FARK.com: (4484950) People who are unsure of their own beliefs are less open minded. Suck it agnostics

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

Not News Sports Business Geek Showbiz Politics Music Video All

		People who are unsure of their own beliefs are less open minded. Suck it agnostics (news.yahoo.com)		889
		More: Ironic

• • •

9031 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Jul 2009 at 12:32 PM |

Favorite | share:

more» |

Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends!

shirt it!

Share with your BFFs:

URL:

Bookmark:

889 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

FlyingPig

2009-07-02 08:08:04 AM

This is news? I see self-righteous agnostics on Fark claiming that "Atheists are no different from fundies" all the time.

Last One Left

2009-07-02 08:14:13 AM

What if I am convinced that I'm close-minded?

CtrlAltDelete

2009-07-02 08:25:39 AM

I don't know if I agree with that.

I guess I could see it both ways.

Pocket Ninja

2009-07-02 08:30:17 AM

It's interesting how the words used in this headline manage to complete misdirect the actual point of the studies while still being technically accurate.

devildog123

2009-07-02 08:35:37 AM

FlyingPig: This is news? I see self-righteous agnostics on Fark claiming that "Atheists are no different from fundies" all the time.

Not all Atheists, just the ones that are insanely arrogant and obnoxious about it, and believe that they are right, and everyone else is a stupid, ignorant, and wrong. They sound like religious fundies to me.

FTA: Overall, the studies suggested people are about twice as likely to cherry-pick information that supports their own viewpoints than to consider an opposing idea. Nearly 70 percent cherry-picked compared to about 30 percent who ponder the other side.

That sounds like they spent a whole lot of time on the Fark political page. The left wing nuts and the right wing nuts do that all the time.

/agnostic
//Libertarian
///I think I'm more open minded than most of you.

GurneyHalleck

2009-07-02 08:59:59 AM

Anyone who says they're sure of their beliefs has closed their mind.

slayer199

2009-07-02 09:08:04 AM

devildog123: FlyingPig: This is news? I see self-righteous agnostics on Fark claiming that "Atheists are no different from fundies" all the time.

Not all Atheists, just the ones that are insanely arrogant and obnoxious about it, and believe that they are right, and everyone else is a stupid, ignorant, and wrong. They sound like religious fundies to me.

FTA: Overall, the studies suggested people are about twice as likely to cherry-pick information that supports their own viewpoints than to consider an opposing idea. Nearly 70 percent cherry-picked compared to about 30 percent who ponder the other side.

That sounds like they spent a whole lot of time on the Fark political page. The left wing nuts and the right wing nuts do that all the time.

/agnostic
//Libertarian
///I think I'm more open minded than most of you.

I agree with you but not because I'm cherry-picking. My beliefs have changed over-time or with careful consideration of new information from all sides, not because I'm cherry-picking.

Either that or I find the extremists on both sides prone to asshattery.

/agnostic
//Libertarian
///Also open-minded.

FlyingPig

2009-07-02 09:09:38 AM

GurneyHalleck: Anyone who says they're sure of their beliefs has closed their mind.

So basically, we're not allowed to be sure of anything, ever? If we followed that to its logical extension, we'd never be able to have an opinion on anything.

Everyone should be about 95 percent sure of what they believe in. There's a non-zero chance ANYTHING could be wrong, and every honest person has to admit that. That doesn't mean you can't ever be confident of your opinions. Yes, keep your mind open to the possibility of it being changed, but anyone who goes around being unsure of his most basic beliefs has no self-esteem or conviction.

Mordant

2009-07-02 09:28:52 AM

devildog123: /agnostic
//Libertarian
///I think I'm more open minded than most of you.

There really are only two groups of people who are completely above the fray and function on a level driven only by pure intellect and reason. If I may take a moment to put on my sunglasses before basking in your glory, I'd just like to thank you for gracing us with your presence.

brap

2009-07-02 09:31:59 AM

Flying Pig

"Anyone who goes around being unsure of his most basic beliefs has no self-esteem or conviction."

Perhaps, but they are probably FANTASTIC in the sack.

"Have I ever told you that I love a man with no convictions?

Well, get your willie-wanky-woo over here, darling."

- Butchered Derek and Clive homage

sigdiamond2000

2009-07-02 09:48:34 AM

devildog123: Not all Atheists, just the ones that are insanely arrogant and obnoxious about it, and believe that they are right, and everyone else is a stupid, ignorant, and wrong. They sound like religious fundies to me.

Can I ask a question? Where do you and others who talk about "secular fundamentalists" live, or what do you do, that makes you come into contact with all these crazy atheists?

I live in arguably the most Godless, liberal, communist city in the United States and never once in my life have I been harangued by these militant atheists that I hear so much about on Fark.*

Do you people spend all your days hanging around the local socialist food co-op?
__________

*I am, however, visited on a near-monthly basis by sharply dressed Mormons who always tend to show up at my door when I'm extremely busy or hungover.

brap

2009-07-02 09:55:14 AM

I can already tell I'm going to love playing "Find the self-proclaimed bodhisattva" in this thread.

Doctor Funkenstein

2009-07-02 09:59:30 AM

brap: I can already tell I'm going to love playing "Find the self-proclaimed bodhisattva" in this thread.

I hope you enjoy the game, but you'll never be as enlightened as me, motherfarker!

/got nothing...except mad enlightenment!
//yeah, I had to google that to figure out WTF it was

The Onanist

2009-07-02 10:04:54 AM

I believe I'll have another drink.

Diogenes

2009-07-02 10:14:23 AM

Drawing a limit to what is knowable and what is not is not being "unsure" of your beliefs.

"...in order to draw a limit to thinking we should have to be able to thnk both sides of this limit (we should therefore have to be able to think what cannot be thought).

The limit can, therefore, only be drawn in language and what lies on the other side of the limit will be simply nonsense." - Wittgenstein

CtrlAltDelete

2009-07-02 10:22:58 AM

The Onanist: I believe I'll have another drink.

cdn.sheknows.com

EMPIRICIST!

filth

2009-07-02 10:25:37 AM

Diogenes: Drawing a limit to what is knowable and what is not is not being "unsure" of your beliefs.

"...in order to draw a limit to thinking we should have to be able to thnk both sides of this limit (we should therefore have to be able to think what cannot be thought).

The limit can, therefore, only be drawn in language and what lies on the other side of the limit will be simply nonsense." - Wittgenstein

Being "knowable," in the logical sense, is absolutely unrelated to matters of faith. If you need God to help you with logic, you're a retard; if you need God to be subject to logic, you lack imagination.

UberDave

2009-07-02 10:29:11 AM

Diogenes: Drawing a limit to what is knowable and what is not is not being "unsure" of your beliefs.

"...in order to draw a limit to thinking we should have to be able to thnk both sides of this limit (we should therefore have to be able to think what cannot be thought).

The limit can, therefore, only be drawn in language and what lies on the other side of the limit will be simply nonsense." - Wittgenstein

Very good point. But some would claim that Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as schloshed as Schlegel....

Diogenes

2009-07-02 10:29:50 AM

filth: Diogenes: Drawing a limit to what is knowable and what is not is not being "unsure" of your beliefs.

"...in order to draw a limit to thinking we should have to be able to thnk both sides of this limit (we should therefore have to be able to think what cannot be thought).

The limit can, therefore, only be drawn in language and what lies on the other side of the limit will be simply nonsense." - Wittgenstein

Being "knowable," in the logical sense, is absolutely unrelated to matters of faith. If you need God to help you with logic, you're a retard; if you need God to be subject to logic, you lack imagination.

You're missing the point. What Wittgenstein was doing was delineating between matters of logic and matters of metaphysics. He would never claim that God was subject to human logic.

FlyingPig

2009-07-02 10:33:01 AM

filth: If you need God to help you with logic, you're a retard; if you need God to be subject to logic

If you believe that an entity can exist that is outside logic, you get the smug satisfaction of never having to admit you were proven wrong, because you won't accept any logic anybody might offer to the contrary anyway.

Mentat

2009-07-02 10:36:21 AM

CtrlAltDelete: I don't know if I agree with that.

I guess I could see it both ways.

I'm not sure if that's the case.

CtrlAltDelete

2009-07-02 10:42:48 AM

Mentat: I'm not sure if that's the case.

You could be right.

KaponoFor3

2009-07-02 10:50:07 AM

Mentat

2009-07-02 11:03:20 AM

CtrlAltDelete: Mentat: I'm not sure if that's the case.

You could be right.

Don't quote me on that.

filth

2009-07-02 11:09:59 AM

Danielsan

2009-07-02 11:10:45 AM

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."

Bertrand Russell

Sybarite

2009-07-02 11:11:22 AM

KaponoFor3: devildog123: Not all Atheists, just the ones that are insanely arrogant and obnoxious about it, and believe that they are right, and everyone else is a stupid, ignorant, and wrong. They sound like religious fundies to me.

Exactly. They are the exact opposite side of the same coin that they abhor.

That's why you see so many of them burning religious books, protesting at events they disagree with while screaming that the people there are not going anywhere when they die, publicly proclaiming that people with faith can't possibly be real Americans, going to poor third world countries to convert the local animists to atheism, leaving copies of Richard Dawkins books in hotel rooms, and knocking on your door to tell you the good news about materialism. Yep, exactly the same.

filth

2009-07-02 11:18:41 AM

FlyingPig: filth: If you need God to help you with logic, you're a retard; if you need God to be subject to logic

If you believe that an entity can exist that is outside logic, you get the smug satisfaction of never having to admit you were proven wrong, because you won't accept any logic anybody might offer to the contrary anyway.

Except I'm not smug, satisfied, or convinced that I'm right. I'm merely asserting that the attempt to restrict matters of faith to logical analysis is one of the greatest exercises in missing the point known to man. I was also equating the fallacies of those who require the divine to be present in logical exercises with those who refuse to recognize the existence of questions not subject to pragmatic philosophy.

ne2d

2009-07-02 11:21:47 AM

GurneyHalleck: Anyone who says they're sure of their beliefs has closed their mind.

Are you sure about that?

sigdiamond2000

2009-07-02 11:29:25 AM

Sybarite: That's why you see so many of them burning religious books, protesting at events they disagree with while screaming that the people there are not going anywhere when they die, publicly proclaiming that people with faith can't possibly be real Americans, going to poor third world countries to convert the local animists to atheism, leaving copies of Richard Dawkins books in hotel rooms, and knocking on your door to tell you the good news about materialism. Yep, exactly the same.

img525.imageshack.us

CtrlAltDelete

2009-07-02 11:33:33 AM

Mentat: CtrlAltDelete: Mentat: I'm not sure if that's the case.

You could be right.

Don't quote me on that.

JEEPERS CREEPERS! SEMI-STAR!

GilRuiz1

2009-07-02 11:53:16 AM

Talon

2009-07-02 12:05:04 PM

Diogenes: filth: Diogenes: Drawing a limit to what is knowable and what is not is not being "unsure" of your beliefs.

"...in order to draw a limit to thinking we should have to be able to thnk both sides of this limit (we should therefore have to be able to think what cannot be thought).

The limit can, therefore, only be drawn in language and what lies on the other side of the limit will be simply nonsense." - Wittgenstein

Being "knowable," in the logical sense, is absolutely unrelated to matters of faith. If you need God to help you with logic, you're a retard; if you need God to be subject to logic, you lack imagination.

You're missing the point. What Wittgenstein was doing was delineating between matters of logic and matters of metaphysics. He would never claim that God was subject to human logic.

If I recall correctly, Wittgenstein's whole philosophy was that disagreements in the realm of philosophy stemmed solely from language. That is, we all agree in principles of logic, and we will agree on a certain set of premises, and therefore we shouldn't disagree on the logical answer and yet we do - therefore the problem must be the terms we use and what we mean by them.

In that quote I see that being distinguished, not a delineating between logic and metaphysics, but him pointing out the obvious flaws of language - what we know is what we can express in language, and if we cannot express it in language then it is nonsense (with this limitation being the basis for believing that language is the root of all conflict in philosophy).

Also, iirc, this particular idea in philosophy died out a few decades after Wittgenstein proposed it, and even in his old age he also abandoned it (but I may be thinking of someone else, it's been a long time since I read Wittgenstein).

/just saying that I don't really think that quote applies to the subject at hand.

sigdiamond2000

2009-07-02 12:14:36 PM

GilRuiz1: How can you have been on FARK for seven years and yet missed all of those stories?

All one of them?

Mentat

2009-07-02 12:22:26 PM

CtrlAltDelete: Mentat: CtrlAltDelete: Mentat: I'm not sure if that's the case.

You could be right.

Don't quote me on that.

JEEPERS CREEPERS! SEMI-STAR!

If I don't make it through this, tell my wife I said, "Hello."

tallguywithglasseson

2009-07-02 12:29:19 PM

Yeah, I'll admit I'm not that open minded. Or maybe I am, shut up, I don't care what you think!

Sique

2009-07-02 12:35:17 PM

Yeah, take that Aggies!

EWreckedSean

2009-07-02 12:35:22 PM

Agnostics aren't unsure in their beliefs. They are just really sure that god might exist, and he might not. We just except the possibility that either could be true.

tedbundee

2009-07-02 12:35:36 PM

Last One Left: What if I am convinced that I'm close-minded?

Then I believe the term you're looking for is "twat"

12349876

2009-07-02 12:35:57 PM

I don't see any atheist saying that anyone who isn't an atheist is going to suffer eternal hellfire.

Ant

2009-07-02 12:36:11 PM

Anyone who has not critically examined their beliefs need to have a closed mind in order to avoid having those beliefs annihilated by other viewpoints.

Drakin020

2009-07-02 12:36:20 PM

Pocket Ninja: It's interesting how the words used in this headline manage to complete misdirect the actual point of the studies while still being technically accurate.

bp3.blogger.com

/Amused.

PirateKing

2009-07-02 12:36:33 PM

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. - Yeats

tedbundee

2009-07-02 12:36:36 PM

GurneyHalleck: Anyone who says they're sure of their beliefs has closed their mind.

you sure about that?

Englebert Slaptyback

2009-07-02 12:36:45 PM

UberDave

Very good point. But some would claim that Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as schloshed as Schlegel....

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar;
Hobbes was fond of his dram.
And René Descartes was a drunken fart,
"I drink, therefore I am."

farkingatwork

2009-07-02 12:37:20 PM

ne2d: GurneyHalleck: Anyone who says they're sure of their beliefs has closed their mind.

Are you sure about that?

ha, smart.

/go ask a fundie that question

CrankMyBlueSax

2009-07-02 12:37:45 PM

If there is steak and a bj, I'll believe anything she tells me to.

Zmog

2009-07-02 12:37:45 PM

Cover your noses, I'm about to open my mind.

dreadprophet

2009-07-02 12:37:46 PM

Mentat: If I don't make it through this, tell my wife I said, "Hello."

What makes a man turn... neutral?

EWreckedSean

2009-07-02 12:38:02 PM

12349876: I don't see any atheist saying that anyone who isn't an atheist is going to suffer eternal hellfire.

No they just saying they are wasting their lives.

Lord_Baull

2009-07-02 12:38:15 PM

I don't get it. They're unsure of their own beliefs, but they refuse to be open to others' beliefs?

Queue quizzical dog pic.

I_C_Weener

2009-07-02 12:38:32 PM

EWreckedSean: We just except the possibility that either could be true.

Are you sure?

Transubstantive

2009-07-02 12:39:47 PM

I know I'll never know if God exists (at least in this life). That is not being unsure in your beliefs.

Pxtl

2009-07-02 12:40:18 PM

Agnostics are perfectly capable of being sure of their beliefs. It's one thing to say "I don't know the nature of God".

Quite another thing to say "I don't know the nature of God, and neither do any of you idiots."

farkMcFark

2009-07-02 12:40:20 PM

Actually, I'm very firm in what I believe. I just don't care if there is a God or not even though I'm on the side of there not being one. I am open to the idea that one could exist though.

Alan Watts could give a lot of you some valuable insight if you have an open mind.

Omnivorous

2009-07-02 12:40:35 PM

Yup: those mullahs running Iran are one open-minded cabal.

scseth

2009-07-02 12:41:41 PM

There are only two things I hate, intolerance and the Dutch.

Zed-ex

2009-07-02 12:42:05 PM

How is this ironic? Isn't that obvious?

Brian The Fist

2009-07-02 12:42:17 PM

I am not certain that I have all the answers, but I am convinced that you do not.

-btf

Daffydil

2009-07-02 12:42:32 PM

scseth: There are only two things I hate, intolerance and the ~~Dutch~~ midgets.

FTFM

dewihafta

2009-07-02 12:42:56 PM

The people I know who brag about how open-minded they are are some of the most closed-minded bastards I know.

/and religion doesnt' even come into it

PumpUpDaFark

2009-07-02 12:43:06 PM

I am just as satisfied living in my well-designed house as I am living in this well-designed world.

Huck Chaser

2009-07-02 12:43:12 PM

UberDave: Very good point. But some would claim that Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as schloshed as Schlegel....

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the raisin' of the wrist. Socrates himself was permanently pissed.

crab66

2009-07-02 12:43:35 PM

After reading the article I think it actually says that the reason religious nutjobs are so nutty is because they aren't really sure about what they believe in.

Not really anything to do with agnostics.

Bartleby the Scrivener

2009-07-02 12:43:40 PM

dewihafta: The people I know who brag about how open-minded they are are some of the most closed-minded bastards I know.

This?

IXI Jim IXI

2009-07-02 12:44:21 PM

Pocket Ninja: It's interesting how the words used in this headline manage to complete misdirect the actual point of the studies while still being technically accurate.

Thursday already?

Sid_6.7

2009-07-02 12:44:58 PM

UberDave: Very good point. But some would claim that Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as schloshed as Schlegel....

One of my majors was Philosophy, and we had an exam where our professor offered bonus credit for each line of that song we could remember.

AnubisMan

2009-07-02 12:45:06 PM

It is better to be unsure, than to be so certain that you think it is your duty to impose your views on those around you by going door to door pissing people off. In the end I'd rather have an open mind than a closed incorrect one. You end up annoy your fellow man, and looking like a dumbass.

Ant

2009-07-02 12:45:50 PM

KaponoFor3: Exactly. They are the exact opposite side of the same coin that they abhor.

Except for the fact that they usually have reality on their side, whereas religious fundies usually don't.

thelordofcheese

2009-07-02 12:45:59 PM

I actively seek those whose views differ from mine. That way I have someone with whom to argue.
/that way it feels like I'm at home

kyoryu

2009-07-02 12:46:00 PM

No shiat.

Had a conversation with a creationist, and got him to finally admimt that the reason he was a creationist was this:

God making the world is less unbelievable than someone rising from the dead, being the Son of God, going to Hell for 3 days, etc. If he were to accept that Genesis was not, literally, word-for-word true, then he'd have to seriously question the divinity of Jesus.

His entire closed-mindedness on the subject was based on his insecurities in his own faith.

He was a pretty nice guy, actually, it wasn't like we were screaming obscenities at each other. I give him full credit for being honest enough to acknowledge the real reason that he believed in creationism.

yesanded

2009-07-02 12:46:16 PM

"The findings, which are based on a review of more than 90 studies..."

Cool. I can't wait to delve into these studies and analyze how "the findings" came to be processed. OK, so let's just click the links for these citations... OK, must be at the bottom of the page, maybe? Nope...all right, keep on looking... I know they must be here somewhere. After all, would a reputable news source like Yahoo make a statement like this without citing their source on the studies? Come on!

maxspeed

2009-07-02 12:47:45 PM

What do you call someone who is undecided about the existence of a creator but is absolutely sure everybody else is wrong?

I_C_Weener

2009-07-02 12:47:51 PM

Just don't be so certain and open-minded that your brain falls out..

MightyPez

2009-07-02 12:47:59 PM

sigdiamond2000: GilRuiz1: How can you have been on FARK for seven years and yet missed all of those stories?

All one of them?

How many does it take before it's considered not ok? The debaptisms? Some of the antagonistic billboards?

I tend to side more with the atheists than anyone else, but there are plenty of hard lining atheists out there that are, indeed, on the opposite side of the same coin of the fundamentalist christians.

Mentat

2009-07-02 12:48:21 PM

farkMcFark: Actually, I'm very firm in what I believe. I just don't care if there is a God or not even though I'm on the side of there not being one. I am open to the idea that one could exist though.

Ah, the apatheist. Good man.

jgbrowning

2009-07-02 12:48:47 PM

GurneyHalleck: Anyone who says they're sure of their beliefs has closed their mind.

I'm always sure of my beliefs. And I'm sure I'll change them when new information comes to my attention requiring my beliefs to change. It's happened before - it will happen again.

IMO, not being sure of one's beliefs means that one really hasn't thought about them very much.

Ant

2009-07-02 12:48:52 PM

GilRuiz1: How can you have been on FARK for seven years and yet missed all of those stories?

So one insane atheist vs how many theists?

crab66

2009-07-02 12:48:53 PM

maxspeed: What do you call someone who is undecided about the existence of a creator but is absolutely sure everybody else is wrong?

Your average Christian.

mhix01

2009-07-02 12:49:06 PM

being open minded doesn't mean you're unsure of what you believe in, it means that if some kind of "evidence" comes along that shows what you believe to be true is in fact not true, you change your beliefs. Your beliefs are not "cast in stone".

Until such evidence shows up though, you are as sure as sure can be about your beliefs.

The problem with fundy type beliefs is that they're not based on evidence and therefore can't really be changed by evidence. They're based on faith - believing in something in the absence of evidence - or even in spite of it. I have a hard time seeing someone with faith-based beliefs being open minded. But I'm willing to let evidence to the contrary change my mind!

xenomorpheus

2009-07-02 12:49:20 PM

I'm pretty sure I don't believe in anything.

Ant

2009-07-02 12:50:12 PM

EWreckedSean: Agnostics aren't unsure in their beliefs. They are just really sure that god might exist, and he might not. We just except the possibility that either could be true.

What about leprechauns? Are you agnostic about them too?

phenn

2009-07-02 12:51:09 PM

What's less open minded? I don't believe in a higher and I don't care if you do.

Ant

2009-07-02 12:51:46 PM

Transubstantive: I know I'll never know if God exists (at least in this life). That is not being unsure in your beliefs.

So you think the odds are 50/50?

Dundidit

2009-07-02 12:51:53 PM

Came here for philosoraptor. Leaving disappointed.

TheyCallThisWork

2009-07-02 12:52:10 PM

Believing in things is a nasty road to go down. You inevitably find yourself doing something you don't care for.

A foolish consistency . . . and all that.

Mr.Z

2009-07-02 12:52:14 PM

I'm looking at a chair. My belief is... it is a chair. What exactly is a chair anyway? What makes it a 'chair'? Is it because I sit on it? Well, I can sit on a log --- then is not the log also a 'chair'? I can sit on a guard rail, too. I sit on the toilet (a whole other conversation)...... wait, it's no longer a chair, it's a 'throne'. I can't sit on my thumbs....they're not chairs...or they're not 'capable chairs', no feckin' armrest. Dammit, how does one 'sit on their arse'? What makes a chair a 'chair'? If I believe it's a chair, does that make it a chair? If so, who said? Who was the first one that said "I'll call this a 'chair'?" What, 'noodle' didn't sound right?
Damn this thread!

