitious beliefs are every bit as lunatic as pretty much all the other lunatic superstitious beliefs out there. I regard all superstition as equally loony, though people may choose to ACT on their superstitions in more loony or more rational ways.

In other words, my opinion that superstition is loony does not equate to me lumping you in with all superstitious people. It means that I think superstition is loony, and if you have superstitious faith then I think your faith is loony, whatever it is. I'm even-handed about it.

I agree. Unfortunately, CanuckHaven dug up some old stuff from when we were both different. However, it would be fair to admit that, at the time, that is what you were saying.

It would also be fair to say that if you regard it as wrong in the way you regard it as wrong, you can't really claim you're agnostic. You can't say "I don't believe that knowledge of god(s) is possible" while also saying "I do not believe there is a god or gods and if you don't agree with me you're a lunatic."


You're not born Christian or born religious. It's not an innate biological trait. It's your beliefs. You choose to hold them. The whole reason why it's stupid to judge people on their skin color is because it's got nothing to do with their personal choices. Beliefs, however, do. And I judge people by their chosen beliefs and their actions.

Your also not born a feminist, but if some version of feminism pops up that acts crazy and wants to castrate men, have no fear, I won't hold you as responsible for them. I'll judge specifically by your beliefs and actions, not the actions of others claiming to feminsts. I appreciate that you'll do the same regarding Paulists claiming to be Christians.



True.


In all fairness, they were one and the same when said atrocities happened, so historically speaking you can see where the confusion might be. Non-Christians often have a bit of trouble figuring out what the hell went down during the Reformation. (I was 15 or 16 before I really understood it.)

But I agree with you. There are plenty of Protestant atrocities that people should cite instead.

Which would be valid if there were only one reformation. However, as each Church become corrupt in EXACTLY the same way as the leadership Jesus was rebelling against, groups break and try to do better. The reason there are so many sects is because they don't agree with each other. Holding one sect responsible for another isn't rational.


Fair enough, and a valid point.


Sorry for butting in when you were talking to somebody else, I just wanted to put in my two cents. If I said lame stuff please don't anybody attribute it to BackwoodsSquatches

No, I think it's good that you did. I think giving what Canuck was citing, that you had no choice, particularly since he was citing you talking to me and the conversation was quite old and you and I have talked much on the subject since.

Uhh..maybe becuase that line in particular, was meant as little more than jest?
Did you lose your sense of humor, as well as your faith?

No, I recognize that you were kidding, but you were also telling the truth. Or are you claiming that that line isn't accurate just because you intended it to be humorous?

What about, "If mocking people for believing in racism is wrong, baby, I don't want to be right."

Yeah, it applies to anybody who believes in racism. I'm totally okay with that.

I agree with the statement, but you're comparing racism to faith again. Many faiths are completely harmless, regardless of whether you agree with them. I don't agree with atheists, but I don't think it makes you an "asshole". It's just coincidence that so many "assholes" happen to atheist... probably. (See, BS, that's a joke AND since I don't actually agree with what I said, it can be taken as completely in jest.)

It would also be fair to say that if you regard it as wrong in the way you regard it as wrong, you can't really claim you're agnostic. You can't say "I don't believe that knowledge of god(s) is possible" while also saying "I do not believe there is a god or gods and if you don't agree with me you're a lunatic."

I believe that none of us can know whether or not God/gods/pixies actually exist. I also believe it's silly for people to choose to believe in God/gods/pixies given that we have no information to go on. I know there are some rational reasons why people choose to do so, but I still think it's a bad choice.

I also believe that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for anybody to believe that any human-generated God-images bear any resemblance to any actual God or gods. To me, that's like believing that the human-generated image of Santa reflects a literal jolly Christmas elf.

This is why I'm comfortable asserting that people are loons for believing in (for example) the strangely Aryan Jesus that you see depicted in many Christian denominations. There are specific God-images that are patently silly or internally inconsistent, so I feel comfortable rejecting those images outright. There are other God-images which are more vague or undefined or personal, so I tend to be less atheist and more agnostic about those. A lot of people simply don't define their God in the first place, so there's no possible way to "reject" or "disbelieve" in their God, but some people define their God right down to his skin tone and facial hair and this makes it possible to make more precise evaluations of that God-image.

I don't see any conflict with my agnosticism there.


Your also not born a feminist, but if some version of feminism pops up that acts crazy and wants to castrate men, have no fear, I won't hold you as responsible for them.

So, if somebody who isn't feminist pops up and claims they're feminist, you won't hold me responsible for that? Um, thanks?

Don't really see what that has to do with what I'm saying, though. I fully expect people to judge me based on the fact that I'm a feminist. I fully expect them to look at feminism and ask me why I choose to participate in that belief system. That's good. You should do that. A lot of times people point to things that ARE NOT feminist and think they're feminist, and then accuse me of supporting those non-feminist things (like castrating all men). I correct them, and remind them that castrating all males against their wishes would be anti-feminist, not feminist.


I'll judge specifically by your beliefs and actions, not the actions of others claiming to feminsts. I appreciate that you'll do the same regarding Paulists claiming to be Christians.

No.

Sorry, but they have as much right to call themselves Christians as you do. That's the downside to selecting a single Holy Book and then insisting that everybody has the right to interpret God's Word: when one group has a different interpretation than yours, you can't just excommunicate them from Christianity. They've as much right to the title as you do. To cast them out of Christianity you would have to demonstrate how their beliefs necessarily cannot be Christian.

To compare this to the feminism thing, I can only say somebody is non-feminist or anti-feminist when I can demonstrate that their stated belief directly contradicts feminism. I can't say somebody is not feminist because they like high heels and think they're feminine, for example, but I can say they're not feminist if they advocate forcing all female humans to wear high heels because that's what women should do.


Which would be valid if there were only one reformation. However, as each Church become corrupt in EXACTLY the same way as the leadership Jesus was rebelling against, groups break and try to do better. The reason there are so many sects is because they don't agree with each other. Holding one sect responsible for another isn't rational.

They're sects...OF CHRISTIANITY. There's large chunks of shared lunacy. It's pointless to expect them to all be viewed as independent bodies, when there's so much overlap.


No, I think it's good that you did. I think giving what Canuck was citing, that you had no choice, particularly since he was citing you talking to me and the conversation was quite old and you and I have talked much on the subject since.
We're old, you know that? It's wild to be able to look back and be like, "Damn. We was kicking each other's asses many moons ago."

I agree with the statement, but you're comparing racism to faith again.

In this case, it's a valid comparison. I'm just selecting racism because it's a familiar and easily-identified belief system.

The only difference that matters in this comparison is that YOU don't like racism either, so you're okay with racism being mocked. YOU think racism is lousy, so you're fine with racists being made fun of.


Many faiths are completely harmless, regardless of whether you agree with them.
And a great many racists and racist ideologies are also equally harmless. They still deserve mockery (in my opinion).


I don't agree with atheists, but I don't think it makes you an "asshole".

And I don't agree with persons of faith, or with racists, but I also don't think either of those beliefs automatically make you an asshole.

Sure you can. Why not?

I believe that none of us can know whether or not God/gods/pixies actually exist. I also believe it's silly for people to choose to believe in God/gods/pixies given that we have absolutely no information to go on. I know there are some rational reasons why people choose to do so, but I still think it's a bad choice.

I don't see any conflict with my agnosticism there.

In claiming that they're wrong, you're claiming knowledge, particularly when you're claiming that they're SO wrong as to require some form of disorder to explain their landing on a different conclusion than you. You're so certain that you have no knowledge, yet equally certain that you're right. Interesting how that works. Sorry, but I reject your claim. Rightfully so. Your treat your beliefs with as much vigor as any radical Christian I've ever met.


So, if somebody who isn't feminist pops up and claims they're feminist, you won't hold me responsible for that? Um, thanks?

Current Christians are Christians. They're Paulians. Christ did not and would not have supported killing people who didn't agree with Him. He also didn't support taking the message to the Gentiles, but that's a whole other discussion. The faith is completely different than what was believed and supported by the original followers of Christ.

Meanwhile, if they're calling themselves Christian, even when the Christ is not whose teachings they put first and foremost, it would be like people claiming to be feminists when they really are meaning it quite differently as well.


Don't really see what that has to do with what I'm saying, though. I fully expect people to judge me based on the fact that I'm a feminist. I fully expect them to look at feminism and ask me why I choose to participate in that belief system. That's good. You should do that. A lot of times people point to things that ARE NOT feminist and think they're feminist, and then accuse me of supporting those non-feminist things (like castrating all men). I correct them, and remind them that castrating all males against their wishes would be anti-feminist, not feminist.

And you're welcome to do that with me. However, asking me to answer for something someone else did that I don't agree with isn't quite the same as that, is it?

Much like taking the teachings of another over that of the Christ would be anti-Christ. Good, we agree. You're welcome to consider my beliefs and my understandings of my faith completely seperately from those who wrongly call themselves Christian. Whoever coined the term first gets the term. Current "Christians" have as much to do with original Christians as man-castraters have to do with original feminists.


No.

Sorry, but they have as much right to call themselves Christians as you do. That's the downside to selecting a single Holy Book and then insisting that everybody has the right to interpret God's Word: when one group has a different interpretation than yours, you can't just excommunicate them from Christianity. They've as much right to the title as you do.

No.

Sorry, but they have as much right to call themselves feminists as you do. That's the downside to select a term that can mean so many different things.

Meanwhile, there you go again. I didn't select any Holy Book. I don't hold the Bible to be infallible and I don't reserve my views to that which is in the Bible. I reject some of the Bible and some of what I believe comes from outside it. But since everyone can interpret the term to be whatever they want and I have to accept them as grouped with me, then I suppose that you're not hypocritically going to claim that others can take the term feminism to simply meaning advocating the rights of the female gender.



They're sects...OF CHRISTIANITY. There's large chunks of shared lunacy. It's pointless to expect them to all be viewed as independent bodies, when there's so much overlap.

Is there? You sure. The only thing I've found to be universally common is the acceptance of Christ's teaching as being right. There is even disagreement as to whether or not some of the books actually contain Christ's teachings. Certainly there is disagreement as to whether he performed miracles or whether he was resurrected, as to whether he was Divine in nature.



We're old, you know that? It's wild to be able to look back and be like, "Damn. We was kicking each other's asses many moons ago."

Heh. It's funny because last week I listed you as someone who I liked watching lay out a debate.

In this case, it's a valid comparison. I'm just selecting racism because it's a familiar and easily-identified belief system.

Except, unlike racists, Christian is a term that a - can be a completely harmless belief system. Racism isn't, by it's nature. And b - is so different as to make that some groups of Christians don't remotely resemble others, whether you recognize that or not.