MightyPez

2009-07-02 12:52:21 PM

Oh, and for you fellow agnostics out there, I submit to you: The Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic (new window) "We don't know, and we don't care"

Calendar events for this month:

July

* 11 July: Thomas Bowdler Day; Support Free Speech & Oppose Censorship - birth date of the man who bowdlerized Shakespeare and the Old Testament. On this day we express our support for free speech and our opposition to censorship. (Meditation 78) (new window)

t3knomanser

2009-07-02 12:52:23 PM

FlyingPig: This is news? I see self-righteous agnostics on Fark claiming that "Atheists are no different from fundies" all the time.

Nothing's more annoying than an Internet Agnostic pulling the "I'm more rational than thou" schtick, especially because the vast majority of them are usually religious apologists.

m2313

2009-07-02 12:52:32 PM

xenomorpheus: I'm pretty sure I don't believe in anything.

I'm pretty sure you actually do believe in nothing.

Arkanaut

2009-07-02 12:53:05 PM

Most of the people whom I've heard describe themselves as "open-minded" are bisexual or just came out of the closet.

/NTTAWWT

Deucednuisance

2009-07-02 12:53:28 PM

GilRuiz1: all of those stories

Wouldn't that statement imply more than a single story?

simpsonfan

2009-07-02 12:53:35 PM

The Muslim Taliban, Christian Taliban, and the various Hindu, Jewish, etc fanatics are all very confident in their beliefs. A little too confident, as they automatically determine those who believe differently than they do are heathens/infidels who will all go to Hell. And some of them try to make them go right away.

Anybody willing to kill and/or die for a religion seems to me to be very sure of what they believe.

CapitolG

2009-07-02 12:53:48 PM

Huck Chaser: Socrates himself was permanently pissed

Sands, Hourglass, Dude!

t3knomanser

2009-07-02 12:53:53 PM

Mr.Z: My belief is... it is a chair. What exactly is a chair anyway? What makes it a 'chair'? Is it because I sit on it?

My argument would be: it exists as a chair because you perceive it as a chair. Your brain is evolved to organize the world in terms of objects. Objects exist, not in the world, but in your brain. The collection of matter you refer to as a chair isn't a chair, except insofar as you perceive it that way. It's just a blob of matter.

BobaFeet

2009-07-02 12:53:58 PM

Sybarite: KaponoFor3: devildog123: Not all Atheists, just the ones that are insanely arrogant and obnoxious about it, and believe that they are right, and everyone else is a stupid, ignorant, and wrong. They sound like religious fundies to me.

Exactly. They are the exact opposite side of the same coin that they abhor.

That's why you see so many of them burning religious books, protesting at events they disagree with while screaming that the people there are not going anywhere when they die, publicly proclaiming that people with faith can't possibly be real Americans, going to poor third world countries to convert the local animists to atheism, leaving copies of Richard Dawkins books in hotel rooms, and knocking on your door to tell you the good news about materialism. Yep, exactly the same.

It hurts right here. Not so much here or here. But more right here. Are you sure there isn't a mark Richard?

/this, this, an octazillion times this + 1 this

FlyingPig

2009-07-02 12:53:58 PM

MightyPez: Some of the antagonistic billboards?

How come one billboard with an atheistic message is antagonistic, but the thousands of religious billboards aren't?

Danielsan

2009-07-02 12:54:54 PM

After reading the article, the term 'unsure' doesn't seem to be right. More like 'insecure'

m2313

2009-07-02 12:55:24 PM

rastjr

2009-07-02 12:55:25 PM

I've always believed that the universe is just too large and complex not be created by a supreme being. Who or what that supreme being is, I will never know. So, I just try to take the good from all religions and live my life like that.

Am I perfect, no, but I try to attain perfection everyday.

When I die maybe I'll be rewarded. Maybe there is nothing after death. But at least I know I lived my life the right way.

t3knomanser

2009-07-02 12:55:38 PM

FlyingPig: How come one billboard with an atheistic message is antagonistic, but the thousands of religious billboards aren't?

And more to the point, most of the atheist billboards say things like "There probably is no god," and "You can be good without god," which are pretty agnostic friendly statements.

Remember: if you say there is a god, you are a theist. If you are not a theist, you must be an atheist. An agnostic is someone who can't pick a side with complete confidence, but unless you say, "There is a god," you are an atheist.

loki see loki do

2009-07-02 12:56:21 PM

That's the problem with beliefs.
They don't really lend themselves to examination, and tend to stand in the way of revision, or god forbid, contradictory evidence.
Better off without 'em.

t3knomanser

2009-07-02 12:56:26 PM

rastjr: I've always believed that the universe is just too large and complex not be created by a supreme being.

What makes you think the universe is large? What makes you think the universe is complex? Do you have another universe I can compare it to, to see if I think this universe is large or not?

hurdboy

2009-07-02 12:56:29 PM

phenn: What's less open minded? I don't believe in a higher and I don't care if you do.

Which is not being an agnostic.....you've made a decision based upon the evidence you've collected that there isn't "a higher." The whole point of agnosticism is a steadfast refusal to do just that.

/Resigned atheist
//I want to believe in fairy tales, but I can't, so I don't give them equal weight as the agnostics do
///Have less of a problem with religious people than those who stay in a state of willful ignorance

RocketRod

2009-07-02 12:56:47 PM

I don't believe in atheists or agnostics.

Lord_Baull

2009-07-02 12:57:25 PM

There was a Creationist on another website that suggested to me how Koalas, who dine exclusively on Eucalyptus leaves found exclusively in Australia, were able to make it back to Australia after the flood. This (new window) was her explanation.

Yeah, the logic from the close-minded Fundie borders on insanity.

EWreckedSean

2009-07-02 12:57:29 PM

MightyPez

2009-07-02 12:57:36 PM

FlyingPig: MightyPez: Some of the antagonistic billboards?

How come one billboard with an atheistic message is antagonistic, but the thousands of religious billboards aren't?

Where did I say they weren't? And if we can both agree that the religious ones antagonistic, does that make the atheist ones ok? I thought we were above that?

Blind_Io

2009-07-02 12:57:49 PM

GilRuiz1: Sybarite: That's why you see so many of them burning religious books, protesting at events they disagree with while screaming that the people there are not going anywhere when they die, publicly proclaiming that people with faith can't possibly be real Americans, going to poor third world countries to convert the local animists to atheism, leaving copies of Richard Dawkins books in hotel rooms, and knocking on your door to tell you the good news about materialism. Yep, exactly the same.

How can you have been on FARK for seven years and yet missed all of those stories?

Wow, it's so rare that aggressive Atheists actually make the news. Imagine what would happen if the media reported on every single religious fanatic in the US. That guy with the "JESUS SAVES" sign who smells like pee would get space in the local paper.

Sure that guy is off his gourd to do something like that, but the fact that he's an off-his-gourd Atheist makes the news. If he was an off-his-gourd Christian it probably wouldn't even be mentioned.

The fact that the story was printed at all was probably just to scare those who are religious and provide material for Sunday sermons about how this poor, misguided young man would be so much happier if he just submitted to God's will and developed a personal relationship with Jesus - or whatever it is they talk about in church these days.

/haven't been in years.

t3knomanser

2009-07-02 12:57:49 PM

hurdboy: The whole point of agnosticism is a steadfast refusal to do just that.

But they're still atheists. If you don't say, "There is a god," you're an atheist. Most atheists are agnostic, insofar as few atheists would guarantee that there is no god. But given the available evidence, most would be willing to stake a great deal on gods absence, because, let's be honest: god doesn't exactly go out of its way to make its presence known.

EWreckedSean

2009-07-02 12:58:14 PM

I_C_Weener: EWreckedSean: We just except the possibility that either could be true.

Are you sure?

Nobody likes a grammar Nazi. Somebody throw something sharp at him.

FlyingPig

2009-07-02 12:58:46 PM

t3knomanser: Remember: if you say there is a god, you are a theist. If you are not a theist, you must be an atheist. An agnostic is someone who can't pick a side with complete confidence, but unless you say, "There is a god," you are an atheist.

Agreed.

Agnostics can be further subdivided into agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. Just saying you're "agnostic" doesn't get you off the hook. It doesn't work that way.

Ant

2009-07-02 12:58:57 PM

rastjr: But at least I know I lived my life the right way.

No you don't. Maybe the "right way" was to sacrifice a virgin every Tuesday night.

EWreckedSean

2009-07-02 12:59:32 PM

Daffydil: scseth: There are only two things I hate, intolerance and the Dutch midgets.

FTFM

Best website ever is still hireamidget dot com...

m2313

2009-07-02 12:59:48 PM

rastjr: But at least I know I lived my life the right way.

How do you know what's right?

crab66

2009-07-02 01:00:01 PM

Ant: EWreckedSean: Agnostics aren't unsure in their beliefs. They are just really sure that god might exist, and he might not. We just except the possibility that either could be true.

What about leprechauns? Are you agnostic about them too?

My views on leprechauns and god/religion are pretty similar actually.

If someone can prove they exist then I will believe it. Until then I am not going to base my life on chasing leprechauns or pleasing raptorjesus.

piperTom

2009-07-02 01:00:10 PM

GurneyHalleck: Anyone who says they're sure of their beliefs has closed their mind.

Are you sure?

Boobiesontheside

2009-07-02 01:00:36 PM

BobaFeet

2009-07-02 01:00:45 PM

I believe in America. I believe it exists.
-Stephen Colbert

CapitolG

2009-07-02 01:00:54 PM

t3knomanser: What makes you think the universe is large?

The time it takes for Light(some pretty fast stuff) go get to us from Afar.....

Or lets go more local, the fact that I cannot See the edege, even with a telescope.

And if you had an other universe, it would not be a Universe would it?( I am guessing that is your point.)

rastjr

2009-07-02 01:01:09 PM

t3knomanser: rastjr: I've always believed that the universe is just too large and complex not be created by a supreme being.

What makes you think the universe is large? What makes you think the universe is complex? Do you have another universe I can compare it to, to see if I think this universe is large or not?

Relative to the things I know, it is large. That's all I can compare things to.

Relative to the things I know, it is complex. That's all I can compare things to.

FlyingPig

2009-07-02 01:01:15 PM

MightyPez: Where did I say they weren't? And if we can both agree that the religious ones antagonistic, does that make the atheist ones ok? I thought we were above that?

OK. We're on the same page then. I was speaking more about the views of people in this country in general, not specifically you.

hurdboy: The whole point of agnosticism is a steadfast refusal to do just that.

A wise band once said: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".

icanhazstapler

2009-07-02 01:02:03 PM

One trip to the Politics Tab was enough to convince me of this.

omris

2009-07-02 01:02:25 PM

If I am secure in the belief that I am correct, then it is harmless to explore the rationale behind other ideas. If you're still trying to convince yourself, then it's too dangerous to go out on a limb and consider something other than that "truth".

But to address a common misconception, isn't it that people who are unsure about the existence of god are just unsure, and people who are sure that the existence of god is not or cannot be known are agnostic? So you could be an agnostic theist or atheist.

/scientist

rastjr

2009-07-02 01:02:33 PM

m2313: rastjr: But at least I know I lived my life the right way.

How do you know what's right?

I was good to people and left the world better than when I came in. That's all I can do with this life I have.

Sodium Benzoate

2009-07-02 01:02:42 PM

FlyingPig: t3knomanser: Remember: if you say there is a god, you are a theist. If you are not a theist, you must be an atheist. An agnostic is someone who can't pick a side with complete confidence, but unless you say, "There is a god," you are an atheist.

Agreed.

Agnostics can be further subdivided into agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. Just saying you're "agnostic" doesn't get you off the hook. It doesn't work that way.

While all of this is accurate, I'd also say a lot of people simply say "I'm agnostic" because they don't believe in gods and also don't want to argue about it.

crab66

2009-07-02 01:02:54 PM

m2313: rastjr: But at least I know I lived my life the right way.

How do you know what's right?

This.

Mongo cut wood

2009-07-02 01:03:36 PM

Does this mean Evolutionists have closed minds since they believe Evolution is fact and ID or any other view is BS?

rastjr

2009-07-02 01:03:55 PM

Ant: rastjr: But at least I know I lived my life the right way.

No you don't. Maybe the "right way" was to sacrifice a virgin every Tuesday night.

Well, your "right way" wouldn't seem very right to the virgin. So, I'll take her opinion over yours.

Blind_Io

2009-07-02 01:03:55 PM

t3knomanser: hurdboy: The whole point of agnosticism is a steadfast refusal to do just that.

But they're still atheists. If you don't say, "There is a god," you're an atheist. Most atheists are agnostic, insofar as few atheists would guarantee that there is no god. But given the available evidence, most would be willing to stake a great deal on gods absence, because, let's be honest: god doesn't exactly go out of its way to make its presence known.

Agnostic != Atheist

An agnostic recognizes that it is a logical fallacy to prove the non-existence of something. Therefore we can never know if god doesn't exist, we can only fail to find proof that it does exist. Lack of proof of existence is not proof of non-existence.

An Atheist believes god does not exist, even though this is a logical fallacy. It is a belief in the absence of proof (AKA: Faith) despite the fact that the non-existence of a god is impossible to prove.

ArcadianRefugee

2009-07-02 01:04:18 PM

EWreckedSean: Agnostics aren't unsure in their beliefs. They are just really sure that god might exist, and he might not. We just except the possibility that either could be true.

And since there is no way of knowing either way, the whole question purely academic.

m2313

2009-07-02 01:04:45 PM

rastjr: I was good to people and left the world better than when I came in. That's all I can do with this life I have.

How do you know what's good? What's better?
And maybe you could have done more but you limited yourself out of fears that something was "wrong" or "worse".

FlyingPig

2009-07-02 01:04:47 PM

t3knomanser

2009-07-02 01:05:00 PM

CapitolG: The time it takes for Light(some pretty fast stuff) go get to us from Afar.....

Well, yes, the size of the universe and the speed of light factor together to fix travel times across the universe. But that doesn't tell us the Universe is large.

"Large" is a relative term. The universe is large compared to you. So? What of it? What makes you so important, that you're the measuring stick against which the universe stacks up? Maybe the universe is average sized, and you're just really small.

Accent

2009-07-02 01:05:12 PM

FTA: People who are less confident in their beliefs are more reluctant than others to seek out opposing perspectives, researchers said today.

Could it be they seek out opposing perspectives so they can tell them they ARE WRONG AND WILL BURN IN A FIERY DAMNATION FOR ALL ETERNITY IF THEY DO NOT BELIEVE... or is it to tell them they will turn into dirt after they die and that's pretty much the end of it.

I have some questions that neither side can answer, so I'm just going to sit here and not ask for a bottled response.

Deucednuisance

2009-07-02 01:05:32 PM

Lord_Baull: This (new window) was her explanation.

Krakatoa?

You sure you gave the right link?

(But cool, Earlham! Very "Liberal" Arts school, not much Creationism there, methinks. Bonus: I know their newest Assistant Professor of Music. Great guy, skilled conductor. Miss him.)

ChadM89

2009-07-02 01:05:57 PM

Years and years ago, I believed in some things which, later in life, I abondoned belief in. My reasons for abandoning those beliefs were based on logic and new information. Those beliefs were replaced by a lack of belief in those things, which could be considered an alternate set of beliefs. Which is to say, I changed my mind after careful consideration of an opposing view. That is the very definition of being open-minded.

Some of the things which I abandoned a belief in include but are not limited to:

Santa Claus
The Tooth Fairy
Leprechauns
The Easter Bunny

Now that I find myself lacking a belief in the factual reality of those entities, am I considered closed-minded if I do NOT at least consider the possibility that those things are real after all? If I began to once again entertain the idea that perhaps the Tooth Fairy is real, would I be considered open-minded or an idiot?

The great thing about coming to your conclusions the RIGHT way is that you get to be certain that they are correct. Like the scientific method, there's a method to critical thinking and logic, and when you follow it as you should, you are able to be confident in your conclusions. It is NOT closed-minded to be certain in your beliefs, so long as you have arrived at them honestly and properly. Most often it is only through the open-minded exploration of possibilities that you come to them in the first place.

t3knomanser

2009-07-02 01:06:14 PM

rastjr: Relative to the things I know, it is large. That's all I can compare things to.

Relative to the things I know, it is complex. That's all I can compare things to.

But, relative to itself, it's just average. Your experience is rather unusual, you must admit. You exist for a very short period of time, in a very limited location, with senses that are bound to a very small range of possible inputs. I wouldn't consider your experiences a good sample space, all things considered.

Blind_Io

2009-07-02 01:06:29 PM

FlyingPig: Sodium Benzoate: While all of this is accurate, I'd also say a lot of people simply say "I'm agnostic" because they don't believe in gods and also don't want to argue about it.

OK, but that doesn't make it incorrect to call them an atheist.

Actually, it does. As I mentioned earlier, an Atheist has faith in the absence of proof that god does not exist; an Agnostic has no faith in the absence of proof.

T.rex

2009-07-02 01:06:34 PM

i disagree entirely.

I'm agnostic BECAUSE i'm open-minded. I fully admit that the belief systems of various people all have some merit that could be helpful to them.

Thus, on that vary token, they are all correct, (but they are also all wrong, if looked at from the point of view of a competing theory).

i think if someone believes something, it is true (for them). Even if someone else thinks the opposite, their beliefs are also true.

Mr.Z

2009-07-02 01:06:46 PM

t3knomanser: Mr.Z: My belief is... it is a chair. What exactly is a chair anyway? What makes it a 'chair'? Is it because I sit on it?

My argument would be: it exists as a chair because you perceive it as a chair. Your brain is evolved to organize the world in terms of objects. Objects exist, not in the world, but in your brain. The collection of matter you refer to as a chair isn't a chair, except insofar as you perceive it that way. It's just a blob of matter.

Thank you.

Sodium Benzoate

2009-07-02 01:07:04 PM

rastjr: t3knomanser: rastjr: I've always believed that the universe is just too large and complex not be created by a supreme being.

What makes you think the universe is large? What makes you think the universe is complex? Do you have another universe I can compare it to, to see if I think this universe is large or not?

Relative to the things I know, it is large. That's all I can compare things to.

Relative to the things I know, it is complex. That's all I can compare things to.

Relative to the things I understand biology is extremely, ridiculously, almost comically complex, but I know that other people spend a lot of time devoted to understanding it. I trust their opinion over any "Well I guess that means..." assumption I may make.

Size means nothing. It's completely relative to the size of the human body.

Lord_Baull

2009-07-02 01:07:18 PM

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." --Stephen Roberts

ArcadianRefugee

2009-07-02 01:07:21 PM

rastjr: I've always believed that the universe is just too large and complex [to] not be created by a supreme being.

Interesting. I've always believed that the universe is just too large and complex to have been created by a supreme being.

Tomatoe, tomato.

t3knomanser

2009-07-02 01:07:50 PM

T.rex: i think if someone believes something, it is true (for them). Even if someone else thinks the opposite, their beliefs are also true.

Ah, postmodernism. Who would have thought a single school of thought could so thoroughly destroy the possibility of rational discussion.

Postmodernists are, inarguably, the biggest idiots on the planet.

Englebert Slaptyback

2009-07-02 01:08:05 PM

FlyingPig

Sodium Benzoate: While all of this is accurate, I'd also say a lot of people simply say "I'm agnostic" because they don't believe in gods and also don't want to argue about it.

OK, but that doesn't make it incorrect to call them an atheist.

*sigh* Someone isn't paying attention.

Atheist - actively believes and is certain that there is no god

Agnostic - is not certain if there is a god, i.e. holds no active belief one way or the other

hurdboy

2009-07-02 01:08:25 PM

t3knomanser: hurdboy: The whole point of agnosticism is a steadfast refusal to do just that.

But they're still atheists. If you don't say, "There is a god," you're an atheist. Most atheists are agnostic, insofar as few atheists would guarantee that there is no god. But given the available evidence, most would be willing to stake a great deal on gods absence, because, let's be honest: god doesn't exactly go out of its way to make its presence known.

Again, however, that "out" isn't really worth discussing. I mean, I suppose it's possible I could get hit and killed by a meteor on the way out to my car this afternoon....there is enough evidence to the contrary to make a declaration and stop worrying about it.

/Unlike, say, Global Warming

evilgreg

2009-07-02 01:08:40 PM

Screw all of the belief and anti-belief systems.

Give me ambiguity or give me something else!

/if I die, tell my wife, "hello"

Damnhippyfreak

2009-07-02 01:08:48 PM

What if you're sure of your own uncertainty?

As in that one accepts that some things are uncertain or unknowable, for now or forever.

Oooooooh.

rastjr

2009-07-02 01:08:57 PM

m2313: rastjr: I was good to people and left the world better than when I came in. That's all I can do with this life I have.

How do you know what's good? What's better?
And maybe you could have done more but you limited yourself out of fears that something was "wrong" or "worse".

I know what's good in my mind. Man, that's all I can know.

Sodium Benzoate

2009-07-02 01:09:14 PM

m2313

2009-07-02 01:10:15 PM

t3knomanser: Postmodernists are, inarguably, the biggest idiots on the planet.

No they're not.

crab66

2009-07-02 01:10:19 PM

t3knomanser: T.rex: i think if someone believes something, it is true (for them). Even if someone else thinks the opposite, their beliefs are also true.

Ah, postmodernism. Who would have thought a single school of thought could so thoroughly destroy the possibility of rational discussion.

Postmodernists are, inarguably, the biggest idiots on the planet.

I believe in raptor jesus. Therefore he must exist.

t3knomanser

2009-07-02 01:10:23 PM

Englebert Slaptyback: *sigh* Someone isn't paying attention.

And that person is you.

Theist: things that say, "There is a god".
Atheist: all things that aren't theists.

hurdboy: I mean, I suppose it's possible I could get hit and killed by a meteor on the way out to my car this afternoon....there is enough evidence to the contrary to make a declaration and stop worrying about it.

Which is where I'm going with this. While only a very small number of atheists would say with 100% certainty that there is no god, most would dismiss it as so unlikely to be unworthy of consideration.

imfallen_angel

2009-07-02 01:11:10 PM

Let's see..

FTFA:

People who are less confident in their beliefs are more reluctant than others to seek out opposing perspectives, researchers said today.

While it's not news that like-minded people often flock together, the new review suggests we actively keep our blinders on when opposing views are nearby.

Overall, the studies suggested people are about twice as likely to cherry-pick information that supports their own viewpoints than to consider an opposing idea. Nearly 70 percent cherry-picked compared to about 30 percent who ponder the other side.

Close-minded individuals opted for information that went along with their views 75 percent of the time.

"Close-minded people are very certain and dogmatic in their views, and generally believe that there is a single correct point of view," said study researcher Dolores Albarracin, a psychology professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "The implication is that you have a group of people who would only seek to confirm their points of view, resisting all evidence to the contrary via avoidance of exposure."

This described the Fark militant Atheist more than agnostic people.

So who funded this study? The institute of NoshiatSherlock?

Blind_Io

2009-07-02 01:11:22 PM

M2: Everything is true.
GP: Even false things?
M2: Even false things are true.
GP: How can that be?
M2: I don't know man, I didn't do it.