The only difference that matters in this comparison is that YOU don't like racism either, so you're okay with racism being mocked. YOU think racism is lousy, so you're fine with racists being made fun of.

And a great many racists and racist ideologies are also equally harmless. They still deserve mockery (in my opinion).


And I don't agree with persons of faith, or with racists, but I also don't think either of those beliefs automatically make you an asshole.

No, racism is harmful, as it promotes the belief that all people are not equal. That belief is harmful in its nature. Many Christians, and particularly many people of faith, don't hold any belief that is harmful in any way. For example, I don't believe that being wrong condemns you. I'm also not entirely sure I'm right. More importantly, the Bible is a supplement to my belief, and I only accept as far as it agrees with my beliefs. Not the other way around. Comparing my faith to racism is like comparing feminism to racism.

I don't agree with people who can't treat individuals like individuals, an action that has much more in common with racism than having faith ever will. But, hey, you've stopped comparing us to child molestors and abusers. Child abuse doesn't automatically make you an asshole either, does it? I'll take my victories a little at a time.

No, racism is harmful, as it promotes the belief that all people are not equal. That belief is harmful in its nature. Many Christians, and particularly many people of faith, don't hold any belief that is harmful in any way. For example, I don't believe that being wrong condemns you. I'm also not entirely sure I'm right. More importantly, the Bible is a supplement to my belief, and I only accept as far as it agrees with my beliefs. Not the other way around. Comparing my faith to racism is like comparing feminism to racism.

Then again so does Christianity. Any religion must, by dint of it's dogma, preach an 'us and them' mentality. Christianity (on the whole) teaches that either you are Christian, or you have chosen to defy God and thus will face punishment.

If you as an individual do not have this piece of dogma in your belief system(then good on ya), then it is as a result of you, not the religion that you practice.

Then again so does Christianity. Any religion must, by dint of it's dogma, preach an 'us and them' mentality. Christianity (on the whole) teaches that either you are Christian, or you have chosen to defy God and thus will face punishment.

If you as an individual do not have this piece of dogma in your belief system(then good on ya), then it is as a result of you, not the religion that you practice.

Actually, no. Many religions don't think that if you're wrong you are defiant. And my personal belief is not that you are in defiance of God. Just wrong. I moved a bit beyond the carrot and stick version of morality, as have many Christians.

I challenge you to evidence that "any religion must". Most organized religions have this problem of being composed of, you know, people. And, unfortunately, the more people the more likely you have some idiot that just needs that carrot and that stick. That doesn't make it a part of religion. You mass together enough people, of any ilk, and you'll find both the carrot and the stick in some form. It's a problem of people who have too basic an understanding of morality, not the religion itself.

In claiming that they're wrong, you're claiming knowledge,

No, I'm not. I'm claiming that no human knows whether or not "God" exists. I feel as certain of that as I am of pretty much anything else, but that's the only element of certainty in my belief structure.

Given that we don't have that knowledge, it is my belief that it's loony to select some image of God to worship.

That second part is my personal belief. It doesn't hinge on knowing anything, it's just my belief of what the right conclusion is given my agnosticism. I am not certain there is no God. I do not claim to be. For all I know, your image of God is 100% accurate. Doesn't change the fact that I believe you are wrong for holding it. :D


particularly when you're claiming that they're SO wrong as to require some form of disorder to explain their landing on a different conclusion than you. You're so certain that you have no knowledge, yet equally certain that you're right.

No, I'm not certain I'm right. I freely and frequently admit the possibility I'm wrong. That's one of the reasons I like to talk about this stuff so much...because I like to check that my beliefs still hold up!

Of course I believe I'm right about my atheism (otherwise I wouldn't be atheist) but I don't claim certainty at all.


Interesting how that works. Sorry, but I reject your claim. Rightfully so. Your treat your beliefs with as much vigor as any radical Christian I've ever met.

Vigor, yes. Certainty, no.

I don't claim to know whether or not God exists. I don't claim certainty about any of that jazz. I don't even claim certainty that I'm right. I just believe that I've reached the right conclusion. If I didn't think it was the right one, I wouldn't believe it.


Current Christians are Christians. They're Paulians. Christ did not and would not have supported killing people who didn't agree with Him.

I don't think either you or I or they can really know what Christ would have wanted. It's everybody's best guesses at this point.


He also didn't support taking the message to the Gentiles, but that's a whole other discussion. The faith is completely different than what was believed and supported by the original followers of Christ.

No offense intended, but I think ALL Christians today are pretty different from the original followers of Christ. If that's going to be your definition of a Real Christian(tm) then none of you are Christians.


Meanwhile, if they're calling themselves Christian, even when the Christ is not whose teachings they put first and foremost, it would be like people claiming to be feminists when they really are meaning it quite differently as well.

They claim they do put Christ's teachings first, they just claim he taught different things than you say he did. I don't think I'm qualified to tell either side what Christ really taught, since I don't even know if he existed in the first place.


And you're welcome to do that with me. However, asking me to answer for something someone else did that I don't agree with isn't quite the same as that, is it?

Have I done that? Because you're right, that would be bonkers. If I do that, then you all have my permission to whack me on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper.


Much like taking the teachings of another over that of the Christ would be anti-Christ. Good, we agree. You're welcome to consider my beliefs and my understandings of my faith completely seperately from those who wrongly call themselves Christian. Whoever coined the term first gets the term. Current "Christians" have as much to do with original Christians as man-castraters have to do with original feminists.