FlyingPig

2009-07-02 01:11:25 PM

Englebert Slaptyback: *sigh* Someone isn't paying attention.

Atheist - actively believes and is certain that there is no god

Agnostic - is not certain if there is a god, i.e. holds no active belief one way or the other

No.

They are TWO AXES. There are FOUR combinations.

Agnostic theist: I believe in a god, but don't believe we have PROOF of the existence of god.
Gnostic theist: I believe in god, and I believe there IS PROOF of the existence of god.
Agnostic atheist: I don't believe in a good, but don't believe we have PROOF of the nonexistence of god.
Gnostic atheist: I don't believe in god, and I believe there IS PROOF of the nonexistence of god.

Try again.

rastjr

2009-07-02 01:11:34 PM

t3knomanser: rastjr: Relative to the things I know, it is large. That's all I can compare things to.

Relative to the things I know, it is complex. That's all I can compare things to.

But, relative to itself, it's just average. Your experience is rather unusual, you must admit. You exist for a very short period of time, in a very limited location, with senses that are bound to a very small range of possible inputs. I wouldn't consider your experiences a good sample space, all things considered.

Who said anything about a sample? Okay, ask the 6 billion people on this earth if the universe is large. I bet the vast majority would say yes. Is 6 billion people a big enough sample for you?

servoled

2009-07-02 01:11:37 PM

Blind_Io:

Agnostic != Atheist

An agnostic recognizes that it is a logical fallacy to prove the non-existence of something. Therefore we can never know if god doesn't exist, we can only fail to find proof that it does exist. Lack of proof of existence is not proof of non-existence.

An Atheist believes god does not exist, even though this is a logical fallacy. It is a belief in the absence of proof (AKA: Faith) despite the fact that the non-existence of a god is impossible to prove.

No, an Agnostic by your definition is someone who doesn't understand the difference between Belief and Knowledge. If you don't hold the proposition "God exists" as true, you are an Atheist. Whether or not you know "God exists" to be true, or whether or not "God exists" is even knowable to begin with is a completely different question to Atheism/Theism.

rastjr

2009-07-02 01:12:26 PM

ArcadianRefugee: rastjr: I've always believed that the universe is just too large and complex [to] not be created by a supreme being.

Interesting. I've always believed that the universe is just too large and complex to have been created by a supreme being.

Tomatoe, tomato.

Cool, one thing we do know. The world is big enough for our two opinions.

wmoonfox

2009-07-02 01:12:43 PM

I believe the word you were looking for was "eclectics", subby. Most people would have to go look that up, though, and it doesn't work quite as well for flame bait, so I guess this was the better Fark headline.

poot_rootbeer

2009-07-02 01:12:56 PM

I am steadfast in my certainty that I have no idea about the nature of God.

Sodium Benzoate

2009-07-02 01:12:59 PM

m2313: t3knomanser: Postmodernists are, inarguably, the biggest idiots on the planet.

No they're not.

They could be if they believe it.

whammer

2009-07-02 01:13:06 PM

Say what you will. At least we all have to agree that there is only one true religion, one true philosophy, and that "Bob" is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnisexual, omnilucky, and omniSlackful.

Remember that X-Day is nigh upon us. Repent, quit your job and Slack off.

The world is about to end, and YOU MAY DIE!

PRABOB

crab66

2009-07-02 01:13:07 PM

servoled: If you don't hold the proposition "God exists" as true, you are an Atheist.

Wrong.

t3knomanser

2009-07-02 01:13:19 PM

rastjr: Is 6 billion people a big enough sample for you?

No, because their perspective is quite clearly unique, and hardly indicative of what the universe is like. Relative to humans, the universe is quite large- but who says humans are a good judge of what the universe is like? They're good reproducers in the right environment, and they're no slouches when it comes to tool using- but why do you think the human perspective is a good perspective for judging things like the relative size and complexity of the universe?

FlyingPig

2009-07-02 01:13:41 PM

rastjr: I bet the vast majority would say yes. Is 6 billion people a big enough sample for you?

Ah, yes. "If a whole lot of people believe something, it's true." That line of thinking has never gotten us in trouble, ever.

Spindle

2009-07-02 01:14:10 PM

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

- Marcus Aurelius

rastjr

2009-07-02 01:14:15 PM

Sodium Benzoate: rastjr: t3knomanser: rastjr: I've always believed that the universe is just too large and complex not be created by a supreme being.

What makes you think the universe is large? What makes you think the universe is complex? Do you have another universe I can compare it to, to see if I think this universe is large or not?

Relative to the things I know, it is large. That's all I can compare things to.

Relative to the things I know, it is complex. That's all I can compare things to.

Relative to the things I understand biology is extremely, ridiculously, almost comically complex, but I know that other people spend a lot of time devoted to understanding it. I trust their opinion over any "Well I guess that means..." assumption I may make.

Size means nothing. It's completely relative to the size of the human body.

Do you have anything else to judge its size by? If so, tell me what it is.

miscreant

2009-07-02 01:14:18 PM

Sodium Benzoate: While all of this is accurate, I'd also say a lot of people simply say "I'm agnostic" because they don't believe in gods and also don't want to argue about it.

Pretty much. In America, atheist has such a negative connotation associated with it, that most people I know will say agnostic, even when by almost any standard they'd be classified as atheist if they made their views known.

Josu

2009-07-02 01:14:19 PM

Militant Agnosticism FTW! I don't know and neither do you.

t3knomanser

2009-07-02 01:15:28 PM

crab66: Wrong.

Um, no. Right. That's exactly it. Theists and atheists are two disjoint but complete sets that contain all humans. Period. You may be a theist, but if you are not a theist, you must be an atheist.

Let me give you some other examples:
Theist:Atheist::Red:Not Red
Theist:Atheist::Car:Not Car
Theist:Atheist::Cat:Not Cat

Are you going to argue that a car could be neither red nor non-red? Or that an animal could be neither a cat nor a non-cat?

CrankMyBlueSax

2009-07-02 01:15:48 PM

I believe I'll have another.

letrole

2009-07-02 01:15:58 PM

Atheism is a Religion.

Lord_Baull

2009-07-02 01:15:59 PM

t3knomanser 2009-07-02 12:57:49 PM
But given the available evidence, most would be willing to stake a great deal on gods absence, because, let's be honest: god doesn't exactly go out of its way to make its presence known.

LIES!!
i531.photobucket.com

t3knomanser

2009-07-02 01:16:09 PM

Milkbeer: useful idiots

You must be a useless idiot.

Sodium Benzoate

2009-07-02 01:16:27 PM

rastjr: Sodium Benzoate: rastjr: t3knomanser: rastjr: I've always believed that the universe is just too large and complex not be created by a supreme being.

What makes you think the universe is large? What makes you think the universe is complex? Do you have another universe I can compare it to, to see if I think this universe is large or not?

Relative to the things I know, it is large. That's all I can compare things to.

Relative to the things I know, it is complex. That's all I can compare things to.

Relative to the things I understand biology is extremely, ridiculously, almost comically complex, but I know that other people spend a lot of time devoted to understanding it. I trust their opinion over any "Well I guess that means..." assumption I may make.

Size means nothing. It's completely relative to the size of the human body.

Do you have anything else to judge its size by? If so, tell me what it is.

I'm just saying it's size is arbitrary and unimportant.

rastjr

2009-07-02 01:16:29 PM

FlyingPig: rastjr: I bet the vast majority would say yes. Is 6 billion people a big enough sample for you?

Ah, yes. "If a whole lot of people believe something, it's true." That line of thinking has never gotten us in trouble, ever.

No, I did not say that. He said my one opinion was a too small sample so I gave my 6 billion as an answer to that.

Do not put words in my mouth or I will not respond to you again.

t3knomanser

2009-07-02 01:16:45 PM

letrole: Atheism is a Religion.

And not collecting stamps is a hobby.

FlyingPig

2009-07-02 01:17:15 PM

miscreant: Pretty much. In America, atheist has such a negative connotation associated with it, that most people I know will say agnostic, even when by almost any standard they'd be classified as atheist if they made their views known.

EXACTLY.

servoled

2009-07-02 01:17:17 PM

FlyingPig:
No.

They are TWO AXES. There are FOUR combinations.

Agnostic theist: I believe in a god, but don't believe we have PROOF of the existence of god.
Gnostic theist: I believe in god, and I believe there IS PROOF of the existence of god.
Agnostic atheist: I don't believe in a good, but don't believe we have PROOF of the nonexistence of god.
Gnostic atheist: I don't believe in god, and I believe there IS PROOF of the nonexistence of god.

Try again.

Not exactly, but closer than a lot of people in this thread. Agnostic/Non-agnostic is more a question of whether or not it is possible to have direct knowledge of god(s). Whether or not you have proof is a different question altogether.

Mr_Fabulous

2009-07-02 01:17:28 PM

Danielsan: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."

Bertrand Russell

I came to quote this.

With each passing year of my life, the truer this sentiment becomes. Some of you youngsters would do well to take heed.

wmoonfox

2009-07-02 01:17:40 PM

servoled: If you don't hold the proposition "God exists" as true, you are an Atheist.

If one were to break the word base down into theist/atheist/antitheist, then, yes, you would be correct: the lack of a belief in any deity would constitute atheism. It follows, though, that the steadfast belief in the non-existence of any deity would therefore qualify as "antitheism", which is not a widely used term. Indeed, the common tongue uses atheism and antitheism fairly interchangeably, so the realistic application of the definition you put forth is far from unshakable.

rastjr

2009-07-02 01:17:46 PM

Sodium Benzoate: rastjr: Sodium Benzoate: rastjr: t3knomanser: rastjr: I've always believed that the universe is just too large and complex not be created by a supreme being.

What makes you think the universe is large? What makes you think the universe is complex? Do you have another universe I can compare it to, to see if I think this universe is large or not?

Relative to the things I know, it is large. That's all I can compare things to.

Relative to the things I know, it is complex. That's all I can compare things to.

Relative to the things I understand biology is extremely, ridiculously, almost comically complex, but I know that other people spend a lot of time devoted to understanding it. I trust their opinion over any "Well I guess that means..." assumption I may make.

Size means nothing. It's completely relative to the size of the human body.

Do you have anything else to judge its size by? If so, tell me what it is.

I'm just saying it's size is arbitrary and unimportant.

It seems unarbitary and important to me. If you have another opinion that's fine.

hurdboy

2009-07-02 01:17:55 PM

t3knomanser: Which is where I'm going with this. While only a very small number of atheists would say with 100% certainty that there is no god, most would dismiss it as so unlikely to be unworthy of consideration.

Very few do articulate that view, however, preferring to focus on cliches about not being able to prove a negative, etc. etc. But, you know, it works. Just like getting all their news from Colbert and Fark works. Everybody else is doing it. Why not have like, a weekly meeting about it? You know, maybe on the weekend? Donuts and coffee afterwards!

I mean, I would love to believe in god and an afterlife. I think that it would be a source of inspiration and comfort that I don't currently have. But with so much evidence to the contrary, I just can't do it. Had a very interesting conversation with a Mormon missionary about that one time.

/Most receptive listener I've ever had on it
//And I even pulled into a parking space after I'd finished pumping gas to continue the discussion

t3knomanser

2009-07-02 01:18:19 PM

rastjr: No, I did not say that. He said my one opinion was a too small sample so I gave my 6 billion as an answer to that.

But that's not what I said at all. I said the human experience was too small a sample space. Humans live on only one planet, with a very limited set of sensory inputs. They are singular organisms, unusual in the scheme of the universe, perhaps completely unique. The perspective of humans is not a good place to judge the universe from.

joromano

2009-07-02 01:18:29 PM

I am agnostic in belief but atheist in action. I think most atheists are like this, technically.

Gurlugon

2009-07-02 01:18:37 PM

What's the proper term for someone who isn't so sure if there's a God and kinda leans towards thinking there isn't, but in the end doesn't really care or think about it or religion in general all that much?

vaderstg

2009-07-02 01:18:57 PM

Diogenes: Drawing a limit to what is knowable and what is not is not being "unsure" of your beliefs.

"...in order to draw a limit to thinking we should have to be able to thnk both sides of this limit (we should therefore have to be able to think what cannot be thought).

The limit can, therefore, only be drawn in language and what lies on the other side of the limit will be simply nonsense." - Wittgenstein

+1

THIS. Agnosticism, by definition, has nothing to do with being unsure of one's own beliefs. It notes (rightly, imho) that the human brain is bounded by physical and metaphysical constraints and that the knowledge of God, let alone His Will, lay outside those constraints.

Ringtailed79

2009-07-02 01:19:07 PM

omris

2009-07-02 01:19:25 PM

Accent: FTA: People who are less confident in their beliefs are more reluctant than others to seek out opposing perspectives, researchers said today.

Could it be they seek out opposing perspectives so they can tell them they ARE WRONG AND WILL BURN IN A FIERY DAMNATION FOR ALL ETERNITY IF THEY DO NOT BELIEVE... or is it to tell them they will turn into dirt after they die and that's pretty much the end of it.

I have some questions that neither side can answer, so I'm just going to sit here and not ask for a bottled response.

Well I think that this particular study involved a lot of reading material, not interaction. So, if I'm very sure in my political opinion, I'm more likely to read news espousing both my opinion and opposing opinions. Whereas if I believe something on a shakier foundation, I tend to actively avoid news that doesn't agree with my stated beliefs. And the strength of belief here is a personal measurement, not a measurement of the quality of information it's based on.

Jaycatt

2009-07-02 01:19:25 PM

For the true believer, there is no doubt.

Jubeebee

2009-07-02 01:20:14 PM

Lord_Baull: There was a Creationist on another website that suggested to me how Koalas, who dine exclusively on Eucalyptus leaves found exclusively in Australia, were able to make it back to Australia after the flood. This (new window) was her explanation.

Yeah, the logic from the close-minded Fundie borders on insanity.

I really don't see how that ties together. Were the koalas launched out of the volcano?

Anyway, what's it called when you think the sum total of the Universe is analogous to God? I know there's a term for it but I forget.

Blind_Io

2009-07-02 01:20:41 PM

servoled: Blind_Io:

Agnostic != Atheist

An agnostic recognizes that it is a logical fallacy to prove the non-existence of something. Therefore we can never know if god doesn't exist, we can only fail to find proof that it does exist. Lack of proof of existence is not proof of non-existence.

An Atheist believes god does not exist, even though this is a logical fallacy. It is a belief in the absence of proof (AKA: Faith) despite the fact that the non-existence of a god is impossible to prove.

No, an Agnostic by your definition is someone who doesn't understand the difference between Belief and Knowledge. If you don't hold the proposition "God exists" as true, you are an Atheist. Whether or not you know "God exists" to be true, or whether or not "God exists" is even knowable to begin with is a completely different question to Atheism/Theism.

I'm sorry if I was unclear, what I was trying to say is that an agnostic, in my mind, has no belief on the subject one way or the other. It is the lack of faith - either in the existence or non-existence of a god. Whether the god exists or not in inconsequential because the agnostic does not believe in anything; it is the state of being without Faith. That which cannot be proven to exist doesn't exist. That which cannot be proven to exist might exist, we just haven't found and/or proven it yet.

It's not that the agnostic doesn't understand the difference between belief and knowledge, it's that belief isn't a factor.

servoled

2009-07-02 01:20:45 PM

crab66: servoled: If you don't hold the proposition "God exists" as true, you are an Atheist.

Wrong.

Sorry, but by the philosophical definition it is correct. Its only wrong if you are trying to avoid the question by warping the definition to bring in some kind of false middle position, or don't understand the question to begin with.

letrole

2009-07-02 01:20:46 PM

t3knomanser: letrole: Atheism is a Religion.
And not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Actively berating those who collect stamps, and being a twat about it, now *that's* a hobby.

Lord_Baull

2009-07-02 01:21:13 PM

Deucednuisance 2009-07-02 01:05:32 PM
Lord_Baull: This (new window) was her explanation.

Krakatoa?
You sure you gave the right link?

Yes, she posited that the animals on Australia could have populated the planet Krakatoa-style.

Sodium Benzoate

2009-07-02 01:21:18 PM

rastjr: Sodium Benzoate: rastjr: Sodium Benzoate: rastjr: t3knomanser: rastjr: I've always believed that the universe is just too large and complex not be created by a supreme being.

What makes you think the universe is large? What makes you think the universe is complex? Do you have another universe I can compare it to, to see if I think this universe is large or not?

Relative to the things I know, it is large. That's all I can compare things to.

Relative to the things I know, it is complex. That's all I can compare things to.

Relative to the things I understand biology is extremely, ridiculously, almost comically complex, but I know that other people spend a lot of time devoted to understanding it. I trust their opinion over any "Well I guess that means..." assumption I may make.

Size means nothing. It's completely relative to the size of the human body.

Do you have anything else to judge its size by? If so, tell me what it is.

I'm just saying it's size is arbitrary and unimportant.

It seems unarbitary and important to me. If you have another opinion that's fine.

I mean, I just don't understand how the size of the universe could have anything to do with if it was created by a magical super being vs on its own using complicated math with lots of tricky fractions. Like, "well if it's THIS big then it MUST have been..."

t3knomanser

2009-07-02 01:21:19 PM

letrole: Actively berating those who collect stamps, and being a twat about it, now *that's* a hobby.

I reserve that for furries.

Jubeebee

2009-07-02 01:22:35 PM

t3knomanser

You're blowing my mind, man! You talk like how I talk when I'm drunk and high at the same time.

FlyingPig

2009-07-02 01:22:39 PM

Jubeebee: Anyway, what's it called when you think the sum total of the Universe is analogous to God? I know there's a term for it but I forget.

Pantheism, but it's really actually a bit silly to classify that as a form of belief. If you believe the entire universe is God, why call it God in the first place? Why not just call it the universe? Aren't you basically just renaming something "God" at that point?

Lord_Baull

2009-07-02 01:23:05 PM

Lord_Baull 2009-07-02 01:21:13 PM
Yes, she posited that the animals on Australia could have populated the planet Krakatoa-style.

Scratch that, I meant the animals on Australia could have populated the continent Krakatoa-style.

Brainsick

2009-07-02 01:24:12 PM

I enjoy my Deity with parmesan cheese and a light coating of olive oil. And lots of garlic.

/RAmen

erikike

2009-07-02 01:24:30 PM

filth: Diogenes: Drawing a limit to what is knowable and what is not is not being "unsure" of your beliefs.

"...in order to draw a limit to thinking we should have to be able to thnk both sides of this limit (we should therefore have to be able to think what cannot be thought).

The limit can, therefore, only be drawn in language and what lies on the other side of the limit will be simply nonsense." - Wittgenstein

Being "knowable," in the logical sense, is absolutely unrelated to matters of faith. If you need God to help you with logic, you're a retard; if you need God to be subject to logic, you lack imagination.

This has become one of my major 'problems' with any and all religion...its ALL based on some other humans imagination. There really is zero reality when it comes to god...Apparently people just need to believe in someone else's imagination because its more real to them then their own.

/Religious Vomit (new window)

t3knomanser

2009-07-02 01:25:16 PM

Jubeebee: You're blowing my mind, man! You talk like how I talk when I'm drunk and high at the same time.

It's my personal goal to shrug off the human viewpoint. Or at least, be able to put it down from time to time.

Milkbeer: Do some in here find it "ironic" that our, as the media professes, completely non-religious scientific community is looking for something called the "God Particle"?

Considering it's the media that popularized the term "the god particle" after one physicist used the analogy in passing. It's like the way Einstein is often quoted as referring to "god", even though he was only using the term metaphorically or in reference to physics.

Lord_Baull

2009-07-02 01:25:18 PM

letrole 2009-07-02 01:15:58 PM
Atheism is a Religion.

Not playing soccer is a sport.

GilRuiz1

2009-07-02 01:25:55 PM

sigdiamond2000: GilRuiz1: How can you have been on FARK for seven years and yet missed all of those stories?

All one of them?

Deucednuisance: Wouldn't that statement imply more than a single story?

Well, do a search of FARK for the appropriate stories. Don't make me do all the work!

"WAT? No! We want you to do all the work for us!"
i224.photobucket.com

servoled

2009-07-02 01:26:15 PM

wmoonfox: If one were to break the word base down into theist/atheist/antitheist, then, yes, you would be correct: the lack of a belief in any deity would constitute atheism. It follows, though, that the steadfast belief in the non-existence of any deity would therefore qualify as "antitheism", which is not a widely used term. Indeed, the common tongue uses atheism and antitheism fairly interchangeably, so the realistic application of the definition you put forth is far from unshakable.

If you want to take it that way sure... but even under a split like that antitheism would qualify as an atheistic position. So really all that is accomplished is defining a group within a group. And sadly yes, many equate Atheist with Antitheist to attempt to demonize Atheists entirely, or to attempt to create some kind of middle ground they feel safer in.

Sodium Benzoate

2009-07-02 01:26:40 PM

FlyingPig: Jubeebee: Anyway, what's it called when you think the sum total of the Universe is analogous to God? I know there's a term for it but I forget.

Pantheism, but it's really actually a bit silly to classify that as a form of belief. If you believe the entire universe is God, why call it God in the first place? Why not just call it the universe? Aren't you basically just renaming something "God" at that point?

OH! I had some huge argument with a guy who was a Pantheist because we couldn't communicate our ideas well to each other and we both got frustrated and assumed the other person believed something they didn't so we just called each other idiots for a while. We figured it out eventually.

crab66

2009-07-02 01:26:40 PM

t3knomanser: crab66: Wrong.

Um, no. Right. That's exactly it. Theists and atheists are two disjoint but complete sets that contain all humans. Period. You may be a theist, but if you are not a theist, you must be an atheist.

Let me give you some other examples:
Theist:Atheist::Red:Not Red
Theist:Atheist::Car:Not Car
Theist:Atheist::Cat:Not Cat

Are you going to argue that a car could be neither red nor non-red? Or that an animal could be neither a cat nor a non-cat?

Yes. It's called not knowing. Let's assume the the oversimplified examples you use are intangibles.

Theist:Atheist::Red:Not Red

I'm not sure it's red, I don't have enough information.
Based on what I know I am not willing to side with those that say it's red or say it's not red.

Theist:Atheist::Car:Not Car

I'm not sure it's a car I don't have enough information to say. And so on.

Theist:Atheist::Cat:Not Cat

etc etc etc.

That is agnostic. It would be great if life were as simple as yes and no.

Arkanaut

2009-07-02 01:27:44 PM

Jubeebee: Anyway, what's it called when you think the sum total of the Universe is analogous to God? I know there's a term for it but I forget.

I believe the word you're thinking of is pantheism.

Nutty McFinklestein

2009-07-02 01:27:50 PM

t3knomanser: crab66: Wrong.

Um, no. Right. That's exactly it. Theists and atheists are two disjoint but complete sets that contain all humans. Period. You may be a theist, but if you are not a theist, you must be an atheist.

Let me give you some other examples:
Theist:Atheist::Red:Not Red
Theist:Atheist::Car:Not Car
Theist:Atheist::Cat:Not Cat

Are you going to argue that a car could be neither red nor non-red? Or that an animal could be neither a cat nor a non-cat?

The problem here is you can prove all of the examples easily by simply staring at the item. The existence of a Deity? Not so much. Some people claim to have spoken to the Deity or to have seen him, but they tend to take anti-psychotics for that sort of thing. Or, they are simply lying.

The difference between Atheist and Theist is the belief in the intangible or lack of belief of the intangible. Since science can only do so much to affirm the suspicions of either side we get into logical tangents and the abstract interpretation of matter as proof and that enters philosophy.

I like where you were trying to go though.

absoluteparanoia

2009-07-02 01:29:06 PM

I think it's very funny how many "open minded" atheists are telling agnostics how it really is. It really drives home the point that they're nothing like the devoutly religious.

/Agnostic Deist, not atheist. I can see my god, he's the entire universe.

erikike

2009-07-02 01:29:22 PM

I tend to think that an agnostic is someone who does in fact believe in a god of some sort, but just doesn't know the nature of god or what god's will might be, or believe in any organized religion, but does in fact believe that there is a 'something', but doesn't claim to know what it is. And an atheist just doesn't believe that there is this "something".
But an atheist like myself can in fact claim that there is the possibility that there is a "something" and still not be agnostic. I don't discount the possibility of anything that is unknown. There could be fairy's, unicorns, and Bigfoot. But since there is not any proof that these exist, I can't believe in them. But like I said, that doesn't mean that I don't think that the possibility of such things couldn't exist. That doesn't make me a Bigfoot agnostic because I don't outright discount the idea of the "possibility" of such a creature. You would have to be pretty closed minded to take the absolute stance on anything that is as unknown or as unknowable as "god".

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 01:29:30 PM

This thread is way too serious.

Lighten up Francis.

Who cares what someone believes as long as it is not oppressive? The only person you should judge is yourself.

/atheist
//beliefs mean you are decider of what is right and what is wrong. ( " I BELIEVE THAT... yadda yadda ")
///don't tell me what to believe ( or whether i can or can not do something)
////because i won't be listening
// we are just vibrations anyways right?

// oppressive has two s 's

Deucednuisance

2009-07-02 01:29:35 PM

GilRuiz1: Don't make me do all the work!

Why not?

It's your axe, you grind it.

amanogowa

2009-07-02 01:30:17 PM

Good thing most agnostics not only are sure of what they believe, but actually know why, and can understand and explain their reasons logically.

This must mean that all the religious are unsure what they really believe -- that explains the close mindedness.

icanhazstapler

2009-07-02 01:30:25 PM

t3knomanser: Which is where I'm going with this. While only a very small number of atheists would say with 100% certainty that there is no god, most would dismiss it as so unlikely to be unworthy of consideration.

I fall within the ballpark of the "there is no evidence, so shut up about it already and leave me alone" atheist. It's not that I'm a hundred percent certain, I just don't give a shiat.

DaCaptain19

2009-07-02 01:30:38 PM

devildog123 2009-07-02 08:35:37 AM

/agnostic
//Libertarian
///I think I'm more open minded than most of you.

I'm 100% sure I'm more open-minded than you, and will not entertain any argument to the contrary.

Lord_Baull

2009-07-02 01:30:38 PM

I contend the moment someone explains the intelligent design behind myopia, appendix, wisdom teeth and Down's Syndrome, I'll become religious.

emkajii

2009-07-02 01:31:35 PM

Blind_Io: Agnostic != Atheist

An agnostic recognizes that it is a logical fallacy to prove the non-existence of something. Therefore we can never know if god doesn't exist, we can only fail to find proof that it does exist. Lack of proof of existence is not proof of non-existence.

An Atheist believes god does not exist, even though this is a logical fallacy. It is a belief in the absence of proof (AKA: Faith) despite the fact that the non-existence of a god is impossible to prove.

Are you agnostic to Leprechauns? Unicorns? How about centaurs or dragons? Fairies? Ghosts? Russel's Teapot?

The only valid position to take on the existence of anything is disbelief until satisfactory evidence has been provided for its existence. As an atheist, I'm not saying that there will never be evidence for a god. Rather, what I'm saying that until that evidence presented, the only logically defensible position is the that which I would take with any outlandish claim: disbelief.

Brainsick

2009-07-02 01:32:36 PM

servoled: crab66: servoled: If you don't hold the proposition "God exists" as true, you are an Atheist.

Wrong.

Sorry, but by the philosophical definition it is correct. Its only wrong if you are trying to avoid the question by warping the definition to bring in some kind of false middle position, or don't understand the question to begin with.

What about Buddhists?

servoled

2009-07-02 01:32:40 PM

crab66: Yes. It's called not knowing. Let's assume the the oversimplified examples you use are intangibles.

Theist:Atheist::Red:Not Red

I'm not sure it's red, I don't have enough information.
Based on what I know I am not willing to side with those that say it's red or say it's not red.

Atheism/Theism is a question of your beliefs, not what you know. It may amaze you, but the two are different.

Do you hold "The car is red" to be true (i.e. Do you believe the car is red)? If yes, you are a Theist in this example. If you hold any other position, including not being sure, you are not a Theist, i.e. an Atheist.

CrankMyBlueSax

2009-07-02 01:33:07 PM

Lord_Baull: I contend the moment someone explains the intelligent design behind myopia, appendix, wisdom teeth and Down's Syndrome, I'll become religious.

The Aristocrats!

(get it?)

Codyl

2009-07-02 01:33:44 PM

CtrlAltDelete: I don't know if I agree with that.

I guess I could see it both ways.

You're a bad ass :-)

Cody

wbaxter

2009-07-02 01:34:18 PM

As a Christian I know this to be true of all Faith systems, It doesn't matter which religion, Christian, Judaism, Islam, or Atheist.

and Agnostic is just an atheist without the balls to stand up for something.

GilRuiz1

2009-07-02 01:34:23 PM

Thread needs more:

i224.photobucket.com

crab66

2009-07-02 01:34:52 PM

servoled: crab66: Yes. It's called not knowing. Let's assume the the oversimplified examples you use are intangibles.

Theist:Atheist::Red:Not Red

I'm not sure it's red, I don't have enough information.
Based on what I know I am not willing to side with those that say it's red or say it's not red.

Atheism/Theism is a question of your beliefs, not what you know. It may amaze you, but the two are different.

Do you hold "The car is red" to be true (i.e. Do you believe the car is red)? If yes, you are a Theist in this example. If you hold any other position, including not being sure, you are not a Theist, i.e. an Atheist.

No it simply means I don't know.

Jubeebee

2009-07-02 01:35:27 PM

FlyingPig: Jubeebee: Anyway, what's it called when you think the sum total of the Universe is analogous to God? I know there's a term for it but I forget.

Pantheism, but it's really actually a bit silly to classify that as a form of belief. If you believe the entire universe is God, why call it God in the first place? Why not just call it the universe? Aren't you basically just renaming something "God" at that point?

Ah, thank you.

I do mostly call it the universe. I'm just saying, it's omnipresent (oh look, this keyboard is part of the universe, so is my chair etc), omniscient (every thought anywhere ever is part of the universe), and omnipotent (everything that has ever happened is also part of the universe). Therefore the universe as a whole fits pretty much every description of God I've ever seen.

But that's about as spiritual as I get, acknowledging that. For all practical purposes, I'm a Humanist.

Englebert Slaptyback

2009-07-02 01:35:32 PM

t3knomanser

Englebert Slaptyback: *sigh* Someone isn't paying attention.

And that person is you.

Theist: things that say, "There is a god".
Atheist: all things that aren't theists.

Please do keep up with the "only black or white" line of thought. I'll be over here with a functional dictionary and something called 'nuance'.

Excen

2009-07-02 01:35:33 PM

The Book of Mormon can be disproved using Mitochondrial DNA evidence, Scientology was started as a bet between two writers at a Science-Fiction conference, and Muslims worship a giant meteorite.

/That is all.

amanogowa

2009-07-02 01:35:38 PM

servoled: If you don't hold the proposition "God exists" as true, you are an Atheist.

Wrong, on many, many levels. Lose the capital 'G', and you might have a leg to stand on.

/a close minded, simplistic, and wrong leg
//but at least you could make a reasonable argument.

Lord_Baull

2009-07-02 01:35:40 PM

CrankMyBlueSax 2009-07-02 01:33:07 PM
(get it?)

The Aristocrats? Seems obscure.

crab66

2009-07-02 01:36:24 PM

wbaxter: As a Christian I know this to be true of all Faith systems, It doesn't matter which religion, Christian, Judaism, Islam, or Atheist.

and Agnostic is just an atheist without the balls to stand up for something.

You believe in fairy tales. We understand. Now go play with your dolls.

joonyer

2009-07-02 01:37:02 PM

Milkbeer: All I gotta say, is where would LAPD be without rodney king? Agnostics want to take christian's "Rodney King", call him the cause of all world problems, and at the same time, say that Obama is "Rodney King"

//that was a metaphor for all the useful idiots in here who think Obama is the messiah.

Which is like, zero. You dickshaft.

Accent

2009-07-02 01:37:17 PM

omris: Accent: FTA: People who are less confident in their beliefs are more reluctant than others to seek out opposing perspectives, researchers said today.

Could it be they seek out opposing perspectives so they can tell them they ARE WRONG AND WILL BURN IN A FIERY DAMNATION FOR ALL ETERNITY IF THEY DO NOT BELIEVE... or is it to tell them they will turn into dirt after they die and that's pretty much the end of it.

I have some questions that neither side can answer, so I'm just going to sit here and not ask for a bottled response.

Well I think that this particular study involved a lot of reading material, not interaction. So, if I'm very sure in my political opinion, I'm more likely to read news espousing both my opinion and opposing opinions. Whereas if I believe something on a shakier foundation, I tend to actively avoid news that doesn't agree with my stated beliefs. And the strength of belief here is a personal measurement, not a measurement of the quality of information it's based on.

I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information.

Ant

2009-07-02 01:38:02 PM

rastjr: I was good to people and left the world better than when I came in.

Maybe, according to the one true god, you were supposed to be an asshole.

amanogowa

2009-07-02 01:38:06 PM

wbaxter: As a Christian I know this to be true of all Faith systems, It doesn't matter which religion, Christian, Judaism, Islam, or Atheist.

and Agnostic is just an atheist without the balls to stand up for something.

You may wish to learn something about these topics before you start looking foolish

/well, too late
//any more foolish?

servoled

2009-07-02 01:38:18 PM

Brainsick: What about Buddhists?

I'd have to say it really depends on how you define "God". By the Christian definition, they would fall under atheism. Under a different definition they may not.

Theism/Atheism says nothing other than whether you believe that god(s) exist. Outside of that you can't really infer anything. You could be an atheist and still practice religion of some sort, or a theist and not practice any religion.

CrankMyBlueSax

2009-07-02 01:38:26 PM

Lord_Baull: The Aristocrats? Seems obscure.

It's a joke.

minnesotaboy

2009-07-02 01:38:38 PM

Speaking as an atheist, I can tell you I love the debate. It is not a matter of being closed minded, it is just that there really is no empirical data supporting the existence of a rational or intelligent force being the workings of the universe. Complexity alone is not evidence.

I am open to all evidence, provided it follows empirical guidelines. The one thing I will not accept is that empiricism itself is equal to belief. That argument holds no water.

Sodium Benzoate

2009-07-02 01:39:04 PM

I've always based my Atheism on a rejection of every religion offered.

Do you want to be a catholic?

Well, lemme see what you're supposed to believe.... nope don't believe in that.

What about a hindu?

lets see... nope, don't believe in that also.

Well what DO you believe in then EH?

I don't know man, not that stuff for sure, all of it is based on some other guy I don't know guessing, I don't even trust myself guessing. I just want someone to explain how all the shiat in the universe operates and I'll be happy.

On a side note: I find it interesting that so many people believe an undying creature or force would be intelligent. If something cannot die, it has no reason to think, because thought is a trait animals developed to better avoid death.

Brainsick

2009-07-02 01:39:14 PM

Accent: I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information.

The same way a WOW player can have a strong body odor without a strong body

wbaxter

2009-07-02 01:39:20 PM

GurneyHalleck: Anyone who says they're sure of their beliefs has closed their mind.

I know I am.

Be careful What you let into your head because you'll never get it out again.

Syphilis_Smile

2009-07-02 01:39:43 PM

This is why Daoism pwns. Forces you to listen to everyone before you can pretend to have an answer ;)

servoled

2009-07-02 01:40:18 PM

crab66: No it simply means I don't know the difference between knowledge and belief.

FTFY

CrankMyBlueSax

2009-07-02 01:40:19 PM

wbaxter: As a Christian I know this to be true of all Faith systems,

Now THAT is funny.

MrScruffles

2009-07-02 01:40:58 PM

FlyingPig: GurneyHalleck: Anyone who says they're sure of their beliefs has closed their mind.

So basically, we're not allowed to be sure of anything, ever? If we followed that to its logical extension, we'd never be able to have an opinion on anything.

Everyone should be about 95 percent sure of what they believe in. There's a non-zero chance ANYTHING could be wrong, and every honest person has to admit that. That doesn't mean you can't ever be confident of your opinions. Yes, keep your mind open to the possibility of it being changed, but anyone who goes around being unsure of his most basic beliefs has no self-esteem or conviction.

Congradulations! You have stumbled across the philosophical concept of skepticism...and no, you are wrong. Skepticism pretty much comes down to you cannot know anything without knowing everything b/c without knowing everything there exists the possibility of something that contridicts that which you think you know and b/c you cannot know what you do not know you will never know everything; the possibility that something exists that you do not know will always be there.

crab66

2009-07-02 01:41:06 PM

servoled: crab66: No it simply means I don't know the difference between knowledge and belief.

FTFY

Yeah we have established you have no idea what you're talking about.

Step two is shutting the fark up.

TFerWannaBe

2009-07-02 01:41:49 PM

Brainsick: Accent: I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information.

The same way a WOW player can have a strong body odor without a strong body

As a WoW player with a weak body I *sniff . . sniff*

Nevermind.

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 01:41:58 PM

I think anyone who practices an 'organized' religion is an idiot and automatically write them off as so.

You should be able to know what is 'write' and what is wrong.
You all are a bunch of farking stupid arse hypocrites anyways, the whole stinking lot of ya.

/looks like jesus wasn't an Indian

servoled

2009-07-02 01:42:12 PM

amanogowa: servoled: If you don't hold the proposition "God exists" as true, you are an Atheist.

Wrong, on many, many levels. Lose the capital 'G', and you might have a leg to stand on.

/a close minded, simplistic, and wrong leg
//but at least you could make a reasonable argument.

If you prefer I'll continue the discussion with lowercase 'g's and an (s). Now care to at least make some kind of argument other than capitalization?

jso2897

2009-07-02 01:42:28 PM

I've often wondered if how one comes about ones beliefs has anything to do with one's tolerance level. I was raised by early-fifties bohemians - beatniks, basically. I was never taught any sort of religion, and religion has always struck me as mildly absurd - but I have never felt any hostility towards religion or religious people, unless you count stuff like Fred Phelps, suicide bombers, or the Kansas School board - and most people of faith seem to share my feelings on those matters.
I've got no basic problem with people of faith. I'm happy to argue the epistimological issues with them, of course, provided it stays civil - but I just can't muster any wharrrgarrrbl on the subject.
Now while I have never met an "angry atheist" IRL, I would have to say that I have met a few of them here on Fark, and elsewhere in the media - and to the extent that they relate their personal stories, they all seem to have one thing in common - they all seem to be apostates - people who were raised in faith, had bad experiences, and left it.
I wonder if that's the difference.

Speedbts alt

2009-07-02 01:43:12 PM

Funny headline. Has nothing to do with the article's point though.

Turns out you can be a confident agnostic, as in confident the "fundies" and the "atheists" have it all wrong.

Lee451

2009-07-02 01:43:20 PM

The farkers who claim to the "most open minded" are the ones who obviously have had their brains slide out through that opening.

Syphilis_Smile

2009-07-02 01:43:51 PM

SobrietyFighter: /looks like jesus wasn't an Indian

He was inspired by one tho ;)

Blind_Io

2009-07-02 01:44:00 PM

emkajii: Blind_Io: Agnostic != Atheist

An agnostic recognizes that it is a logical fallacy to prove the non-existence of something. Therefore we can never know if god doesn't exist, we can only fail to find proof that it does exist. Lack of proof of existence is not proof of non-existence.

An Atheist believes god does not exist, even though this is a logical fallacy. It is a belief in the absence of proof (AKA: Faith) despite the fact that the non-existence of a god is impossible to prove.

Are you agnostic to Leprechauns? Unicorns? How about centaurs or dragons? Fairies? Ghosts? Russel's Teapot?

The only valid position to take on the existence of anything is disbelief until satisfactory evidence has been provided for its existence. As an atheist, I'm not saying that there will never be evidence for a god. Rather, what I'm saying that until that evidence presented, the only logically defensible position is the that which I would take with any outlandish claim: disbelief.

I guess that is the disconnect. What you call disbelief to me is the logical acceptance of the null hypothesis (ie, that X does not exist). To me, there is a difference between the belief of non-existence and disbelief. The problem is that, for many, disbelief in X means the same as belief in the non-existence of X.

The acceptance of the null hypothesis (disbelief in X) when the hypothesis (X exists) fails to be supported is not the same to me as belief in the non-existence of X. In the case of disbelief (acceptance of the null), there is room for more data and the idea that with new information the result of the test can change and the hypothesis can be modified to include new discovery. For me, belief in the non-existence of X closes the door on discovery because the person has faith in the absence of knowledge. To say that "There is no X" would indicate that the person knows everything there is to know and can say with certainty that X does not exist. Since no one can actually know everything there is to know, no one can say for certain that there is no X. However, one can say, "I have failed to find X by looking here in a given way, that does not mean that X does not exist, only that I have not found X."

edmo

2009-07-02 01:44:05 PM

This is why so many hard core anti-gay types turn out to be gay. Duh.

There lots so examples that simply represent people battling their own demons by crusading against them in a public way.

Shakespeare said something like "me thinks thou dost protest too much. Same deal.

So what exactly are all the fundies so upset about when they are constantly complaining about the war on Christians?

(I see what I did there.)

wmoonfox

2009-07-02 01:45:14 PM

servoled: If you want to take it that way sure... but even under a split like that antitheism would qualify as an atheistic position

I can see that point of view, but I think it is intellectually dishonest to water the greatest question of the universe down to a yes/no answer.

amanogowa

2009-07-02 01:45:43 PM

servoled: amanogowa: servoled: If you don't hold the proposition "God exists" as true, you are an Atheist.

Wrong, on many, many levels. Lose the capital 'G', and you might have a leg to stand on.

/a close minded, simplistic, and wrong leg
//but at least you could make a reasonable argument.

If you prefer I'll continue the discussion with lowercase 'g's and an (s). Now care to at least make some kind of argument other than capitalization?

Sure. I can do it in one word.

Agnostic. You know, the main key to this thread. They have completely separate meanings. To be an agnostic simply means that you believe that there is not enough evidence to concretely state there is a god. Atheists on the other hand believe there is enough and that there is no god.

An agnostic is not a weak atheist, as they are a separate entity, completely unrelated by definition. An agnostic is no more an atheist than they are a theist.

Jubeebee

2009-07-02 01:45:50 PM

joonyer: Milkbeer: All I gotta say, is where would LAPD be without rodney king? Agnostics want to take christian's "Rodney King", call him the cause of all world problems, and at the same time, say that Obama is "Rodney King"

//that was a metaphor for all the useful idiots in here who think Obama is the messiah.

Which is like, zero. You dickshaft.

He's a known troll. But the 'messiah' meme always struck me as odd, because the vast majority of people who believe in the messiah in the first place are on the far right and despise Obama.

Brainsick: Accent: I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information.

The same way a WOW player can have a strong body odor without a strong body

Awesome.

Lord_Baull

2009-07-02 01:45:58 PM

CrankMyBlueSax 2009-07-02 01:38:26 PM
Lord_Baull: The Aristocrats? Seems obscure.

It's a joke.

An obscure joke. Like mine, and, I thought, yours.

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 01:46:05 PM

edmo:

So what exactly are all the fundies so upset about when they are constantly complaining about the war on Christians?

(I see what I did there.)

I don't see what you did. Is the answer buttsecks?

JRoo

2009-07-02 01:46:30 PM

I'll believe in almost anything if you pay me enough.

etymxris

2009-07-02 01:48:31 PM

I guess I could be considered a close minded atheist. My mind was once open, I considered carefully and debated the opposing viewpoint for a decade or so. But I recognized a common pattern after a while. People stick to their faith for various reasons. I'm not sure I'd call it stupidity or ignorance, but the debate consists more of post hoc rationalizations than accepting the results of a priori (common sense) principles. On the other hand, it was the a priori application of common sense principles to religious beliefs that led me to atheism in the first place.

Anyway, I'd say I respect religious beliefs about as much as any sort of fantasy belief, such as Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, and leprechauns. The reasons for rejecting one are the same as the reason for rejecting the others.

ScotterOtter

2009-07-02 01:49:30 PM

Agnostic does not equal atheism. Or, are you all too closed minded to accept that?

wylkyn

2009-07-02 01:49:35 PM

rastjr: I've always believed that the universe is just too large and complex not be created by a supreme being.

And that supreme being, he is tiny and simple? If not, then what or who was he created by? The whole "complexity points to a creator" argument leads to an endless chain of creators, unless you posit that the creator has always existed, and in that case, why couldn't you say the same about the universe? If it's okay for the creator to be eternal in all his complexity, but you don't hold the same to be true for the universe without a creator, then you are just being arbitrary.

It's okay for you to believe these things. Just don't try to pretend they are based on logic.

jso2897

2009-07-02 01:50:27 PM

Milkbeer: t3knomanser: Milkbeer: useful idiots

You must be a useless idiot.

lol, uh, I didn't vote for a guy who believes white people started the AIDS virus, and also are trying to find a cure... Oh yeah, and had to hire ACORN to committ voter fraud on his behalf..... then got indicted, then is now going to become a national partner.....then is going to begin collecting data from all citizens, then is going be ok with Iran killing people who protest to not be ok with overthrowing dictators in Honduras. LOL, you're a useful farking I spit on your face idiot.

Needs more cowbell.

Tartha De Tear

2009-07-02 01:50:51 PM

I only came into this thread looking for funny pictures.

/disappointed

wmoonfox

2009-07-02 01:51:11 PM

wmoonfox: servoled: If you want to take it that way sure... but even under a split like that antitheism would qualify as an atheistic position

I can see that point of view, but I think it is intellectually dishonest to water the greatest question of the universe down to a yes/no answer.

Or, to break it down more succinctly, reverse your logic: if one is not an atheist -- if one does not believe wholeheartedly in the non-existence of a deity -- then one must be a theist. I think most people would find fault in this line of logic.

servoled

2009-07-02 01:51:23 PM

wmoonfox: I can see that point of view, but I think it is intellectually dishonest to water the greatest question of the universe down to a yes/no answer.

I'm not so sure that "Do you believe god(s) exist" is the greatest question of the universe. "Do god(s) exist" may be, but that is different and much more difficult (if not impossible) to answer than your own personal belief on that matter. Subtle distinction to be fair, but its an important one. Atheism/Theism are nothing more than categorization tools and ultimately don't have any impact on the truth regarding the existence of god(s).