I know some people who identify as Christian who clearly aren't. For instance, some early Scientologists claimed to be an off-shoot of Christianity. They weren't. I'm on board with that.

The problem is that plenty of Christians point at YOU and say that YOU aren't a Real Christian(tm). Meanwhile, you point at some other Christians and say THEY aren't Real Christians(tm). Can you see how this might make things a bit iffy?


No.

Sorry, but they have as much right to call themselves feminists as you do. That's the downside to select a term that can mean so many different things.

If a person believes something that directly contradicts the definition of feminism, then they're not feminist. They can call themselves feminist, just like I can call myself a Kung Fu master, but it won't change reality.

If somebody claims to be Christian but believes that Jesus never existed and God is a gigantic purple space unicorn, then you can correctly say that they are not Christian. But if a person believes that Jesus was Christ and worships the God of Abraham, you can't point at them and say they're not a Christian simply because they interpret the Bible differently than you do.

This happens to me as a feminist, for whatever it's worth. I disagree with other feminists on lots of issues. Porn, for example. There are lots of feminists who hold opinions on porn that make me want to scream and kick things, but I still don't get to claim they're not feminist because their beliefs are consistent with feminism.


Meanwhile, there you go again. I didn't select any Holy Book. I don't hold the Bible to be infallible and I don't reserve my views to that which is in the Bible. I reject some of the Bible and some of what I believe comes from outside it.

Fair enough, picking the Bible as an example was a bad call on my part.


But since everyone can interpret the term to be whatever they want and I have to accept them as grouped with me, then I suppose that you're not hypocritically going to claim that others can take the term feminism to simply meaning advocating the rights of the female gender.

I think part of the problem is that Christianity is a much broader term than feminism. Feminism refers to one specific belief area: the belief in the social and political equality of the sexes.

Christianity, however, is a faith centered on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, prophet and/or son of the Abrahamic God. That's a giant goddam tent, dude, particularly since Jesus lived thousands of years ago and pretty much anybody can claim to know the REAL story of what he taught and how he lived.


Is there? You sure. The only thing I've found to be universally common is the acceptance of Christ's teaching as being right.

And that's a huge range. Particularly since I don't know that I've ever met two Christians who had the exact same views on what Christ taught.


There is even disagreement as to whether or not some of the books actually contain Christ's teachings. Certainly there is disagreement as to whether he performed miracles or whether he was resurrected, as to whether he was Divine in nature.

EXACTLY. It's a huge range.


Heh. It's funny because last week I listed you as someone who I liked watching lay out a debate.
Likewise.

Fluffle.

Actually, no. Many religions don't think that if you're wrong you are defiant. And my personal belief is not that you are in defiance of God. Just wrong. I moved a bit beyond the carrot and stick version of morality, as have many Christians.

I challenge you to evidence that "any religion must". Most organized religions have this problem of being composed of, you know, people. And, unfortunately, the more people the more likely you have some idiot that just needs that carrot and that stick. That doesn't make it a part of religion. You mass together enough people, of any ilk, and you'll find both the carrot and the stick in some form. It's a problem of people who have too basic an understanding of morality, not the religion itself.

Ahhh come on now, you know they do. Look to the bible, or the Koran.

I would argue that religion is made of people, surly religion is made of what ever the holy scripture is? These people must follow the doctrine's laid out in their holy scripture, and yes the majority of them follow them slavisly and without much thought.

Can you name any of these religions that don't think you are wrong if you are not a member?

I dont belive in god, but there is evey evidence of there being "life" after death, as all other things in the univrse are conserved, whether you retain a sence of self or not I would not know, but your "life" will most probably be recycled.

I dont belive in god, but there is evey evidence of there being "life" after death, as all other things in the univrse are conserved, whether you retain a sence of self or not I would not know, but your "life" will most probably be recycled.

Hmm. Depends if "life" actually is something that cannot be changed into something else. There are plenty of elements in the universe for instance that will get less and less over time in favour of stable ones like iron.

No, I'm not. I'm claiming that no human knows whether or not "God" exists. I feel as certain of that as I am of pretty much anything else, but that's the only element of certainty in my belief structure.

Given that we don't have that knowledge, it is my belief that it's loony to select some image of God to worship.

There's the flaw. You assume that what I worship is some image I require to be right. My view is that the teachings of Christ match up with what I believe to be right in my heart, not the other way around. My view of God is that I believe there is a supreme being and explore what I think that would mean. I don't claim to have a special version of the truth, just doing the best I can. There are many like me. Meanwhile, since you can't know ANYTHING about it, falling one way or the other off that fence, really can't be considered lunacy unless you're absolutely certain you're right. I'm not. You sure you're not?

I believe I'm right, but I would be shocked if I got every bit right. However, if I'm wrong on the important bits, then I'll truly hope to spent eternity in Hell in protest.

My favorite question is and always will be, anyone can be willing to persecuted in life, but given that you believe in Hell, would you be willing to spend eternity in Hell in order to stand up for what is right? If the answer is no, it's not faith. It's fear.


No, I'm not certain I'm right. I freely and frequently admit the possibility I'm wrong. That's one of the reasons I like to talk about this stuff so much...because I like to check that my beliefs still hold up!

Of course I believe I'm right about my atheism (otherwise I wouldn't be atheist) but I don't claim certainty at all.