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 01:51:35 PM

Milkbeer, do you believe that adolf hitler was a horrible person, or that because he did what he did(hero tag?), it stopped a future 'hitler' from being 10x worse because we are now informed?

CrankMyBlueSax

2009-07-02 01:51:36 PM

Lord_Baull: CrankMyBlueSax 2009-07-02 01:38:26 PM
Lord_Baull: The Aristocrats? Seems obscure.

It's a joke.

An obscure joke. Like mine, and, I thought, yours.

16.media.tumblr.com

Well played indeed.

m2313

2009-07-02 01:52:27 PM

jso2897: they all seem to be apostates - people who were raised in faith, had bad experiences, and left it.

It's probably because they are more disillusioned than people that were atheists from the get-go, and feel that religion has wasted a significant portion of their life.

vertiaset: Finally, as a belief system, atheism is bleak and hopeless. It offers no ethical or moral grounding. Quite the opposite it leads to alienation and disassociation. Some atheists, a tiny minority, embrace secular humanism which provides a moral basis. It would be well if more atheists embraced such a system.

The world is not bleak and hopeless, it is not anything.
Why make morals and ethics where none need exist?
It's only alienation and dissociation because the rest of humanity is wrong.
What makes secular humanism's moral basis better than any others?
Why would it be well?

Lord_Baull

2009-07-02 01:52:41 PM

vertiaset 2009-07-02 01:45:53 PM
Finally, as a belief system, atheism is bleak and hopeless. It offers no ethical or moral grounding. Quite the opposite it leads to alienation and disassociation. Some atheists, a tiny minority, embrace secular humanism which provides a moral basis. It would be well if more atheists embraced such a system.

Sorry, I don't need to believe in a supernatural force to blame for all life's ills. I also don't need a supernatural force to enjoy life.
And your painting of atheists as amoral is just....stupid.
Here's an example of some religious types that have less morals than your "tiny minority."

Ted Haggard
Gov. Sanford
Jimmy Swaggart
Hitler
Larry Craig
Fred Phelps
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

JRoo

2009-07-02 01:52:50 PM

ScotterOtter: Agnostic does not equal atheism. Or, are you all too closed minded to accept that?

Go easy on them, they both start with an A. I doubt they really understand that different words mean different things.

All they know is, it's different and therefore must be hated and feared.

Sodium Benzoate

2009-07-02 01:52:51 PM

Blind_Io: emkajii: Blind_Io: Agnostic != Atheist

An agnostic recognizes that it is a logical fallacy to prove the non-existence of something. Therefore we can never know if god doesn't exist, we can only fail to find proof that it does exist. Lack of proof of existence is not proof of non-existence.

An Atheist believes god does not exist, even though this is a logical fallacy. It is a belief in the absence of proof (AKA: Faith) despite the fact that the non-existence of a god is impossible to prove.

Are you agnostic to Leprechauns? Unicorns? How about centaurs or dragons? Fairies? Ghosts? Russel's Teapot?

The only valid position to take on the existence of anything is disbelief until satisfactory evidence has been provided for its existence. As an atheist, I'm not saying that there will never be evidence for a god. Rather, what I'm saying that until that evidence presented, the only logically defensible position is the that which I would take with any outlandish claim: disbelief.

I guess that is the disconnect. What you call disbelief to me is the logical acceptance of the null hypothesis (ie, that X does not exist). To me, there is a difference between the belief of non-existence and disbelief. The problem is that, for many, disbelief in X means the same as belief in the non-existence of X.

The acceptance of the null hypothesis (disbelief in X) when the hypothesis (X exists) fails to be supported is not the same to me as belief in the non-existence of X. In the case of disbelief (acceptance of the null), there is room for more data and the idea that with new information the result of the test can change and the hypothesis can be modified to include new discovery. For me, belief in the non-existence of X closes the door on discovery because the person has faith in the absence of knowledge. To say that "There is no X" would indicate that the person knows everything there is to know and can say with certainty that X does not exist. Since no one can actually know everything there is to know, no one can say for certain that there is no X. However, one can say, "I have failed to find X by looking here in a given way, that does not mean that X does not exist, only that I have not found X."

I think these conversations get derailed a lot once the god discussed becomes "any generic god" when really we're talking about many many specific and established gods. It makes the discussion a proof thing about hypothetical abstracts and that makes people type long paragraphs explaining simple things. While these arguments have merit, the reasons to not believe in the existence in gods are much easier to talk about when a specific god is picked since it can then be applied to all others since they're basically all the same thing. I dunno, I just feel like i've seen this argument before a lot and it never goes anywhere interesting.

crab66

2009-07-02 01:53:31 PM

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 01:54:40 PM

My lord there's a lot of dumb in this thread.

proMidget

2009-07-02 01:54:55 PM

SobrietyFighter: This thread is way too serious.

Lighten up Francis.

Who cares what someone believes as long as it is not oppressive? The only person you should judge is yourself.

/atheist
//beliefs mean you are decider of what is right and what is wrong. ( " I BELIEVE THAT... yadda yadda ")
///don't tell me what to believe ( or whether i can or can not do something)
////because i won't be listening
// we are just vibrations anyways right?

// oppressive has two s 's

-because you'll go to hell
-try that one on in traffic court
-most of us are
-God is the decider and that is the whole point, you didn't decide you were right, but you definitely decided we were wrong
-if we don't tell you what are the chances you'll evolve it on your own?

Lord_Baull

2009-07-02 01:56:43 PM

God is the decider and that is the whole point

Prove it.

servoled

2009-07-02 01:56:53 PM

amanogowa: Agnostic. You know, the main key to this thread. They have completely separate meanings. To be an agnostic simply means that you believe that there is not enough evidence to concretely state there is a god. Atheists on the other hand believe there is enough and that there is no god.

An agnostic is not a weak atheist, as they are a separate entity, completely unrelated by definition. An agnostic is no more an atheist than they are a theist.

See, you don't have to "concretely state" one way or the other to believe that god(s) exist or not. Evidence is not required for belief. You are trying to treat it as a question of knowledge requiring proof, however it is a question of belief which doesn't not have the same standards.

Sodium Benzoate

2009-07-02 01:56:57 PM

vertiaset: Here are the main problems with Atheism:

First, it is a belief system. Atheists like to say that is in just the absence of a belief system but this is not true. Atheists share a common world view and a common set of beliefs. They believe that the universe "just happened". That there is no direction or organizing force in the universe. This in spite of scientific evidence that the universe came into being suddenly and ex nihlo. They believe that life occurred from non life spontaneously, despite the fact that the universe is seeded with amino acids and other precursor building blocks of life. They make elaborate and complex arguments to explain this away but Occam's razor points to internal design, design inherent within the structure of the universe and within life itself.

Atheists claim the high ground of science. However, science tells us that the universe is INFINITE in space and INFINITE in time. Moreover, it is postulated that there may be many more universes, each as extensive as our own. Now, infinity. This is a concept that human beings have a hard time grasping. Even mathematicians and physicists deal with the concept symbolically in the abstract. Infinite means that anything with a probability greater than zero, no matter how improbable, must necessarily occur. Now, this idea of improbable events occurring over time is the very argument advanced by science to explain the highly improbable occurrence of the DNA molecule just "happening" in the same space of time that a cellular structure also just "happened". After all DNA is useless without such a structure. So, why then is it inconceivable that there is some sort of entity, very different from us, which has structured things the way they are? This answer is far simpler and more elegant than the random bumping of atoms over a few billion years.

Finally, as a belief system, atheism is bleak and hopeless. It offers no ethical or moral grounding. Quite the opposite it leads to alienation and disassociation. Some atheists, a tiny minority, embrace secular humanism which provides a moral basis. It would be well if more atheists embraced such a system.

So, "There's a god because stuff is totally complicated."
Also, what god do you subscribe to?

TFerWannaBe

2009-07-02 01:57:17 PM

vertiaset: Here are the main problems with Atheism:

First, it is a belief system. Atheists like to say that is in just the absence of a belief system but this is not true. Atheists share a common world view and a common set of beliefs. They believe that the universe "just happened". That there is no direction or organizing force in the universe. This in spite of scientific evidence that the universe came into being suddenly and ex nihlo. They believe that life occurred from non life spontaneously, despite the fact that the universe is seeded with amino acids and other precursor building blocks of life. They make elaborate and complex arguments to explain this away but Occam's razor points to internal design, design inherent within the structure of the universe and within life itself.

None of these things require a god - that they happened spontaneously isn't evidence that an intelligent being caused them to happen.

Atheists claim the high ground of science. However, science tells us that the universe is INFINITE in space and INFINITE in time.
This is false. Science tells us that space and time are both finite. The rest of this paragraph was too long so I ignored it.

Finally, as a belief system, atheism is bleak and hopeless.
Ignoring the fact that this is merely a matter of opinion, just because something is unpleasant doesn't make it less true.

It offers no ethical or moral grounding. Quite the opposite it leads to alienation and disassociation. Some atheists, a tiny minority, embrace secular humanism which provides a moral basis. It would be well if more atheists embraced such a system.

I know a number of atheists and no reasonable person would consider any of them amoral. It may be true that a small minority of atheists consider themselves secular humanists, but that doesn't mean that the rest lack morals.

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 01:57:20 PM

i like to believe i'm self aware. but who knows? maybe i'm not?

erikike

2009-07-02 01:58:44 PM

vertiaset: Here are the main problems with Atheism:

First, it is a belief system. Atheists like to say that is in just the absence of a belief system but this is not true. Atheists share a common world view and a common set of beliefs. They believe that the universe "just happened". That there is no direction or organizing force in the universe. This in spite of scientific evidence that the universe came into being suddenly and ex nihlo. They believe that life occurred from non life spontaneously, despite the fact that the universe is seeded with amino acids and other precursor building blocks of life. They make elaborate and complex arguments to explain this away but Occam's razor points to internal design, design inherent within the structure of the universe and within life itself.

Atheists claim the high ground of science. However, science tells us that the universe is INFINITE in space and INFINITE in time. Moreover, it is postulated that there may be many more universes, each as extensive as our own. Now, infinity. This is a concept that human beings have a hard time grasping. Even mathematicians and physicists deal with the concept symbolically in the abstract. Infinite means that anything with a probability greater than zero, no matter how improbable, must necessarily occur. Now, this idea of improbable events occurring over time is the very argument advanced by science to explain the highly improbable occurrence of the DNA molecule just "happening" in the same space of time that a cellular structure also just "happened". After all DNA is useless without such a structure. So, why then is it inconceivable that there is some sort of entity, very different from us, which has structured things the way they are? This answer is far simpler and more elegant than the random bumping of atoms over a few billion years.

Finally, as a belief system, atheism is bleak and hopeless. It offers no ethical or moral grounding. Quite the opposite it leads to alienation and disassociation. Some atheists, a tiny minority, embrace secular humanism which provides a moral basis. It would be well if more atheists embraced such a system.

Ya its a belief system (rolls eyes). Just keep telling yourself that as you pattern your believes on someone else's pure fantasy. I don't care how many theologians think about something and discuss it out loud and try to convince each other its real...it doesn't make it true. No matter what you think about the complexity of the universe no amount of believing in something just makes it real or even explains anything.
I'm sorry you think that just existing is somehow bleak and without purpose, and that you are only here to serve a deity forever and ever, or that you are here on some test or something. What an empty life you must have, to have to 'imagine' it will be better after your dead.

NNH

2009-07-02 01:58:52 PM

Wow, there are some seriously shocking revelations in those studies. Like, people gravitate to the familiar, and, like minded people congregate to reinforce their beliefs -Incredible stuff!

Whatever. Its ridiculous how identifying yourself as an atheist or agnostic means having to be compared to some caricature drawn up by people who fear and despise you. I'm not an agnostic because I think I'm some super duper enlightened renaissance man open to entertain anything and everything; I'm agnostic simply because I can admit that I am unsure of our origins and purpose, and popular religious explanations just don't jive with me.

So... f@*K off!

wmoonfox

2009-07-02 01:58:54 PM

Lord_Baull: God is the decider and that is the whole point

Prove it.

I thought W was the decider.

Tartha De Tear

2009-07-02 01:59:03 PM

wmoonfox: I think it is intellectually dishonest to water the greatest question of the universe down to a yes/no answer.

No.

The greatest question in the universe is as follows:

"Do you really want to?"

To answer this question, you'll need currently non-existent solid ground in ethics, meta-ethics, epistemology, semantics, theory of language, philosophy of science, and metaphysics.

The only correct answers are:

"I guess."

and

"Maybe not."

amanogowa

2009-07-02 01:59:56 PM

servoled: amanogowa: Agnostic. You know, the main key to this thread. They have completely separate meanings. To be an agnostic simply means that you believe that there is not enough evidence to concretely state there is a god. Atheists on the other hand believe there is enough and that there is no god.

An agnostic is not a weak atheist, as they are a separate entity, completely unrelated by definition. An agnostic is no more an atheist than they are a theist.

See, you don't have to "concretely state" one way or the other to believe that god(s) exist or not. Evidence is not required for belief. You are trying to treat it as a question of knowledge requiring proof, however it is a question of belief which doesn't not have the same standards.

There you go, confused again. Agnostics do not believe there is no god. They do not believe there is a god. They are a middle ground between the two extremes, and by definition are not atheist, but do not believe in a god, gods or God, proving your original statement wrong.

Sodium Benzoate

2009-07-02 02:01:16 PM

TFerWannaBe: I know a number of atheists and no reasonable person would consider any of them amoral. It may be true that a small minority of atheists consider themselves secular humanists, but that doesn't mean that the rest lack morals.

Also religion serves as a vessel for whatever morals the people in it feel like. They may be nice or they may be totally awful assholes, the fact that it's religion only makes the people involved believe that they are right, it in no way whatsoever ensures the moral code is a good one.

wmoonfox

2009-07-02 02:01:56 PM

Tartha De Tear: wmoonfox: I think it is intellectually dishonest to water the greatest question of the universe down to a yes/no answer.

No.

The greatest question in the universe is as follows:

"Do you really want to?"

To answer this question, you'll need currently non-existent solid ground in ethics, meta-ethics, epistemology, semantics, theory of language, philosophy of science, and metaphysics.

The only correct answers are:

"I guess."

and

"Maybe not."

Ow... my head.

So, does this mean "who are you" and "what do you want" are out of the running?

/obscure?

CrazyCracka420

2009-07-02 02:02:20 PM

Of course, it makes perfect sense! People who believe in science and factual evidence are going to be more closed minded than people who believe in fantasies and fairy tales.

Brilliant!

i242.photobucket.com

gx5000

2009-07-02 02:02:29 PM

Agnostic, atheist, whatever..your labels not mine..
Being closed minded AND analytical is your best bet not to be decieved. If you're "Open Minded" you'll buy snake oil just c'ause he's "Part of your congregation".

Fundies or not, religious types are dupes...period.

Jubeebee

2009-07-02 02:02:30 PM

vertiaset: Here are the main problems with Atheism:

First, it is a belief system. Atheists like to say that is in just the absence of a belief system but this is not true. Atheists share a common world view and a common set of beliefs. They believe that the universe "just happened". That there is no direction or organizing force in the universe. This in spite of scientific evidence that the universe came into being suddenly and ex nihlo. They believe that life occurred from non life spontaneously, despite the fact that the universe is seeded with amino acids and other precursor building blocks of life. They make elaborate and complex arguments to explain this away but Occam's razor points to internal design, design inherent within the structure of the universe and within life itself.

Atheists claim the high ground of science. However, science tells us that the universe is INFINITE in space and INFINITE in time. Moreover, it is postulated that there may be many more universes, each as extensive as our own. Now, infinity. This is a concept that human beings have a hard time grasping. Even mathematicians and physicists deal with the concept symbolically in the abstract. Infinite means that anything with a probability greater than zero, no matter how improbable, must necessarily occur. Now, this idea of improbable events occurring over time is the very argument advanced by science to explain the highly improbable occurrence of the DNA molecule just "happening" in the same space of time that a cellular structure also just "happened". After all DNA is useless without such a structure. So, why then is it inconceivable that there is some sort of entity, very different from us, which has structured things the way they are? This answer is far simpler and more elegant than the random bumping of atoms over a few billion years.

Finally, as a belief system, atheism is bleak and hopeless. It offers no ethical or moral grounding. Quite the opposite it leads to alienation and disassociation. Some atheists, a tiny minority, embrace secular humanism which provides a moral basis. It would be well if more atheists embraced such a system.

We know that the Universe is finite in space, but it is expanding. And we know roughly when it (and therefore time) began, so it is finite in time as well.

Your garbage about DNA being useless without cellular structure is off the mark as well. There are other self-replicating molecules like RNA that we've shown to be able to spontaneously form given the right components and conditions.

If you're looking at a first mover argument, why does the Universe need a creator, but God does not? If something as complex as the universe requires design, why does something that's even more complex, a sentient omnipotent entity, not require a creator?

And atheism does not attempt to answer ethical or moral questions. It's an answer to a specific question, whether or not there is a divinity. We have systems of morals and ethics to answer moral and ethical questions instead.

And humanism is not such a tiny minority as you might think. It's very decentralized and not very well organized, but there are about 10 million of us in the country, with many more abroad.

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 02:03:02 PM

proMidget:
-because you'll go to hell
-try that one on in traffic court
-most of us are
-God is the decider and that is the whole point, you didn't decide you were right, but you definitely decided we were wrong
-if we don't tell you what are the chances you'll evolve it on your own?

www.codefromjames.com

jrchan

2009-07-02 02:03:36 PM

Incidentally, has anybody read Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer? I want to read it for the "rational arguments" for intelligent design, but I don't want to waste 30ish bucks on some blatant pseudo-science BS that'll just make me angry. Are Meyer's arguments at least slightly believable?

jso2897

2009-07-02 02:04:37 PM

Lord_Baull: vertiaset 2009-07-02 01:45:53 PM
Finally, as a belief system, atheism is bleak and hopeless. It offers no ethical or moral grounding. Quite the opposite it leads to alienation and disassociation. Some atheists, a tiny minority, embrace secular humanism which provides a moral basis. It would be well if more atheists embraced such a system.

Sorry, I don't need to believe in a supernatural force to blame for all life's ills. I also don't need a supernatural force to enjoy life.
And your painting of atheists as amoral is just....stupid.
Here's an example of some religious types that have less morals than your "tiny minority."

Ted Haggard
Gov. Sanford
Jimmy Swaggart
Hitler
Larry Craig
Fred Phelps
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

It's a common logical fallacy known as a "frozen abstraction". When you hear someone say "That person has no morals", what they really mean is "That person does not share MY morals".
The fallacy lies in holding only one member of a class of things to be solely representative of that entire class of things.
I, however, have found that it is pointless to argue with people who embrace that fallacy - since they have already essentially re-defined the abstraction in question (be it morality or anything else) to exclude all but a single member of that class of abstractions, they are incapable of perceiving any that do not meet their self-imposed definition.
The reasoning process is thus:"My system of moral belief is a top down set of mandates that proceed from a higher authority. Thus, morality IS a top down set of mandates from a higher authority. Therefore, anyone who does not embrace a top-down set of mandates from a higher authority has no morality".
It's airtight logic, and cannot be disproven or even effectively questioned, and there is little point in pursuing it.

Sodium Benzoate

2009-07-02 02:05:08 PM

jrchan: Incidentally, has anybody read Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer? I want to read it for the "rational arguments" for intelligent design, but I don't want to waste 30ish bucks on some blatant pseudo-science BS that'll just make me angry. Are Meyer's arguments at least slightly believable?

You already know the answer in your heart.

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 02:05:24 PM

servoled: Evidence is not required for belief. You are trying to treat it as a question of knowledge requiring proof, however it is a question of belief which doesn't not have the same standards.

you're confusing "faith" and "belief."

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 02:05:35 PM

live and let live suckas

servoled

2009-07-02 02:05:51 PM

wmoonfox: Or, to break it down more succinctly, reverse your logic: if one is not an atheist -- if one does not believe wholeheartedly in the non-existence of a deity -- then one must be a theist. I think most people would find fault in this line of logic.

How would you phrase the proposition in that case? In my example it goes, "god(s) exists" is held as true = theist. "god(s) exists" not held as true = atheist I'm not entirely sure how you would phrase it to state the opposite.

I would say though that not holding "god(s) exists" as true is not necessarily equivalent to holding "god(s) do not exist" as true.

Blind_Io

2009-07-02 02:06:33 PM

Sodium Benzoate:

I think these conversations get derailed a lot once the god discussed becomes "any generic god" when really we're talking about many many specific and established gods. It makes the discussion a proof thing about hypothetical abstracts and that makes people type long paragraphs explaining simple things. While these arguments have merit, the reasons to not believe in the existence in gods are much easier to talk about when a specific god is picked since it can then be applied to all others since they're basically all the same thing. I dunno, I just feel like i've seen this argument before a lot and it never goes anywhere interesting.

Understandable, but I think that the theory of how to think is just as important, if not more so, than a concrete example (as concrete as you can get with this type of conversation, anyway). Also, I'm not trying to say that my perspective is correct. I'm only trying to convey my own views and interpretations on the subject.

I honestly think that the world would be a better place if fewer people were convinced that their own perspective was "correct" or "true" and decided to accept that there are other ways to look at the universe. That is not to say that all opinions are created equal, some are the result of careful logical thought based on a sound testable premise. On the other hand some people think that their penis is being used to broadcast antisemitic messages.

I don't think the world is black-and-white. Even if the universe is, people, by their very nature, introduce uncertainty, unpredictability and unprovable concepts such as faith and belief.

I'm like anyone else, just trying to make sense of the world around me.

AdamK

2009-07-02 02:07:41 PM

so does that mean that Bevets is a closet agnostic?

Jadedgrl

2009-07-02 02:07:51 PM

I'm an atheist because I can't stand being wishy washy about anything. For me, it's better for me to have no faith, then say well maybe.
That and I think the concept of God is a crock of shiat.

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 02:08:48 PM

Premise 1: There is a God
Premise 2: There is no God

Conclusion: There is and isn't a God

imgod2u

2009-07-02 02:09:00 PM

Lord_Baull: There was a Creationist on another website that suggested to me how Koalas, who dine exclusively on Eucalyptus leaves found exclusively in Australia, were able to make it back to Australia after the flood. This (new window) was her explanation.

Yeah, the logic from the close-minded Fundie borders on insanity.

But what she hot? And if so, did you hit that like the crazy hand of her angry God?

NNH

2009-07-02 02:09:11 PM

I should amend that to -Its ridiculous how identifying yourself as religious/atheist/agnostic/whatever means having to be compared to some caricature drawn up by people who fear and despise you. I'm not an agnostic because I think I'm some super duper enlightened renaissance man open to entertain anything and everything; I'm agnostic simply because I can admit that I am unsure of our origins and purpose, and popular religious explanations just don't jive with me.

Its obvious it goes both ways.

Yeah, so... f@*K off!

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 02:10:18 PM

Jadedgrl: I'm an atheist because I can't stand being wishy washy about anything. For me, it's better for me to have no faith, then say well maybe.
That and I think the concept of God is a crock of shiat.

LOL, so would you rather get oral or have sex? thats one to be wishy washy about.

servoled

2009-07-02 02:10:32 PM

amanogowa: There you go, confused again. Agnostics do not believe there is no god. They do not believe there is a god. They are a middle ground between the two extremes, and by definition are not atheist, but do not believe in a god, gods or God, proving your original statement wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes

jso2897

2009-07-02 02:10:49 PM

SobrietyFighter: Premise 1: There is a God
Premise 2: There is no God

Conclusion: There is and isn't a God

Schrodinger's Universe, eh? I like it.

Blind_Io

2009-07-02 02:11:16 PM

SobrietyFighter: Premise 1: There is a God
Premise 2: There is no God
3: ???
Conclusion: There is and isn't a God, Profit

FTFY.

/I think you need some kind of experiment or test of those premises before you reach a conclusion.
//just sayin'

Clan Xpy

2009-07-02 02:11:43 PM

I consider myself a humanist over an agnostic. Whatever that means.

aug3

2009-07-02 02:12:11 PM

How can an atheist not believe in god, but worship Satan?
Maybe I should ask Pat Robertson.

/atheist
/those Pillars of Hercules, actually exist.

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 02:12:26 PM

jso2897: SobrietyFighter: Premise 1: There is a God
Premise 2: There is no God

Conclusion: There is and isn't a God

Schrodinger's Universe, eh? I like it.

damn, gonna have to look that up. i thought i was being original.

Tartha De Tear

2009-07-02 02:12:44 PM

Incidentally, descriptivists deserve the ass-rash they give themselves.

jso2897

2009-07-02 02:13:15 PM

Clan Xpy: I consider myself a humanist over an agnostic. Whatever that means.

Jean-Paul Sartre farking Ayn Rand, doggie style?

wmoonfox

2009-07-02 02:13:20 PM

servoled: wmoonfox: Or, to break it down more succinctly, reverse your logic: if one is not an atheist -- if one does not believe wholeheartedly in the non-existence of a deity -- then one must be a theist. I think most people would find fault in this line of logic.

How would you phrase the proposition in that case? In my example it goes, "god(s) exists" is held as true = theist. "god(s) exists" not held as true = atheist I'm not entirely sure how you would phrase it to state the opposite.

I would submit that if the logic breaks down when you reverse the question, then the logic is bunk. Using your previous analogy:

If not (not red), then (red).
If not (atheist), then (theist).

One works in reverse, while the other does not, so it isn't really an apples vs. apples argument.

amanogowa

2009-07-02 02:13:36 PM

servoled: amanogowa: There you go, confused again. Agnostics do not believe there is no god. They do not believe there is a god. They are a middle ground between the two extremes, and by definition are not atheist, but do not believe in a god, gods or God, proving your original statement wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes

Dictionary:
Dictionary: a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst) pronunciation

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Dictionary: ag·nos·tic (ăg-nŏs'tĭk) pronunciation

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.

1.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

adj.

1. Relating to or being an agnostic.
2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).

Sorry, the actual definitions trump the prefixes.

12349876

2009-07-02 02:13:40 PM

EWreckedSean: 12349876: I don't see any atheist saying that anyone who isn't an atheist is going to suffer eternal hellfire.

No they just saying they are wasting their lives.

There's a difference between someone saying you aren't living your life correctly and saying there will be a red hot poker up your ass for eternity.

servoled

2009-07-02 02:14:10 PM

DeanMoriarty: you're confusing "faith" and "belief."

I'm taking belief as "holding x to be true" where x is a proposition. How are you defining "belief" and "faith"?

wmoonfox

2009-07-02 02:14:49 PM

SobrietyFighter: Premise 1: There is a God
Premise 2: There is no God

Conclusion: There is and isn't a God

Schrödinger's God?

GameSprocket

2009-07-02 02:14:53 PM

The Lord is the name of the cat.

/He likes fish
//Or at least, it pleases me to think so.

Sodium Benzoate

2009-07-02 02:15:22 PM

Blind_Io: Sodium Benzoate:

I think these conversations get derailed a lot once the god discussed becomes "any generic god" when really we're talking about many many specific and established gods. It makes the discussion a proof thing about hypothetical abstracts and that makes people type long paragraphs explaining simple things. While these arguments have merit, the reasons to not believe in the existence in gods are much easier to talk about when a specific god is picked since it can then be applied to all others since they're basically all the same thing. I dunno, I just feel like i've seen this argument before a lot and it never goes anywhere interesting.

Understandable, but I think that the theory of how to think is just as important, if not more so, than a concrete example (as concrete as you can get with this type of conversation, anyway). Also, I'm not trying to say that my perspective is correct. I'm only trying to convey my own views and interpretations on the subject.

I honestly think that the world would be a better place if fewer people were convinced that their own perspective was "correct" or "true" and decided to accept that there are other ways to look at the universe. That is not to say that all opinions are created equal, some are the result of careful logical thought based on a sound testable premise. On the other hand some people think that their penis is being used to broadcast antisemitic messages.

I don't think the world is black-and-white. Even if the universe is, people, by their very nature, introduce uncertainty, unpredictability and unprovable concepts such as faith and belief.

I'm like anyone else, just trying to make sense of the world around me.

Yeah, I mean, I just really like it when we get to break down why specific gods are irrational because it makes for more lively discourse. Also when people wind up talking about "a god(s)" as opposed to the one they actually believe in they can move goalposts a hell of a lot easier. Also breaking down religion into easy to follow flowcharts then asking really annoyingly specific but valid questions is really really fun.

If two good people pray for opposite things but both have really good intentions, do they cancel out or does god pick one guy or does he not even give a damn that anyone is asking him for stuff?

Brainsick

2009-07-02 02:15:54 PM

Are we factoring dogma in here? Because if we are, every Christian is going to heaven and hell. Simultaneously.

/The more you Gnosis

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 02:16:04 PM

meet a homeless guy once, he said his name was 'dog'

thats g.o.d. backward

/the more you know

emkajii

2009-07-02 02:16:56 PM

Blind_Io: I guess that is the disconnect. What you call disbelief to me is the logical acceptance of the null hypothesis (ie, that X does not exist). To me, there is a difference between the belief of non-existence and disbelief. The problem is that, for many, disbelief in X means the same as belief in the non-existence of X.

The acceptance of the null hypothesis (disbelief in X) when the hypothesis (X exists) fails to be supported is not the same to me as belief in the non-existence of X. In the case of disbelief (acceptance of the null), there is room for more data and the idea that with new information the result of the test can change and the hypothesis can be modified to include new discovery. For me, belief in the non-existence of X closes the door on discovery because the person has faith in the absence of knowledge. To say that "There is no X" would indicate that the person knows everything there is to know and can say with certainty that X does not exist. Since no one can actually know everything there is to know, no one can say for certain that there is no X. However, one can say, "I have failed to find X by looking here in a given way, that does not mean that X does not exist, only that I have not found X."

It seems as though differing definitions of Atheism are in play. I am making no defense for the people who misconstrue lack of evidence for X to be evidence for the non-existence of X. That's not my belief, and I'm well aware that line of thinking is flawed.

Perhaps there needs to be a new name for those who have strong faith that there is no god, so that normal atheists will stop getting such a bad rap.

solcofn

2009-07-02 02:17:09 PM

Every time I try to talk to someone it's "sorry this" and "forgive me that" and "I'm not worthy"... It's just like those miserable psalms, always so depressing. Now knock it off!

wmoonfox

2009-07-02 02:17:21 PM

Brainsick: Are we factoring dogma in here? Because if we are, every Christian is going to heaven and hell. Simultaneously.

/The more you Gnosis

That will please the Catholics.

Sodium Benzoate

2009-07-02 02:17:31 PM

aug3: How can an atheist not believe in god, but worship Satan?
Maybe I should ask Pat Robertson.

/atheist
/those Pillars of Hercules, actually exist.

Because there is ONLY Satan, duhh.

Tartha De Tear

2009-07-02 02:17:45 PM

wmoonfox: servoled: wmoonfox: Or, to break it down more succinctly, reverse your logic: if one is not an atheist -- if one does not believe wholeheartedly in the non-existence of a deity -- then one must be a theist. I think most people would find fault in this line of logic.

How would you phrase the proposition in that case? In my example it goes, "god(s) exists" is held as true = theist. "god(s) exists" not held as true = atheist I'm not entirely sure how you would phrase it to state the opposite.

I would submit that if the logic breaks down when you reverse the question, then the logic is bunk. Using your previous analogy:

If not (not red), then (red).
If not (atheist), then (theist).

One works in reverse, while the other does not, so it isn't really an apples vs. apples argument.

Oooooh excluded middles suck.

Especially Janet.

JohnBigBootay

2009-07-02 02:18:03 PM

I have some descriptive terms I use to describe those who believe in magic and the supernatural, but neither 'open', nor 'minded' are among them.

cthellis

2009-07-02 02:18:24 PM

m2313:

Being worn as we speak.

CrankMyBlueSax: Clearly, this car is a cat.

Winnar!

t3knomanser: I reserve that for furries.

You collect furries? o_O

Brainsick: The same way a WOW player can have a strong body odor without a strong body

ANOTHER winnar!

servoled

2009-07-02 02:18:46 PM

wmoonfox: I would submit that if the logic breaks down when you reverse the question, then the logic is bunk. Using your previous analogy:

If not (not red), then (red).
If not (atheist), then (theist).

One works in reverse, while the other does not, so it isn't really an apples vs. apples argument.

I would agree with those two statements... however I wouldn't agree with how you were defining the question. Atheist is not necessarily equivelant to holding "god(s) do not exist" to be true.

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 02:18:46 PM

If i was a christian, i think it would be pretty farked that homosexuals are praying to the same god i am
/or is god an individual thing practiced in a group?

rastjr

2009-07-02 02:20:19 PM

t3knomanser: rastjr: No, I did not say that. He said my one opinion was a too small sample so I gave my 6 billion as an answer to that.

But that's not what I said at all. I said the human experience was too small a sample space. Humans live on only one planet, with a very limited set of sensory inputs. They are singular organisms, unusual in the scheme of the universe, perhaps completely unique. The perspective of humans is not a good place to judge the universe from.

Sorry, misunderstood you.

I guess if you have another perspective other than humans, I whould would like to hear it. Why not go with what we have instead of wondering what we don't have.

and creating a nuisance

2009-07-02 02:20:22 PM

I'm not sure I buy this. On Fark, at least, atheists and Christians seem to be the most insular about "people who disagree with me are deluded blah blah blah". I think that as you move towards more polar beliefs, in any direction, there's less headspace for you to accomodate other views. It's generally a conscious effort for us to willingly consider things which contradict our perception of the world. If you don't work at it, you'll probably lose it, and then you end up in a Fark religion thread screaming to no one in particular about Fundies or Godless Heathens. So we should really all take a deep breath, think good thoughts, and spark up a really fat joint to lighten our moods.

/In the interest of full disclosure, I am indeed one of those nutty Christians. I suspect it would be very easy for me to become narrow-minded, so I do try to make an effort to associate with people from different walks of life and belief systems, if for no other reason than to keep me honest. Nobody's perfect, is for damned sure.

amanogowa

2009-07-02 02:20:30 PM

servoled: Atheist is not necessarily equivelant to holding "god(s) do not exist" to be true

Actually, that is *exactly* what it is. See the dictionary definition I provided above.

rastjr

2009-07-02 02:21:37 PM

t3knomanser: rastjr: Is 6 billion people a big enough sample for you?

No, because their perspective is quite clearly unique, and hardly indicative of what the universe is like. Relative to humans, the universe is quite large- but who says humans are a good judge of what the universe is like? They're good reproducers in the right environment, and they're no slouches when it comes to tool using- but why do you think the human perspective is a good perspective for judging things like the relative size and complexity of the universe?

Who says we're not.

Sodium Benzoate

2009-07-02 02:21:55 PM

servoled: wmoonfox: I would submit that if the logic breaks down when you reverse the question, then the logic is bunk. Using your previous analogy:

If not (not red), then (red).
If not (atheist), then (theist).

One works in reverse, while the other does not, so it isn't really an apples vs. apples argument.

I would agree with those two statements... however I wouldn't agree with how you were defining the question. Atheist is not necessarily equivelant to holding "god(s) do not exist" to be true.

I always make a point to distinguish "I believe no gods exist" with "I do not believe that any of these presented Gods exist" It somehow helps.

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 02:22:43 PM

here's the test: grab some baby from an unwanted pregnancy. stick him/her in room, isolated from the world. feed him/her and everything without ever letting him/her see the providers. wait 20,30,40? years. release him/her to the world. teach him/her how to communicate. then ask him/her if there is a god.

Blind_Io

2009-07-02 02:22:47 PM

Sodium Benzoate:
Yeah, I mean, I just really like it when we get to break down why specific gods are irrational because it makes for more lively discourse. Also when people wind up talking about "a god(s)" as opposed to the one they actually believe in they can move goalposts a hell of a lot easier. Also breaking down religion into easy to follow flowcharts then asking really annoyingly specific but valid questions is really really fun.

If two good people pray for opposite things but both have really good intentions, do they cancel out or does god pick one guy or does he not even give a damn that anyone is asking him for stuff?

I like the cut of your jib, sir.

Tartha De Tear

2009-07-02 02:22:57 PM

SobrietyFighter: If i was a christian, i think it would be pretty farked that homosexuals are praying to the same god i am
/or is god an individual thing practiced in a group?

I prayed hard. Yeah, biatches. I started slow, working in a little praise for the day, letting the warmth of the sun come over me. I started working it, over, and over, giving thanks for meals and toys and people and clean water and friends, oh YEAH I didn't let up. I went on for TWO HOURS, but I wasn't pounding that shiat yet, LET ME TELL YOU.

I started wrapping it up, I was sweating, I was sweating bullets just praying and praying thanking GOD OH GOD OOOOOH GOD and I was prayin' for forgiveness, PRAYING FOR FORGIVENESS, OH YEAH, OH YEAH, PLEASE FORGIVE MY SINS OH FATHER FATHER OOOOH FATHER...

I nailed that prayer. And I'll do it again.

servoled

2009-07-02 02:23:01 PM

amanogowa: Sorry, the actual definitions trump the prefixes.

a·the·ist [ áythee ist ] (plural a·the·ists)

noun
Definition:

unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities

ag·nos·tic [ ag nóstik ] (plural ag·nos·tics)

noun
Definition:

1. somebody denying God's existence is provable: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists

2. somebody denying something is knowable: somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood
I'm an agnostic concerning space aliens.

Dictionary shopping is fun.

and creating a nuisance

2009-07-02 02:23:40 PM

SobrietyFighter: here's the test: grab some baby from an unwanted pregnancy. stick him/her in room, isolated from the world. feed him/her and everything without ever letting him/her see the providers. wait 20,30,40? years. release him/her to the world. teach him/her how to communicate. then ask him/her if there is a god.

Uh.... whether the kid is religious or not, he's guaranteed to be a sociopath. Human interaction exists for a reason.

emkajii

2009-07-02 02:23:51 PM

rastjr: Who says we're not.

that's...that's not how providing evidence works.

Thorndyke Barnhard

2009-07-02 02:24:03 PM

Maybe it's part of a heuristic device that evolved to improve logical consistency in the intellectual activity of an individual.

Though, like all heuristic short cuts, can backfire through their disregard of true sound reasoning.

Jadedgrl

2009-07-02 02:24:17 PM

SobrietyFighter: Jadedgrl: I'm an atheist because I can't stand being wishy washy about anything. For me, it's better for me to have no faith, then say well maybe.
That and I think the concept of God is a crock of shiat.

LOL, so would you rather get oral or have sex? thats one to be wishy washy about.

Get oral. Hands down.

SacriliciousBeerSwiller

2009-07-02 02:24:40 PM

People who are unsure of their own beliefs are less open minded. Suck it agnostics

This is logically impossible. If you are SURE of your beliefs, you are by default close minded to other beliefs. If you are open minded, at all, to other beliefs, you are by default unsure of any particular belief.

Tartha De Tear

2009-07-02 02:25:06 PM

amanogowa: Actually, that is *exactly* what it is. See the dictionary definition I provided above.

Psst.

Dictionaries are only a starting point. Definitions for complex terms depend on the context of the time, the society, the culture, and the individual conversation. I know, it's not as easy, but man, it's just that way.

Clan Xpy

2009-07-02 02:25:23 PM

jso2897: Jean-Paul Sartre

Yeah, my survivalist pedigree thought doesn't make me very motivated to further the rest of humanity though, so maybe humanist is not the appropriate term. Is there a term for purest of apathy on the subject? Nihilism doesn't seem to fit.

Blind_Io

2009-07-02 02:25:47 PM

servoled: amanogowa: Sorry, the actual definitions trump the prefixes.

a·the·ist [ áythee ist ] (plural a·the·ists)

noun
Definition:

unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities

ag·nos·tic [ ag nóstik ] (plural ag·nos·tics)

noun
Definition:

1. somebody denying God's existence is provable: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists

2. somebody denying something is knowable: somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood
I'm an agnostic concerning space aliens.

Dictionary shopping is fun.

Please cite the dictionary you are using. Oxford > Websters

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 02:26:17 PM

and creating a nuisance: SobrietyFighter: here's the test: grab some baby from an unwanted pregnancy. stick him/her in room, isolated from the world. feed him/her and everything without ever letting him/her see the providers. wait 20,30,40? years. release him/her to the world. teach him/her how to communicate. then ask him/her if there is a god.

Uh.... whether the kid is religious or not, he's guaranteed to be a sociopath. Human interaction exists for a reason.

so religion is a learned behavior? so belief in god is a learned behavior? so if no one taught god it wouldn't exist?

Sodium Benzoate

2009-07-02 02:26:23 PM

rastjr: t3knomanser: rastjr: Is 6 billion people a big enough sample for you?

No, because their perspective is quite clearly unique, and hardly indicative of what the universe is like. Relative to humans, the universe is quite large- but who says humans are a good judge of what the universe is like? They're good reproducers in the right environment, and they're no slouches when it comes to tool using- but why do you think the human perspective is a good perspective for judging things like the relative size and complexity of the universe?

Who says we're not.

Because it's extremely arrogant. If humanity is the best thing in the universe, the universe aimed low and settled for even less.

Talking hairless builder apes are not the pinnacle of existence. They're another thing that's around.

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 02:26:39 PM

servoled: I'm taking belief as "holding x to be true" where x is a proposition. How are you defining "belief" and "faith"?

a belief can be backed up by facts. Faith exists outside the realm of facts.

turtleking

2009-07-02 02:26:44 PM

What does the H stand for ?

Bartleby the Scrivener

2009-07-02 02:27:42 PM

Jubeebee: And we know roughly when it (and therefore time) began, so it is finite in time as well.

Time is a human construct, different than matter. there have been multiple calendars the second in the SI has been arbitrarily selected and redefined as the periodicity of the radiation from a cesium atom.

time began when people started keeping track of it.

xria

2009-07-02 02:27:46 PM

crab66: I believe in raptor jesus. Therefore he must exist.

So is this something like Jesus was a dinosaur, and modern Christianity mythology was all rewritten/updated at some later date to make him human - similar to how Jesus is white in most of Europe/NA and black in Ethiopia and so on?

FarkinHostile

2009-07-02 02:28:05 PM

Good thing I am totally convinced about my agnosticism.

and creating a nuisance

2009-07-02 02:28:33 PM

SobrietyFighter: so religion is a learned behavior? so belief in god is a learned behavior? so if no one taught god it wouldn't exist?

I didn't say it is or isn't. I don't see that it particularly matters - most things we do beyond basic biological functions are learned behaviors... which is what makes the design of your experiment so, well... creepy. Just saying.

Tartha De Tear

2009-07-02 02:28:39 PM

Sodium Benzoate: rastjr: t3knomanser: rastjr: Is 6 billion people a big enough sample for you?

No, because their perspective is quite clearly unique, and hardly indicative of what the universe is like. Relative to humans, the universe is quite large- but who says humans are a good judge of what the universe is like? They're good reproducers in the right environment, and they're no slouches when it comes to tool using- but why do you think the human perspective is a good perspective for judging things like the relative size and complexity of the universe?

Who says we're not.

Because it's extremely arrogant. If humanity is the best thing in the universe, the universe aimed low and settled for even less.

Talking hairless builder apes are not the pinnacle of existence. They're another thing that's around.

Who are you calling a sack of mostly water? What, and I'm ugly?

Sodium Benzoate

2009-07-02 02:29:00 PM

SobrietyFighter: and creating a nuisance: SobrietyFighter: here's the test: grab some baby from an unwanted pregnancy. stick him/her in room, isolated from the world. feed him/her and everything without ever letting him/her see the providers. wait 20,30,40? years. release him/her to the world. teach him/her how to communicate. then ask him/her if there is a god.

Uh.... whether the kid is religious or not, he's guaranteed to be a sociopath. Human interaction exists for a reason.

so religion is a learned behavior? so belief in god is a learned behavior? so if no one taught god it wouldn't exist?

No, people are really good at convincing themselves that things work all sorts of ways without being told, even more so when they don't have enough information on the topic they're think about. Mabey the kid would think there was some super being outside the room that fed him.

Clan Xpy

2009-07-02 02:29:13 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: People who are unsure of their own beliefs are less open minded. Suck it agnostics

This is logically impossible. If you are SURE of your beliefs, you are by default close minded to other beliefs. If you are open minded, at all, to other beliefs, you are by default unsure of any particular belief.

People tend to be illogical.

amanogowa

2009-07-02 02:29:17 PM

servoled: amanogowa: Sorry, the actual definitions trump the prefixes.

a·the·ist [ áythee ist ] (plural a·the·ists)

noun
Definition:

unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities

ag·nos·tic [ ag nóstik ] (plural ag·nos·tics)

noun
Definition:

1. somebody denying God's existence is provable: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists

2. somebody denying something is knowable: somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood
I'm an agnostic concerning space aliens.

Dictionary shopping is fun.

So now we have 2 dictionaries showing that you are wrong. Care to look for a third?

Bartleby the Scrivener

2009-07-02 02:29:35 PM

Bartleby the Scrivener: Jubeebee: And we know roughly when it (and therefore time) began, so it is finite in time as well.

Time is a human construct, different than matter. there have been multiple calendars the second in the SI has been arbitrarily selected and redefined as the periodicity of the radiation from a cesium atom.

time began when people started keeping track of it.

Time is a human construct, different than matter. there have been multiple calendars; the second in the SI has been arbitrarily selected and redefined as the periodicity of the radiation from a cesium atom.

\edited for less sloppiness

Brainsick

2009-07-02 02:30:17 PM

Clan Xpy: jso2897: Jean-Paul Sartre

Yeah, my survivalist pedigree thought doesn't make me very motivated to further the rest of humanity though, so maybe humanist is not the appropriate term. Is there a term for purest of apathy on the subject? Nihilism doesn't seem to fit.

www.hecklerspray.com

Dudeness.

/Nihilists! fark me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 02:30:45 PM

Bartleby the Scrivener: Time is a human construct, different than matter. there have been multiple calendars the second in the SI has been arbitrarily selected and redefined as the periodicity of the radiation from a cesium atom.

Nice try. Measurement of time is a human construct; the passage of time isn't.