I believe I'm right about theism. It's funny how that works.


Vigor, yes. Certainty, no.

I don't claim to know whether or not God exists. I don't claim certainty about any of that jazz. I don't even claim certainty that I'm right. I just believe that I've reached the right conclusion. If I didn't think it was the right one, I wouldn't believe it.

Of course. Ditto. It's when you're so certain you're right that anyone who disagrees must be a lunatic, when you breaking away from the claim to uncertainty... by a long stretch.



I don't think either you or I or they can really know what Christ would have wanted. It's everybody's best guesses at this point.

We can go by the beliefs of the earliest Christians. And they did not match up with current Christians. Of that we can be sure.



No offense intended, but I think ALL Christians today are pretty different from the original followers of Christ. If that's going to be your definition of a Real Christian(tm) then none of you are Christians.

Again, I, of course, disagree. I can gather enough information to have some level of certainty about what was common among the earliest believers. Sure there are huge gaps, but the essense can be found.



They claim they do put Christ's teachings first, they just claim he taught different things than you say he did. I don't think I'm qualified to tell either side what Christ really taught, since I don't even know if he existed in the first place.

No, they don't. Check around. Paulians claim that if you reject Paul, even where he appears to conflict with Christ, you're not a Christian. I've had people tell me that if I didn't listen to Paul when he amended the words of Christ, that I'm not a Christian. It's a belief supported by the Nicean Creed.



Have I done that? Because you're right, that would be bonkers. If I do that, then you all have my permission to whack me on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper.

I've done the equivalent in regards to you doing it in the past. I don't think you do that anymore.


I know some people who identify as Christian who clearly aren't. For instance, some early Scientologists claimed to be an off-shoot of Christianity. They weren't. I'm on board with that.

The problem is that plenty of Christians point at YOU and say that YOU aren't a Real Christian(tm). Meanwhile, you point at some other Christians and say THEY aren't Real Christians(tm). Can you see how this might make things a bit iffy?

Yes, which is why it's better to just address individuals.


If a person believes something that directly contradicts the definition of feminism, then they're not feminist. They can call themselves feminist, just like I can call myself a Kung Fu master, but it won't change reality.

Who defines the term? You? Me? Current Christians definitely believe things that are conflicted with the earliest Christians. For one thing, it's quite clear that they held a personal religion to be true. If there is one thing modern Christianity, the orthadox part of it, has in common, it's that it's no longer a personal religion. If it were, we'd not be arguing about the meaning of the term.


If somebody claims to be Christian but believes that Jesus never existed and God is a gigantic purple space unicorn, then you can correctly say that they are not Christian. But if a person believes that Jesus was Christ and worships the God of Abraham, you can't point at them and say they're not a Christian simply because they interpret the Bible differently than you do.

This happens to me as a feminist, for whatever it's worth. I disagree with other feminists on lots of issues. Porn, for example. There are lots of feminists who hold opinions on porn that make me want to scream and kick things, but I still don't get to claim they're not feminist because their beliefs are consistent with feminism.


Fair enough, picking the Bible as an example was a bad call on my part.


I think part of the problem is that Christianity is a much broader term than feminism. Feminism refers to one specific belief area: the belief in the social and political equality of the sexes.

Give it 2000 years.


Christianity, however, is a faith centered on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, prophet and/or son of the Abrahamic God. That's a giant goddam tent, dude, particularly since Jesus lived thousands of years ago and pretty much anybody can claim to know the REAL story of what he taught and how he lived.

And pretty much since what we do know seems like he didn't agree with the definition of the Abrahamic God that was preached consistantly up until he arrived on the scene.


And that's a huge range. Particularly since I don't know that I've ever met two Christians who had the exact same views on what Christ taught.

EXACTLY. It's a huge range.

That's kind of my point. Lumping me with other Christians is very much as useful as lumping me with other white people in order to analyze the practices of white people.


Likewise.

Fluffle.

Oh, dear, this has taken a bad turn somewhere.

Ahhh come on now, you know they do. Look to the bible, or the Koran.

I would argue that religion is made of people, surly religion is made of what ever the holy scripture is? These people must follow the doctrine's laid out in their holy scripture, and yes the majority of them follow them slavisly and without much thought.

Can you name any of these religions that don't think you are wrong if you are not a member?

The religion pre-dates the scripture in nearly every case. The Bible was compiled by a Pagan who absorbed Christianity into an empire in order to increase control. Excuse me if I don't find that particular methodology a reliable way to arrive at the truth.

To your last question, can you name anyone who doesn't think you're wrong if you don't believe what they think is right? It's kind of in the definition. I think what you mean is, do they think they're superior or special in some way because they believe what they believe. The very nature of belief, every belief, is that you think it's right and, thus, other things are wrong.

The religion pre-dates the scripture in nearly every case.

So you cannot name any then?


To your last question, can you name anyone who doesn't think you're wrong if you don't believe what they think is right? It's kind of in the definition. I think what you mean is, do they think they're superior or special in some way because they believe what they believe. The very nature of belief, every belief, is that you think it's right and, thus, other things are wrong.


No I was asking you to name any religion that does not believe you are wrong if you do not agree with that religion, as you have assured me such do exist.

However you have gone some way to show my point for me. I said 'all religions must' and it is this that I meant.

If I believe that the only way to God is via excepting Jesus as our salvation, then it must follow anybody who does not believe this is wrong(or I must believe they are wrong).