StaleCoffee

2009-07-02 02:31:07 PM

amanogowa: servoled: amanogowa: There you go, confused again. Agnostics do not believe there is no god. They do not believe there is a god. They are a middle ground between the two extremes, and by definition are not atheist, but do not believe in a god, gods or God, proving your original statement wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes

Dictionary:
Dictionary: a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst) pronunciation

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Dictionary: ag·nos·tic (ăg-nŏs'tĭk) pronunciation

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.

1.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

adj.

1. Relating to or being an agnostic.
2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).

Sorry, the actual definitions trump the prefixes.

Agnosticism requires a qualifier of theism or atheism when applied to the supernatural concept. You can claim it is impossible to know the nature of a deity, or whether or not it exists, but it does not preclude having an opinion or induction of logic to the belief or lack thereof in a deity.

As for the definitions of words, the dictionary is an excellent tool for cementing communication but in discussions like this it merits a bit more investment than "The dictionary says X so fark the entire epistemological school of Y."

Deucednuisance

2009-07-02 02:31:12 PM

Jadedgrl: Get oral. Hands down.

Gigitty.

Where were you when I was in Buffalo?

(Checks profile again. Cute? Check! 23? uh-oh...)

You were literally in a cradle when I was in Buffalo. You weren't even born the first two years I was there! I'll just have a seat over here...

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 02:31:49 PM

FarkinHostile

2009-07-02 02:32:15 PM

t3knomanser

What makes you think the universe is large?

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Sodium Benzoate

2009-07-02 02:32:56 PM

Tartha De Tear: Sodium Benzoate: rastjr: t3knomanser: rastjr: Is 6 billion people a big enough sample for you?

No, because their perspective is quite clearly unique, and hardly indicative of what the universe is like. Relative to humans, the universe is quite large- but who says humans are a good judge of what the universe is like? They're good reproducers in the right environment, and they're no slouches when it comes to tool using- but why do you think the human perspective is a good perspective for judging things like the relative size and complexity of the universe?

Who says we're not.

Because it's extremely arrogant. If humanity is the best thing in the universe, the universe aimed low and settled for even less.

Talking hairless builder apes are not the pinnacle of existence. They're another thing that's around.

Who are you calling a sack of mostly water? What, and I'm ugly?

Well, my knee sucks, whoever designed it was an asshole with no design skill. I can understand why it would be this way if there was some kind of process where it was adapted from a different knee used for a slightly different purpose, but that's crazy. This knee is SO COMPLICATED!

amanogowa

2009-07-02 02:33:00 PM

Tartha De Tear: amanogowa: Actually, that is *exactly* what it is. See the dictionary definition I provided above.

Psst.

Dictionaries are only a starting point. Definitions for complex terms depend on the context of the time, the society, the culture, and the individual conversation. I know, it's not as easy, but man, it's just that way.

I agree, but none of those factors change the fact that atheists and agnostics are only intersecting spaces on a Venn diagram -- not the same space called two names.

Bartleby the Scrivener

2009-07-02 02:33:34 PM

DeanMoriarty: Nice try. Measurement of time is a human construct; the passage of time isn't.

please distinguish between the passage of time and the measurement of time.

if you can do it in 25 words or less, i'll give you a pack of Razzles.

\first it's a candy, then it's a gum.

servoled

2009-07-02 02:33:34 PM

Blind_Io: Please cite the dictionary you are using. Oxford > Websters

True. http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/_.html

However as summed up below, dictionaries are not an absolute reference for terms. Definitions can be very fluid.

Tartha De Tear:
Dictionaries are only a starting point. Definitions for complex terms depend on the context of the time, the society, the culture, and the individual conversation. I know, it's not as easy, but man, it's just that way.

PumpUpDaFark

2009-07-02 02:33:49 PM

t3knomanser: letrole: Atheism is a Religion.

And not collecting stamps is a hobby.

biatching at stamp collectors isn't a hobby either.

jrchan

2009-07-02 02:34:13 PM

HawgWild

2009-07-02 02:34:21 PM

Hey gang!

/my lawn ... blah blah blah

The Florida Tag

2009-07-02 02:34:35 PM

devildog123: ///I think I'm more open minded than most of you.

Could I do anything to convince you otherwise?

Das Meister

2009-07-02 02:34:36 PM

crab66: After reading the article I think it actually says that the reason religious nutjobs are so nutty is because they aren't really sure about what they believe in.

Nah, they are sure about what they believe in. What they can't conceive of is how you can **not** believe the same thing when it is so blindingly obvious to them.

/Lived with a born-again Southern Baptist.
//Couldn't conceieve of how I could **not** believe in God.
///Blown away that I agreed to let him pray for me; didn't hurt me any and it was on his time.

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 02:35:50 PM

StaleCoffee: Agnosticism requires a qualifier of theism or atheism when applied to the supernatural concept.

What a ridiculous sentence.

"Agnosticism requires you to be talking about god when you're using it to talk about god."

"Mechanics requires a qualifier of "bicycle" when applied to the velo-mobility concept."

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 02:36:00 PM

if you pray then you're prey

SynthLord

2009-07-02 02:36:02 PM

Being "open minded" isn't a virtue.

The real choices are to be active-minded or passive-minded.

ChadM89

2009-07-02 02:36:03 PM

Bartleby the Scrivener: Time is a human construct, different than matter. there have been multiple calendars; the second in the SI has been arbitrarily selected and redefined as the periodicity of the radiation from a cesium atom.

Eh. Our calendar is based on how long it takes for the earth to go around the sun. That's why different objects in space have different day and year lengths. The rate of the passage of time we consider a constant in the universe, but calendars vary from object to object.

and creating a nuisance

2009-07-02 02:36:08 PM

There is no science.... only Zuul!

Das Meister

2009-07-02 02:36:29 PM

PumpUpDaFark: t3knomanser: letrole: Atheism is a Religion.

And not collecting stamps is a hobby.

biatching at stamp collectors isn't a hobby either.

Except for their wives...

/[ducks]

amanogowa

2009-07-02 02:36:53 PM

StaleCoffee: amanogowa: servoled: amanogowa: There you go, confused again. Agnostics do not believe there is no god. They do not believe there is a god. They are a middle ground between the two extremes, and by definition are not atheist, but do not believe in a god, gods or God, proving your original statement wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes

Dictionary:
Dictionary: a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst) pronunciation

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Dictionary: ag·nos·tic (ăg-nŏs'tĭk) pronunciation

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.

1.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

adj.

1. Relating to or being an agnostic.
2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).

Sorry, the actual definitions trump the prefixes.

Agnosticism requires a qualifier of theism or atheism when applied to the supernatural concept. You can claim it is impossible to know the nature of a deity, or whether or not it exists, but it does not preclude having an opinion or induction of logic to the belief or lack thereof in a deity.

As for the definitions of words, the dictionary is an excellent tool for cementing communication but in discussions like this it merits a bit more investment than "The dictionary says X so fark the entire epistemological school of Y."

servoled's original premise was that you are either Christian, or atheist, which he later changed to either theist or atheist, which is simply untrue, unless you are redefining words and making your own little language up.

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 02:37:07 PM

religion is a ponzi scheme

StaleCoffee

2009-07-02 02:37:23 PM

DeanMoriarty: StaleCoffee: Agnosticism requires a qualifier of theism or atheism when applied to the supernatural concept.

What a ridiculous sentence.

"Agnosticism requires you to be talking about god when you're using it to talk about god."

"Mechanics requires a qualifier of "bicycle" when applied to the velo-mobility concept."

I think you missed the point of "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" debunk.

Sodium Benzoate

2009-07-02 02:37:45 PM

SobrietyFighter: religion is a ponzi scheme

also a pyramid scheme. with hats.

servoled

2009-07-02 02:37:47 PM

amanogowa: So now we have 2 dictionaries showing that you are wrong. Care to look for a third?

I suggest you actually read those definitions, then compare them with the definitions you gave... they state very different things (assuming you understand the difference between believe !x and !believing x). The only common definition they have is the first one for agnosticism, which is the traditional definition.

StaleCoffee

2009-07-02 02:38:56 PM

amanogowa: StaleCoffee: amanogowa: servoled: amanogowa: There you go, confused again. Agnostics do not believe there is no god. They do not believe there is a god. They are a middle ground between the two extremes, and by definition are not atheist, but do not believe in a god, gods or God, proving your original statement wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes

Dictionary:
Dictionary: a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst) pronunciation

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Dictionary: ag·nos·tic (ăg-nŏs'tĭk) pronunciation

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.

1.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

adj.

1. Relating to or being an agnostic.
2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).

Sorry, the actual definitions trump the prefixes.

Agnosticism requires a qualifier of theism or atheism when applied to the supernatural concept. You can claim it is impossible to know the nature of a deity, or whether or not it exists, but it does not preclude having an opinion or induction of logic to the belief or lack thereof in a deity.

As for the definitions of words, the dictionary is an excellent tool for cementing communication but in discussions like this it merits a bit more investment than "The dictionary says X so fark the entire epistemological school of Y."

servoled's original premise was that you are either Christian, or atheist, which he later changed to either theist or atheist, which is simply untrue, unless you are redefining words and making your own little language up.

Please explain the middle ground between "There are supernatural entities" and "There are no supernatural entities."

The premise that you are theist or atheist in some capacity is true. Agnosticism is an extension of that, in this case.

rastjr

2009-07-02 02:39:59 PM

Ant: rastjr: I was good to people and left the world better than when I came in.

Maybe, according to the one true god, you were supposed to be an asshole.

Maybe. But maybe not. Which one works better for you and the world?

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 02:40:15 PM

definitions:

www.askix.com

letrole

2009-07-02 02:40:18 PM

edmo: This is why so many hard core anti-gay types turn out to be gay. Duh.

Accusations of repressed homosexuality as a root cause - le raison d'être - of homophobic behaviour do nothing but further provide evidence of the twisted mental condition that accompanies homosexuality.

Playinodds

2009-07-02 02:40:38 PM

Let's rephrase the headline and see if it doesn't strike you as obvious.

"People who are unsure about their beliefs are more skeptical when presented with the beliefs of others."

Is this bad? I mean, should someone who is unsure automatically assume that the nice evangelist asking him for money for jesus is really sending that money to heaven?

servoled

2009-07-02 02:40:45 PM

amanogowa: servoled's original premise was that you are either Christian, or atheist, which he later changed to either theist or atheist, which is simply untrue, unless you are redefining words and making your own little language up.

Actually no, I originally used "God" to be consistent with others, however I in no way intended that to be limited to only the Christian god. If you took it that way I apologize, but that was never my intended premise.

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 02:40:46 PM

Bartleby the Scrivener: DeanMoriarty: Nice try. Measurement of time is a human construct; the passage of time isn't.

please distinguish between the passage of time and the measurement of time.

if you can do it in 25 words or less, i'll give you a pack of Razzles.

\first it's a candy, then it's a gum.

Passage of time is a sequence. Measurement is the division of that sequence into equal parts unrelated to events within that sequence.

/gimme
//yay Twitter for teaching me how to write briefly.

rastjr

2009-07-02 02:41:39 PM

wylkyn: rastjr: I've always believed that the universe is just too large and complex not be created by a supreme being.

And that supreme being, he is tiny and simple? If not, then what or who was he created by? The whole "complexity points to a creator" argument leads to an endless chain of creators, unless you posit that the creator has always existed, and in that case, why couldn't you say the same about the universe? If it's okay for the creator to be eternal in all his complexity, but you don't hold the same to be true for the universe without a creator, then you are just being arbitrary.

It's okay for you to believe these things. Just don't try to pretend they are based on logic.

Okay. I won't. Thanks.

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 02:41:51 PM

servoled: amanogowa: servoled's original premise was that you are either Christian, or atheist, which he later changed to either theist or atheist, which is simply untrue, unless you are redefining words and making your own little language up.

Actually no, I originally used "God" to be consistent with others, however I in no way intended that to be limited to only the Christian god. If you took it that way I apologize, but that was never my intended premise.

But you're premise is still "theist" or "atheist." so it's still wrong.

Sodium Benzoate

2009-07-02 02:42:17 PM

IF YOU PEOPLE KEEP ARGUING ABOUT THE DEFINITIONS OF AGNOSTIC AND ATHEIST I'M GOING TO START BELIEVING IN GOD TO SPITE YOU!

amanogowa

2009-07-02 02:43:17 PM

servoled: amanogowa: So now we have 2 dictionaries showing that you are wrong. Care to look for a third?

I suggest you actually read those definitions, then compare them with the definitions you gave... they state very different things (assuming you understand the difference between believe !x and !believing x). The only common definition they have is the first one for agnosticism, which is the traditional definition.

Neither of those definitions supports the statement that everyone not believing in God (or god) is atheist. Your definition even says an atheist has to believe there is no god, which is clarified.

While Atheist and Agnostic overlap, so does Agnostic and Theist.

Keep backpedaling, at some point you might become right.

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 02:43:28 PM

Sodium Benzoate: IF YOU PEOPLE KEEP ARGUING ABOUT THE DEFINITIONS OF AGNOSTIC AND ATHEIST I'M GOING TO START BELIEVING IN GOD TO SPITE YOU!

www.blueblood.net

Mekanikos

2009-07-02 02:44:37 PM

I'm agnostic and I don't care...

I'm pretty open-minded. :(

/the lobotomy helped

give me doughnuts

2009-07-02 02:44:51 PM

Lord_Baull: Deucednuisance 2009-07-02 01:05:32 PM
Lord_Baull: This (new window) was her explanation.

Krakatoa?
You sure you gave the right link?

Yes, she posited that the animals on Australia could have populated the planet Krakatoa-style.

Like a koala could violently explode and the resulting scattered koala-nuggets would grow into other koalas?

CuteAsFark

2009-07-02 02:44:59 PM

Wow what a bunch of crap. It's always the bible nuts that shut out all opposing views. Who did this study? China?

Sodium Benzoate

2009-07-02 02:45:30 PM

SobrietyFighter: Sodium Benzoate: IF YOU PEOPLE KEEP ARGUING ABOUT THE DEFINITIONS OF AGNOSTIC AND ATHEIST I'M GOING TO START BELIEVING IN GOD TO SPITE YOU!

they just never shut up!

amanogowa

2009-07-02 02:45:36 PM

StaleCoffee: amanogowa: StaleCoffee: amanogowa: servoled: amanogowa: There you go, confused again. Agnostics do not believe there is no god. They do not believe there is a god. They are a middle ground between the two extremes, and by definition are not atheist, but do not believe in a god, gods or God, proving your original statement wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes

Dictionary:
Dictionary: a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst) pronunciation

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Dictionary: ag·nos·tic (ăg-nŏs'tĭk) pronunciation

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.

1.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

adj.

1. Relating to or being an agnostic.
2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).

Sorry, the actual definitions trump the prefixes.

Agnosticism requires a qualifier of theism or atheism when applied to the supernatural concept. You can claim it is impossible to know the nature of a deity, or whether or not it exists, but it does not preclude having an opinion or induction of logic to the belief or lack thereof in a deity.

As for the definitions of words, the dictionary is an excellent tool for cementing communication but in discussions like this it merits a bit more investment than "The dictionary says X so fark the entire epistemological school of Y."

servoled's original premise was that you are either Christian, or atheist, which he later changed to either theist or atheist, which is simply untrue, unless you are redefining words and making your own little language up.

Please explain the middle ground between "There are supernatural entities" and "There are no supernatural entities."

The premise that you are theist or atheist in some capacity is true. Agnosticism is an extension of that, in this case.

"I don't know if there are supernatural entities, nor do I know that there is proof either way"

It is possible to have neither the opinion that there is a god, nor the opinion that there is no god.

StaleCoffee

2009-07-02 02:46:20 PM

amanogowa: StaleCoffee: amanogowa: StaleCoffee: amanogowa: servoled: amanogowa: There you go, confused again. Agnostics do not believe there is no god. They do not believe there is a god. They are a middle ground between the two extremes, and by definition are not atheist, but do not believe in a god, gods or God, proving your original statement wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes

Dictionary:
Dictionary: a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst) pronunciation

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Dictionary: ag·nos·tic (ăg-nŏs'tĭk) pronunciation

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.

1.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

adj.

1. Relating to or being an agnostic.
2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).

Sorry, the actual definitions trump the prefixes.

Agnosticism requires a qualifier of theism or atheism when applied to the supernatural concept. You can claim it is impossible to know the nature of a deity, or whether or not it exists, but it does not preclude having an opinion or induction of logic to the belief or lack thereof in a deity.

As for the definitions of words, the dictionary is an excellent tool for cementing communication but in discussions like this it merits a bit more investment than "The dictionary says X so fark the entire epistemological school of Y."

servoled's original premise was that you are either Christian, or atheist, which he later changed to either theist or atheist, which is simply untrue, unless you are redefining words and making your own little language up.

Please explain the middle ground between "There are supernatural entities" and "There are no supernatural entities."

The premise that you are theist or atheist in some capacity is true. Agnosticism is an extension of that, in this case.

"I don't know if there are supernatural entities, nor do I know that there is proof either way"

It is possible to have neither the opinion that there is a god, nor the opinion that there is no god.

That makes you an agnostic atheist.

amanogowa

2009-07-02 02:46:44 PM

servoled: amanogowa: servoled's original premise was that you are either Christian, or atheist, which he later changed to either theist or atheist, which is simply untrue, unless you are redefining words and making your own little language up.

Actually no, I originally used "God" to be consistent with others, however I in no way intended that to be limited to only the Christian god. If you took it that way I apologize, but that was never my intended premise.

Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

You were wrong, and can back pedal all you want, it changes nothing.

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 02:47:26 PM

StaleCoffee:
I think you missed the point of "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" debunk.

No I didn't. You injected "theism" into the definition of "agnosticism" to distort a fact.

When applied to the concept of theism, an agnostic simply believes the existence of god is unknowable. it does not take a position on either side.

The only reason it's ever equated with atheism is because theists - who operate not on knowledge but on faith - believe the injection of knowledge into the discussion can only be done by someone who is opposed to the concept of faith.

Jubeebee

2009-07-02 02:47:28 PM

Bartleby the Scrivener: Bartleby the Scrivener: Jubeebee: And we know roughly when it (and therefore time) began, so it is finite in time as well.

Time is a human construct, different than matter. there have been multiple calendars the second in the SI has been arbitrarily selected and redefined as the periodicity of the radiation from a cesium atom.

time began when people started keeping track of it.

Time is a human construct, different than matter. there have been multiple calendars; the second in the SI has been arbitrarily selected and redefined as the periodicity of the radiation from a cesium atom.

\edited for less sloppiness

No, our definition of increments of time is a human construct. Time is a linear dimension, and is as much a part of the universe as the three dimensions of space. Causality is the proof time is a real thing.

Time began at the Big Bang, along with the rest of the universe. We can say roughly how many of our arbitrarily selected units of measurement have passed since that event. Simply because our understanding of time relies on human constructs to explain does not mean time itself is a human construct.

Das Meister

2009-07-02 02:48:00 PM

If we all agree that it is logically impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God/Allah/Zeus/FSM/etc and proof of existence is a logical construct, doesn't that mean we are are all technically agnostics?

Agnostics ask the question "is there a god" and settle not on an answer but that the answer isn't knowable at present (be it time/life/death/dimension/whatever). People want answers to everything to make the world around them make sense. Agnostics simply postulate that we cannot know the answer.

/Atheist
//Technical Agnostic
///Recovering Christian

give me doughnuts

2009-07-02 02:48:01 PM

servoled: Atheist is not necessarily equivelant to holding "god(s) do not exist" to be true.

My own personal definition of "atheist" is this: Seeing no evidence of the existence of any sort of deity, I choose not to believe in them.
I hold this opinion strongly enough to see all of those who do believe in some deity as somewhat irrational.

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 02:48:05 PM

Sodium Benzoate: SobrietyFighter: Sodium Benzoate: IF YOU PEOPLE KEEP ARGUING ABOUT THE DEFINITIONS OF AGNOSTIC AND ATHEIST I'M GOING TO START BELIEVING IN GOD TO SPITE YOU!

they just never shut up!

better to shutup than to express your(not your, benzo) ignorance...

rastjr

2009-07-02 02:48:32 PM

Sodium Benzoate: rastjr: t3knomanser: rastjr: Is 6 billion people a big enough sample for you?

No, because their perspective is quite clearly unique, and hardly indicative of what the universe is like. Relative to humans, the universe is quite large- but who says humans are a good judge of what the universe is like? They're good reproducers in the right environment, and they're no slouches when it comes to tool using- but why do you think the human perspective is a good perspective for judging things like the relative size and complexity of the universe?

Who says we're not.

Because it's extremely arrogant. If humanity is the best thing in the universe, the universe aimed low and settled for even less.

Talking hairless builder apes are not the pinnacle of existence. They're another thing that's around.

How do you make that fantastic leap? I never said any such thing.

All I can do is judge based on myself and my experiences. If you want to play what if? or what about?, than that's fine. I have no beef with you.

xria

2009-07-02 02:48:36 PM

servoled: crab66: servoled: If you don't hold the proposition "God exists" as true, you are an Atheist.

Wrong.

Sorry, but by the philosophical definition it is correct. Its only wrong if you are trying to avoid the question by warping the definition to bring in some kind of false middle position, or don't understand the question to begin with.

I would go along with that. A theist believes in one or more gods. An athiest doesn't believe in any gods. Agnostic is different proposition. You can be an Agnostic Athiest - you don't believe in any gods, and you don't think the exist/non-existance of gods is provable by the nature of the definition of a god. You can be a non-Agnostic Athiest - you don't believe in any gods, and you are of the opinion that our knowledge of science already makes the existence of a god impossible (also called a Strong Athiest I think?).

I imagine you could be an Agnostic Theist - you believe in the existence of a god, but don't think it can be proven. Presumably this category would effectively include many of the more inclusive/tolerant religious types (Deists, unitarians, universalists, many anglicans, united reform, quakers, some types of Buddhists, etc.) - not being able to "know" god, it would be silly to demand any specific religious rules or conceptions of gods will are followed, as long as the religion was pointed in the right general direction.

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 02:49:12 PM

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know
--donny

servoled

2009-07-02 02:50:11 PM

amanogowa: Neither of those definitions supports the statement that everyone not believing in God (or god) is atheist. Your definition even says an atheist has to believe there is no god, which is clarified.

Sigh... "somebody who does not believe in God or deities" is not the same as somebody who "believe[s] there is no god".

Das Meister

2009-07-02 02:50:25 PM

give me doughnuts: servoled: Atheist is not necessarily equivelant to holding "god(s) do not exist" to be true.

In what world do you live? Atheists deny the existence of all gods.

/Being one, I know.
//I've seen a few atheists in my time.

Morton_toes

2009-07-02 02:50:42 PM

God doesn't believe in me.

give me doughnuts

2009-07-02 02:50:42 PM

Jubeebee: No, our definition of increments of time is a human construct. Time is a linear dimension, and is as much a part of the universe as the three dimensions of space. Causality is the proof time is a real thing.

The Tralfamadorians disagree.

/hello, goodbye, hello, goodbye

tedbundee

2009-07-02 02:50:50 PM

TFerWannaBe: Brainsick: Accent: I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information.