This is what meant when I said an 'us and them' mentality.

No I was asking you to name any religion that does not believe you are wrong if you do not agree with that religion, as you have assured me such do exist.

Jocabia said religions existed that do not call you defiant if you are not a member - even though they think you are wrong. Big difference ;)

Some forms of Buddhism and spiritualism however do assert that there is more than one right answer.

Jocabia said religions existed that do not call you defiant if you are not a member - even though they think you are wrong. Big difference ;)

Some forms of Buddhism and spiritualism however do assert that there is more than one right answer.

Naaa, all of this is in answer to his remark to Bottle that religion does not hold breed harmful thoughts. His example was racism breeding a 'them and us' type culture, I merely replied by saying, yep but so does Christianity, and expanded that to other faiths too.

Anything else that may have detracted from this point I'm ready to say is surplus to my point, and carry on.

So you cannot name any then?

Can I name any beliefs that don't believe they're right? Um, did you intentionally create a truism and ask if it was true? You don't think that makes an argument. Can you name which things you believe to be true, that you accept are wrong? See how stupid that is.


No I was asking you to name any religion that does not believe you are wrong if you do not agree with that religion, as you have assured me such do exist.

However you have gone some way to show my point for me. I said 'all religions must' and it is this that I meant.

If I believe that the only way to God is via excepting Jesus as our salvation, then it must follow anybody who does not believe this is wrong(or I must believe they are wrong).

This is what meant when I said an 'us and them' mentality.

I suspect you're unintentionally using the wrong terms. Do you mean to say something other than simply incorrect? Because if you do, you should probably clarify. Yes, I suspect that all religions and all people believe you're incorrect if you don't agree with them.

If you're saying that I believe that there is only one path to enlightenment and/or heaven, no I don't believe that and many religions don't. You should really look that stuff up before you use it as a basis for an argument.

Jocabia said religions existed that do not call you defiant if you are not a member - even though they think you are wrong. Big difference ;)

Some forms of Buddhism and spiritualism however do assert that there is more than one right answer.

Yes, exactly. I understand not everyone knows everything, but if you're knowledge of religion is limited to what you see in the news, probably you don't want to argue about religion on NSG (not talking about you, Alma).

We can go by the beliefs of the earliest Christians. And they did not match up with current Christians. Of that we can be sure.

This point isn't quite fair - early Christian beliefs varied enormously among different sects, taking in a huge array of previous religions, far more than currently I'd say.

Out of this enormous hodge-podge, a particular branch was approved but that says nothing about whether it bears any resemblance to any reality. Maybe it does, maybe not.

It's not that one form of belief became many beliefs, more that many beliefs narrowed down to one, of which there are now variations.

My sources are Ehrmann and Pagels, both books indicate the variety of belief was enormous and that those that were not approved were destroyed.

I could be misinterpreting your point.

Naaa, all of this is in answer to his remark to Bottle that religion does not hold breed harmful thoughts. His example was racism breeding a 'them and us' type culture, I merely replied by saying, yep but so does Christianity, and expanded that to other faiths too.

Anything else that may have detracted from this point I'm ready to say is surplus to my point, and carry on.

Again, you're speaking about truisms. All beliefs tend to believe they are right. That's the nature of a belief. EVERY belief. All of them.

Meanwhile, that doesn't mean that many beliefs don't think their are other paths. Mine does. I also don't pretend to have special access to truth. I think I'm right. As Bottle said, if I didn't, I would believe what I believe. I accept I could be wrong, however, as would any agnostic theist and there are TONS of them.

I don't believe in "us and them". I believe it's quite possible to show that early Christians fully expected their faith (at least some of them did) to be personal and thus different for so many. The idea of accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior is something that came with act of spreading Christianity under Paul. It's not inherent to the faith. Claiming so is, well, ignorant.

This point isn't quite fair - early Christian beliefs varied enormously among different sects, taking in a huge array of previous religions, far more than currently I'd say.

Out of this enormous hodge-podge, a particular branch was approved but that says nothing about whether it bears any resemblance to any reality. Maybe it does, maybe not.

It's not that one form of belief became many beliefs, more that many beliefs narrowed down to one, of which there are now variations.

My sources are Ehrmann and Pagels, both books indicate the variety of belief was enormous and that those that were not approved were destroyed.

I could be misinterpreting your point.

Oh, I agree and have said so. They held a personal belief system that by its very nature would end up with many, many sects. It wasn't until it was decided that a Pagan should direct the faith, where it fell under the same kinds of flaws Jesus preached against.

My point was that it was much more personal than we see now. Hell, I can show you chapter and verse where Jesus preached against people who behave like the Pope.

There's the flaw. You assume that what I worship is some image I require to be right.

No, I don't. You worship a God-image. I think that's a silly choice, given our lack of information on the subject. That's just my opinion.

And, again, the funniest part is that even if we somehow obtained proof that your image was 100% accurate, I STILL would believe you were silly for holding your beliefs before that proof had been presented! :D


My view is that the teachings of Christ match up with what I believe to be right in my heart, not the other way around. My view of God is that I believe there is a supreme being and explore what I think that would mean. I don't claim to have a special version of the truth, just doing the best I can.

That's fine, I just still think it's silly. To me, it's the same as you saying that you believe there is a magical space unicorn and you explore what you think that would mean. Your desire to explore the meaning of the belief isn't what's silly...the belief in the space unicorn is what is silly.


There are many like me. Meanwhile, since you can't know ANYTHING about it, falling one way or the other off that fence, really can't be considered lunacy unless you're absolutely certain you're right.

You're confusing two distinct steps in my process.

I cannot know whether or not God exists. No human can. That much I'm pretty certain of.

In my opinion, the right choice given this state of affairs is to lack belief in God. I believe it's loony to choose to believe in God under these circumstances. That is my BELIEF. I'm not CERTAIN it is wrong to believe in God, I just THINK it is.


I'm not. You sure you're not?

Hopefully I've clarified this.


I believe I'm right, but I would be shocked if I got every bit right. However, if I'm wrong on the important bits, then I'll truly hope to spent eternity in Hell in protest.

If you're wrong on the important bits then odds are I'll be joining you. Remind me to bring extra ice so we can have margaritas in Hell.


My favorite question is and always will be, anyone can be willing to persecuted in life, but given that you believe in Hell, would you be willing to spend eternity in Hell in order to stand up for what is right? If the answer is no, it's not faith. It's fear.

Oooooooh. I like that. I like that a lot.


I believe I'm right about theism. It's funny how that works.

This is why you and I tend to have more in common than not. It's also why I tend to have more in common with you than with some of the atheists who wander in from time to time.

Both of us agree on the agnosticism part of the process, which (for me) is the most important step. The fact that we then disagree on the next step isn't quite as big a deal to me. I think you're wrong, and you think I'm wrong, but we are at least starting from the same place (we don't KNOW and we're just trying to work out the best solution). I have more in common ideologically with somebody who takes the "theist" path on the second step than I do with an atheist who believes that they know there is no God.


Of course. Ditto. It's when you're so certain you're right that anyone who disagrees must be a lunatic, when you breaking away from the claim to uncertainty... by a long stretch.

AHHHH, key distinction here!!!

I think the belief is loony, but I think plenty of non-lunatics hold some loony beliefs. Kind of like how I think ghost busting is fucking stupid, but one of the brightest people I know is a professional ghost-buster (who really believes in her work). Smart people can hold some stupid beliefs, and sane people can hold some crazy ones.

I know that it is often hard to distinguish a person from their beliefs. Sometimes it's impossible, even. But I try, at least on this subject, because I think it is usually both possible and critical to do so.

That is something that NSG has really driven home for me, as a matter of fact, because I've met people here who are intelligent, informed, rational, and witty, yet who also hold one or more beliefs that I find stupid, ignorant, irrational, or boring. I know I don't always manage to express this distinction, and that's totally my fault, but I do try to be better about it most of the time.


We can go by the beliefs of the earliest Christians. And they did not match up with current Christians. Of that we can be sure.

I suppose that's true. But early Christians also believe in some really shitty stuff, things that we probably wouldn't WANT current Christians to believe in (slavery, oppressing the snot out of females, abandoning malformed babies, etc), so do you really want to use them as a definite template? Those early Christians lived in an existing historical and cultural context, after all, and it's a bit tough to determine exactly where their CHRISTIAN beliefs end and their CULTURAL beliefs begin.


Again, I, of course, disagree. I can gather enough information to have some level of certainty about what was common among the earliest believers. Sure there are huge gaps, but the essence can be found.

How do you know it's the essence, if there are huge gaps? What if one of those gaps holds a small but critical element?


No, they don't. Check around. Paulians claim that if you reject Paul, even where he appears to conflict with Christ, you're not a Christian. I've had people tell me that if I didn't listen to Paul when he amended the words of Christ, that I'm not a Christian. It's a belief supported by the Nicean Creed.

I don't know that the definition of Christianity requires that Christ's word be considered the ultimate word on everything. The definition I'm familiar with is the one I presented earlier ("Christianity, however, is a faith centered on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, prophet and/or son of the Abrahamic God") but I don't know that this requires that Christ be viewed as the over-ruling authority in the faith. That's actually kind of an interesting area of discussion, and one that I'm going to have to chew on for a bit.


Yes, which is why it's better to just address individuals.

Yes and no. I mean, there are a lot of people who self-identify as members of a particular belief structure or movement. If they self-identify that way, then I take them at their word. If they choose to associate themselves with a movement or organized group (like a specific organized religion) then I see that as them lumping themselves in with that group.


Who defines the term? You? Me?

Exactly. I'm not even a Christian, so I'm a bit iffy on making that kind of judgment myself. I've never even belonged to a Christian church, so I don't know that I feel comfortable judging who is and is not a Real Christian.


Give it 2000 years.

The idea of feminism has been around at least that long, though the modern movement obviously hasn't. This has often lead me to wonder what future feminism will look like.

It's kind of like how the fundamental concepts of Christianity (the God-image, ideas of sin and redemption, etc) existed in various forms for thousands of years before Christ, yet the birth of the Christian religion led to an entirely new incarnation of those beliefs as an organized system.


And pretty much since what we do know seems like he didn't agree with the definition of the Abrahamic God that was preached consistantly up until he arrived on the scene.

Yeah, I gotta admit that this is another thing that confuses the fuck out of lots of us non-Christians. The Bible has this whole first section describing a God who seems to bear little resemblance to Jesus, yet that testament is still included in the modern Bible so it seems like early Christians really wanted it in there.


That's kind of my point. Lumping me with other Christians is very much as useful as lumping me with other white people in order to analyze the practices of white people.

Again, I don't think that's a valid comparison. I don't choose to be white. My whiteness is not the result of any of my personal beliefs, feelings, or decisions.

You choose to hold the beliefs you hold, and you choose (or have chosen at some point) to identify as Christian. I believe that this choice reflects on you as an individual. Like I said before, I judge people on their beliefs and on how they act on their beliefs. Your skin color is neither a belief nor a deliberate action on your part.


Oh, dear, this has taken a bad turn somewhere.
If becoming sexually aroused by theological debates is wrong...

;)

I suspect you're unintentionally using the wrong terms. Do you mean to say something other than simply incorrect? Because if you do, you should probably clarify. Yes, I suspect that all religions and all people believe you're incorrect if you don't agree with them.

If you're saying that I believe that there is only one path to enlightenment and/or heaven, no I don't believe that and many religions don't. You should really look that stuff up before you use it as a basis for an argument.

You know I think we have our wires crossed here. Now lets see.

Below is what i was responding to.


No, racism is harmful, as it promotes the belief that all people are not equal. That belief is harmful in its nature. Many Christians, and particularly many people of faith, don't hold any belief that is harmful in any way. For example, I don't believe that being wrong condemns you. I'm also not entirely sure I'm right. More importantly, the Bible is a supplement to my belief, and I only accept as far as it agrees with my beliefs. Not the other way around. Comparing my faith to racism is like comparing feminism to racism.

To which I replied.

'Then again so does Christianity. Any religion must, by dint of it's dogma, preach an 'us and them' mentality. Christianity (on the whole) teaches that either you are Christian, or you have chosen to defy God and thus will face punishment.'

What I mean is all religion promotes an 'us and them' way of looking at things. If you do not agree, for example, that Jesus died for your sins, then you are wrong according to Christianity.

Therefore you are not us, but them.

Do you say that there is no harm in fostering this mentality?

You know I think we have our wires crossed here. Now lets see.

Below is what i was responding to.



To which I replied.

'Then again so does Christianity. Any religion must, by dint of it's dogma, preach an 'us and them' mentality. Christianity (on the whole) teaches that either you are Christian, or you have chosen to defy God and thus will face punishment.'

What I mean is all religion promotes an 'us and them' way of looking at things. If you do not agree, for example, that Jesus died for your sins, then you are wrong according to Christianity.

Therefore you are not us, but them.

Do you say that there is no harm in fostering this mentality?

If you don't believe vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream then you are wrong according the nature of favorites. If you don't believe in equality, you're wrong. If you don't believe in democracy, you're wrong. EVERY belief is "us and them". What you're talking about is the nature of believing something to be correct. It has as much to do with religion as it does with Willie Parker being a great running back.

Meanwhile, your ignorance of the bredth and depth of Christianity is saddening considering how active you are on this forum. Yes, there is a large portion of Christianity that believes in the carrot and the stick. It's not all of it, and it's not inherent.

Yes, I say there is no harm in fostering the idea that your belief is correct. It's required. Again, where you're failing is you're trying to reference a type of belief, not belief itself. There are types of belief that are fanatical that treat it like you're deficient if you don't agree, but they aren't all religions, all Christians, or all anything for the most parts. And, yes, I'd say anyone who sits on high and judge the value of other people based on something about them that is harmless to anyone but them is not someone I'd encourage to have that view.

That wouldn't be faith, that'd be acknowledging a fact.
Of course it would be faith, a confirmation of my faith. And if He should go elsewhere, I would need to retain that faith that He will be there for me again. Faith is far more than seeing, it is also about believing.

I don't have faith that I'm sitting in front of my computer, because I can plainly see the computer in front of me, and the chair underneath me.
Although you are sitting on your chair and you know that it is real, you still require faith that that chair will hold you up and support you in your time of need.

I don't have faith that I'm wearing my ring, because I can feel it, and see it.
Again, most rings represent far more than an adornment. Often it represents a symbol of faith in a loved one, and a reminder of pleasant times.

Similarly, if I were to turn around and discover God standing behind me, I would not need faith to conclude that he exists.
Depending upon your spiritual condition, you will discover faith? :D

Well, I wouldn't accept him as god right away, but that's beside the point.
Yeah, I imagine that it would take awhile to recover your senses? :eek:

My favorite question is and always will be, anyone can be willing to persecuted in life, but given that you believe in Hell, would you be willing to spend eternity in Hell in order to stand up for what is right? If the answer is no, it's not faith. It's fear.

A question I enjoy, too, although I pray that I never have the make the choice. Jorge Luis Borges wrote a short story about a crazed theologian who ended up concluding that Judas was the true Son of God, or was at least as good as him because he was willing to spend eternity in torment to save the world.
I don't really have anything useful to add, I just wanted to fawn over your post. I hope I haven't annoyed anyone by taking up server space.

1) "look around and marvel at all... creation". Good idea - it is evidence, though - not proof.

2) ...and not defeinitvely evidence of your 'god'. It's just as good as evidence of a thousand others.

3) If god is infinite, how could we possibly EVER get definitive proof? ANY proof we got MUST be finite, and thus must - by definition - fail to prove the infinite nature of god. If we can't verify ALL of god, how do we know we are 'proving' the right one, or accurately proving the one we think we're proving?

Extremely true, especially number 3. We debated that two semesters ago in my philosophy class, and we came to a very similar conclusion.