The same way a WOW player can have a strong body odor without a strong body

As a WoW player with a weak body I *sniff . . sniff*

Nevermind.

Hey! I resemble that!

Second Try

2009-07-02 02:51:35 PM

Atheists are the real fundies.

StaleCoffee

2009-07-02 02:51:50 PM

DeanMoriarty: StaleCoffee:
I think you missed the point of "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" debunk.

No I didn't. You injected "theism" into the definition of "agnosticism" to distort a fact.

When applied to the concept of theism, an agnostic simply believes the existence of god is unknowable. it does not take a position on either side.

The only reason it's ever equated with atheism is because theists - who operate not on knowledge but on faith - believe the injection of knowledge into the discussion can only be done by someone who is opposed to the concept of faith.

Given the term "agnosticism" is being applied to the belief or lack thereof in the supernatural, it would be logical to assume the reverse, here.

Barnstormer

2009-07-02 02:51:59 PM

That's weird. Everything in my cubicle has been replaced with an exact replica. I mean, its absolutely indistinguishable from the stuff that was here when I left for lunch.

The Lord certainly does move in mysterious ways!

biglot

2009-07-02 02:52:03 PM

People who are ~~unsure of~~ stuck in their own beliefs are less open minded.

amanogowa

2009-07-02 02:52:18 PM

StaleCoffee: amanogowa: StaleCoffee: amanogowa: StaleCoffee: amanogowa: servoled: amanogowa: There you go, confused again. Agnostics do not believe there is no god. They do not believe there is a god. They are a middle ground between the two extremes, and by definition are not atheist, but do not believe in a god, gods or God, proving your original statement wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_prefixes

Dictionary:
Dictionary: a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst) pronunciation

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Dictionary: ag·nos·tic (ăg-nŏs'tĭk) pronunciation

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.

1.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

adj.

1. Relating to or being an agnostic.
2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).

Sorry, the actual definitions trump the prefixes.

Agnosticism requires a qualifier of theism or atheism when applied to the supernatural concept. You can claim it is impossible to know the nature of a deity, or whether or not it exists, but it does not preclude having an opinion or induction of logic to the belief or lack thereof in a deity.

As for the definitions of words, the dictionary is an excellent tool for cementing communication but in discussions like this it merits a bit more investment than "The dictionary says X so fark the entire epistemological school of Y."

servoled's original premise was that you are either Christian, or atheist, which he later changed to either theist or atheist, which is simply untrue, unless you are redefining words and making your own little language up.

Please explain the middle ground between "There are supernatural entities" and "There are no supernatural entities."

The premise that you are theist or atheist in some capacity is true. Agnosticism is an extension of that, in this case.

"I don't know if there are supernatural entities, nor do I know that there is proof either way"

It is possible to have neither the opinion that there is a god, nor the opinion that there is no god.

That makes you an agnostic atheist.

No. Atheist by definition have a belief on the existence of non-existence of a deity.

tedbundee

2009-07-02 02:52:39 PM

Second Try: Atheists are the real fundies.

hight3ch.com

What real Fundies may look like

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 02:52:47 PM

Second Try: Atheists are the real fundies.

/been putting the fun in fundies since 1987.

amanogowa

2009-07-02 02:53:20 PM

servoled: amanogowa: Neither of those definitions supports the statement that everyone not believing in God (or god) is atheist. Your definition even says an atheist has to believe there is no god, which is clarified.

Sigh... "somebody who does not believe in God or deities" is not the same as somebody who "believe[s] there is no god".

Sigh... "agnostic" is not the same as "atheist".

Sodium Benzoate

2009-07-02 02:53:26 PM

rastjr: Sodium Benzoate: rastjr: t3knomanser: rastjr: Is 6 billion people a big enough sample for you?

No, because their perspective is quite clearly unique, and hardly indicative of what the universe is like. Relative to humans, the universe is quite large- but who says humans are a good judge of what the universe is like? They're good reproducers in the right environment, and they're no slouches when it comes to tool using- but why do you think the human perspective is a good perspective for judging things like the relative size and complexity of the universe?

Who says we're not.

Because it's extremely arrogant. If humanity is the best thing in the universe, the universe aimed low and settled for even less.

Talking hairless builder apes are not the pinnacle of existence. They're another thing that's around.

How do you make that fantastic leap? I never said any such thing.

All I can do is judge based on myself and my experiences. If you want to play what if? or what about?, than that's fine. I have no beef with you.

Whatever, neither of us is making a point about anything.

StaleCoffee

2009-07-02 02:53:57 PM

StaleCoffee: DeanMoriarty: StaleCoffee:
I think you missed the point of "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" debunk.

No I didn't. You injected "theism" into the definition of "agnosticism" to distort a fact.

When applied to the concept of theism, an agnostic simply believes the existence of god is unknowable. it does not take a position on either side.

The only reason it's ever equated with atheism is because theists - who operate not on knowledge but on faith - believe the injection of knowledge into the discussion can only be done by someone who is opposed to the concept of faith.

Given the term "agnosticism" is being applied to the belief or lack thereof in the supernatural, it would be logical to assume the reverse, here.

To clarify that, if you make the claim "God is unknowable" then you are a theist, because for something to be unknowable, it has to exist in the first place.

You're making a logical claim that we cannot know the value of X.

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 02:54:22 PM

rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats

give me doughnuts

2009-07-02 02:54:36 PM

Das Meister: give me doughnuts: servoled: Atheist is not necessarily equivelant to holding "god(s) do not exist" to be true.

In what world do you live? Atheists deny the existence of all gods.

/Being one, I know.
//I've seen a few atheists in my time.

I was merely offering my own view of what I consider to be "atheism" in response to someone else's definition. Perhaps what you are expressing is anti-theism.

servoled

2009-07-02 02:54:49 PM

Das Meister: In what world do you live? Atheists deny the existence of all gods.

That is an atheistic position, however it is not the only atheistic position.

locater16

2009-07-02 02:55:02 PM

Last One Left: What if I am convinced that I'm close-minded?

Brain ASSPLODES!

StaleCoffee

2009-07-02 02:55:59 PM

amanogowa:

No. Atheist by definition have a belief on the existence of non-existence of a deity.

That's about the most half assed attempted deflection I've ever seen.

I'm guessing you have a belief about the existence of the non existence of an ice cream shop on the sun, then?

/dismiss

servoled

2009-07-02 02:56:32 PM

amanogowa: Sigh... "agnostic" is not the same as "atheist".

Not its not... agnosticism relates to a completely different question.

zunkus

2009-07-02 02:56:41 PM

I would say I'm unsure of my own beliefs, I have an idea of what I believe but that doesn't stop me from being incredibly open minded. I try to learn from other people all the time when discussing their point of view regarding religion, death and the afterlife. So even though I DNRTFA I'm calling shenanigans.

imfallen_angel

2009-07-02 02:56:45 PM

= most militant Atheist here on Fark.

_{/just a little more gasoline to the flames}

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 02:57:07 PM

Do they have mint chocolate chip?

imfallen_angel

2009-07-02 02:57:59 PM

gad

2009-07-02 02:58:20 PM

SobrietyFighter: religion is a ponzi scheme

Talk like that and God will raise your tithe. Since he's not here there's this nice Pastor driving a Cadillac who's happy to take your money - and remember - God loves you (as long as you pay)

imfallen_angel

2009-07-02 02:58:38 PM

budzilla

2009-07-02 02:59:02 PM

All bandwagons lead to stupidity. The Truth can only be found by learning about every side of an issue thoroughly. Labeling yourself such as a atheist/creationist/agnostic/etc... makes you buy into everyone else's take on life. No one labeled group has the complete Truth and even the groups that seem wrong to You always have some Truth because the people in them are only calling it like they see it.

Be understanding of why people believe what they do and you will go far.

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 02:59:30 PM

i've been asking god to strike me down for a while now. Guess i'm just too tough for him.

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 02:59:59 PM

StaleCoffee: Given the term "agnosticism" is being applied to the belief or lack thereof in the supernatural, it would be logical to assume the reverse, here.

Wow. That's just...wow.

agnostic = unknowable.

Belief doesn't enter into it.

an agnostic doesn't hold a belief in the supernatural, either way. an agnostic simply thinks you can't know one way or the other other.

I am presently agnostic about whether there are two dinosaurs fighting on a planet 90 million miles from Saturn. That is not to say I have a belief one way or the other; I'm saying I can't know.

Das Meister

2009-07-02 03:00:52 PM

give me doughnuts: In what world do you live? Atheists deny the existence of all gods.
I was merely offering my own view of what I consider to be "atheism" in response to someone else's definition. Perhaps what you are expressing is anti-theism.

No. If I am "amoral" I am "without morals". However if I am anti-moral, I would be against the notion of morals. Thus would follow:

Atheism would be equivalent to "absense of god(s)".

Anti-theism would be the opposition to the belief in god(s).

Two completely different things.

Sodium Benzoate

2009-07-02 03:00:56 PM

Everyone: "Blah blah blah, define define define"

sixtostart.com

SuperNinjaToad

2009-07-02 03:01:23 PM

FTRA..."If you are really committed to your own attitude - for example, if you are a very committed Democrat - you are more likely to seek congenial information, that is, information that corresponds with your views," Albarracin said.

Article is spot on especially against the Liberals and their very narrow minded and unpatriotic beliefs. I wish more Democrats would be open minded like most Republicans and see that their liberal values actually do harm to the country as a whole.
Instead they should be opening their minds to more constructive and sound ideas from the majority of Americans who although are conservative in thoughts are very accepting of ideas from everyone for the betterment of the Union and the world.

jrchan

2009-07-02 03:01:23 PM

budzilla: All bandwagons lead to stupidity. The Truth can only be found by learning about every side of an issue thoroughly. Labeling yourself such as a atheist/creationist/agnostic/etc... makes you buy into everyone else's take on life. No one labeled group has the complete Truth and even the groups that seem wrong to You always have some Truth because the people in them are only calling it like they see it.

Be understanding of why people believe what they do and you will go far.

That makes no sense at all. You have to follow SOME sort of line of thought. You can't just think nothing.

amanogowa

2009-07-02 03:01:28 PM

StaleCoffee: amanogowa:

No. Atheist by definition have a belief on the existence of non-existence of a deity.

That's about the most half assed attempted deflection I've ever seen.

I'm guessing you have a belief about the existence of the non existence of an ice cream shop on the sun, then?

/dismiss

Sorry -- I ment 'or' not 'of'.

Atheist by definition have a belief on the existence or non-existence of a deity.

Most people can get that one on context.

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 03:01:38 PM

servoled

2009-07-02 03:02:17 PM

DeanMoriarty: an agnostic doesn't hold a belief in the supernatural, either way. an agnostic simply thinks you can't know one way or the other other.

Would it be fair to say that they lack belief in the supernatural then?

Sodium Benzoate

2009-07-02 03:03:00 PM

You are all fighting over a limited number of words. Start making more words then you can write long detailed definitions for them.

mynameismark

2009-07-02 03:03:03 PM

Wow, some great quotes in this thread.

Thanks, Farkers.

cowtipn

2009-07-02 03:03:09 PM

Last One Left: What if I am convinced that I'm close-minded?

This.

tautology n. , pl. -gies . Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; a statement that is necessarily true; using different words to say the same thing twice,

ex. It will either rain or it won't.

amanogowa

2009-07-02 03:04:03 PM

servoled: amanogowa: Sigh... "agnostic" is not the same as "atheist".

Not its not... agnosticism relates to a completely different question.

No. It does not.

The opposite of theist is (atheist or agnostic).

It is possible to be either, and not a theist.

The opposite of atheist is (theist or agnostic).

It is possible to be either, and not an atheist.

The opposite of agnostic is (theist or atheist).

give me doughnuts

2009-07-02 03:04:41 PM

Das Meister: give me doughnuts: In what world do you live? Atheists deny the existence of all gods.
I was merely offering my own view of what I consider to be "atheism" in response to someone else's definition. Perhaps what you are expressing is anti-theism.

No. If I am "amoral" I am "without morals". However if I am anti-moral, I would be against the notion of morals. Thus would follow:

Atheism would be equivalent to "absense of god(s)".

Anti-theism would be the opposition to the belief in god(s).

Two completely different things.

Then by your own definition, someone who is "a-theist" is "without gods", and not someone who actively denies that they exist.

CuteAsFark

2009-07-02 03:06:09 PM

jrchan: budzilla: All bandwagons lead to stupidity. The Truth can only be found by learning about every side of an issue thoroughly. Labeling yourself such as a atheist/creationist/agnostic/etc... makes you buy into everyone else's take on life. No one labeled group has the complete Truth and even the groups that seem wrong to You always have some Truth because the people in them are only calling it like they see it.

Be understanding of why people believe what they do and you will go far.

That makes no sense at all. You have to follow SOME sort of line of thought. You can't just think nothing.

Yes, you can think nothing, I've met lots of people that do it.

Jubeebee

2009-07-02 03:06:21 PM

give me doughnuts: Jubeebee: No, our definition of increments of time is a human construct. Time is a linear dimension, and is as much a part of the universe as the three dimensions of space. Causality is the proof time is a real thing.

The Tralfamadorians disagree.

/hello, goodbye, hello, goodbye

So it goes...

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 03:07:11 PM

StaleCoffee: To clarify that, if you make the claim "God is unknowable" then you are a theist, because for something to be unknowable, it has to exist in the first place.

This is sounding more and more like Billy Madison.

"if you're contemplating the existence of something, it must exist, or else there would be nothing to contemplate."

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 03:07:33 PM

go now or i shall taunt you for a second time.

NI

CrankMyBlueSax

2009-07-02 03:09:06 PM

servoled

2009-07-02 03:09:22 PM

amanogowa: No. It does not.

Sure it does. One is a question of belief, the other is a question of knowledge. Belief is not the same thing as knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

maddogdelta

2009-07-02 03:11:22 PM

vertiaset: Here are the main problems with Atheism:

First, it is a belief system. Atheists like to say that is in just the absence of a belief system but this is not true. Atheists share a common world view and a common set of beliefs.
Oh really? Where do I go to read up on those common beliefs that I have with all other atheists? Because I sure would like to be one of the cool kids...
They believe that the universe "just happened". That there is no direction or organizing force in the universe. This in spite of scientific evidence that the universe came into being suddenly and ex nihlo.

And where did you get this thought from? Probably from your preacher. Because you are actually stating the Christian creation myth of creation ex nihlo.

They believe that life occurred from non life spontaneously, despite the fact that the universe is seeded with amino acids and other precursor building blocks of life. They make elaborate and complex arguments to explain this away but Occam's razor points to internal design, design inherent within the structure of the universe and within life itself.

It's called organic chemistry. It isn't spontaneous, however it is follows from the same chemical interactions and electromagnetic forces which turn HCl + H₂O + NaOH -> 2 H₂O +Na⁺ + Cl^-.

Atheists claim the high ground of science. However, science tells us that the universe is INFINITE in space and INFINITE in time.

I would appreciate it if you could give us a citation to the study which states that. Because it would actually back up your argument. Otherwise, someone might accuse you of making shiat up.

Moreover, it is postulated that there may be many more universes, each as extensive as our own.

This is the first demonstrably true statement that you have made, which makes me wonder why the hell you are interrupting your little diatribe. Especially since it has nothing to do with your argument about atheism.

Now, infinity. This is a concept that human beings have a hard time grasping.

So what? Humans have a hard time grasping quantum mechanics, but the fact that semiconductors, lasers, and other cool toys work show that we can build devices using the principles of quantum mechanics.

Even mathematicians and physicists deal with the concept symbolically in the abstract.
Because that is what infinity is to a mathematician or a physicist, an abstract concept.

Infinite means that anything with a probability greater than zero, no matter how improbable, must necessarily occur.

ummmm no it doesn't. Infinity means that for whatever number you can think of, I can think of a bigger one.

Now, this idea of improbable events occurring over time is the very argument advanced by science to explain the highly improbable occurrence of the DNA molecule just "happening" in the same space of time that a cellular structure also just "happened".

Nope, but your whaargarbl is entertaining.

Try this. Take 20 - 6 sided dice. Roll them. Now tell me the odds that you were going to get exactly the roll that you got. Talk about improbable odds! But you got them. But you couldn't have because the odds were against that number, so it couldn't have happened.

Cellular structure didn't just "happen". Things followed some fairly well understood principles of physics to get where they are.

After all DNA is useless without such a structure. So, why then is it inconceivable that there is some sort of entity, very different from us, which has structured things the way they are? This answer is far simpler and more elegant than the random bumping of atoms over a few billion years.

I'm getting a headache from you blathering about all sorts of things in which your blather only demonstrates your ignorance.

If you want a reasonable presentation of what is currently the best knowledge chemists currently have for the origin of complex organic molecules and, in turn, life, check out Potholer54's video right here

Finally, as a belief system, atheism is bleak and hopeless. It offers no ethical or moral grounding. Quite the opposite it leads to alienation and disassociation. Some atheists, a tiny minority, embrace secular humanism which provides a moral basis. It would be well if more atheists embraced such a system.

Really, if atheists have no moral grounding, why do countries which have a large population of atheists have lower crime rates than countries which are predominantly theistic?

Do you really get your morals from the Bible? You mean the book which tells you how to treat your slaves?

Or the book which tells you to kill your brother if he is an unbeliever?

Or the book where God commands infanticide?

Or the book where it commands women to marry their rapists?

Is that your "moral center"?

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 03:12:40 PM

i say quran you say koran

Hackneyed Smart Aleck

2009-07-02 03:13:00 PM

I'm gonna go with this needs an "Unlikely" tag.

Clan Xpy

2009-07-02 03:13:14 PM

I wonder how many baby angels were killed from the blasphemy of this one thread.

Accent

2009-07-02 03:13:16 PM

I drunk what

2009-07-02 03:13:40 PM

oh hai guys, what r we talkin' about?

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 03:14:29 PM

Clan Xpy: I wonder how many baby angels were killed from the blasphemy of this one thread.

not sure, but i think i provided the material to kill a few kittens.

Clan Xpy

2009-07-02 03:15:15 PM

DeanMoriarty: StaleCoffee: To clarify that, if you make the claim "God is unknowable" then you are a theist, because for something to be unknowable, it has to exist in the first place.

This is sounding more and more like Billy Madison.

"if you're contemplating the existence of something, it must exist, or else there would be nothing to contemplate."

So the flying spaghetti monster IS real. Phew.

Accent

2009-07-02 03:15:26 PM

maddogdelta

where does HCl + H2O + NaOH come from

boredomatwork

2009-07-02 03:16:16 PM

Myself being agnostic, I thought it is literally the open-minded view on religion. There may be a supernatural force, or maybe not. I just choose not to pretend I know the answer.

But I guess it is close minded that I assume everyone else is wrong. Except the athiests, who might actually be on to something.

CrankMyBlueSax

2009-07-02 03:16:37 PM

Clan Xpy: I wonder how many baby angels were killed from the blasphemy of this one thread.

I don't know - agnostic

None - atheist

Durrrrrr - theist

jrchan

2009-07-02 03:16:41 PM

CuteAsFark: jrchan: budzilla: All bandwagons lead to stupidity. The Truth can only be found by learning about every side of an issue thoroughly. Labeling yourself such as a atheist/creationist/agnostic/etc... makes you buy into everyone else's take on life. No one labeled group has the complete Truth and even the groups that seem wrong to You always have some Truth because the people in them are only calling it like they see it.

Be understanding of why people believe what they do and you will go far.

That makes no sense at all. You have to follow SOME sort of line of thought. You can't just think nothing.

Yes, you can think nothing, I've met lots of people that do it.

So when you ask them: "Do you think god exists?", how do they respond?

imfallen_angel

2009-07-02 03:16:52 PM

SFlaxx

2009-07-02 03:16:55 PM

So any religion is closed minded and unable to comprehend or accept that there are other choices, due to the fact they don't actually believe their own teachings?.?

OK sounds about right to me.

Dr._Love

2009-07-02 03:17:56 PM

You know, I'm kinda tired of the false equivalences here. I have had no less than 20 visits in the last several years to my home from various nutjobs of the religious persuasion, some political canvassers, even people who kicked their ball into my yard, but never once an atheist.

And I live in San Francisco!

Intolerance, willful ignorance, and proselytization are the demenses of the religious nut, not the atheist, and those who like to come to these threads and hate on atheists or place them in the same category are disingenuous agendistas. The bottom line is there's just no way that an eternal truth can be false - and all religious truths are false if you go back in time far enough.

DaCaptain19

2009-07-02 03:18:40 PM

SobrietyFighter 2009-07-02 03:07:33 PM

I applaud you for re-directing the conversation in a very value-added way.

So...where does your church hold services? Cuz I need to do me some worshippin'! Church of the Pleated Miniskirt? Cheer Church? I'm there.

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 03:18:50 PM

servoled: Would it be fair to say that they lack belief in the supernatural then?

"does not hold a belief."

I'm not sure how this is confusing.

CuteAsFark

2009-07-02 03:19:20 PM

jrchan: CuteAsFark: jrchan: budzilla: All bandwagons lead to stupidity. The Truth can only be found by learning about every side of an issue thoroughly. Labeling yourself such as a atheist/creationist/agnostic/etc... makes you buy into everyone else's take on life. No one labeled group has the complete Truth and even the groups that seem wrong to You always have some Truth because the people in them are only calling it like they see it.

Be understanding of why people believe what they do and you will go far.

That makes no sense at all. You have to follow SOME sort of line of thought. You can't just think nothing.

Yes, you can think nothing, I've met lots of people that do it.

So when you ask them: "Do you think god exists?", how do they respond?

Durrrrrr....

I drunk what

2009-07-02 03:20:03 PM

maddogdelta: Or the book which tells you to

quote mine out of context?

/am I getting warmer?
// :{

I mean cuz that same book said that God told Abraham to kill Isaac to test his faith, so clearly God is telling us that we all should kill our children...

amirite?!

CygnusDarius

2009-07-02 03:20:12 PM

SobrietyFighter: go now or i shall taunt you for a second time.

NI

Finally! a Voice of reason beneath all this WHARRBGARRBLL.

/Anyways, here's a constant thing
//We all Die!

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 03:20:15 PM

so someone says pull my finger:

theist : pull the finger and accept the consequences

atheist : know the consequences so don't

agnostic : pull the finger anyway for comedic relief

CrazyCracka420

2009-07-02 03:20:23 PM

Jadedgrl: SobrietyFighter: Jadedgrl: I'm an atheist because I can't stand being wishy washy about anything. For me, it's better for me to have no faith, then say well maybe.
That and I think the concept of God is a crock of shiat.

LOL, so would you rather get oral or have sex? thats one to be wishy washy about.

Get oral. Hands down.

Weird, every girl I've been with had a much more intense orgasm from vaginal sex, than oral. Sucks for you

jrchan

2009-07-02 03:20:51 PM

Dr._Love: You know, I'm kinda tired of the false equivalences here. I have had no less than 20 visits in the last several years to my home from various nutjobs of the religious persuasion, some political canvassers, even people who kicked their ball into my yard, but never once an atheist.

And I live in San Francisco!

Intolerance, willful ignorance, and proselytization are the demenses of the religious nut, not the atheist, and those who like to come to these threads and hate on atheists or place them in the same category are disingenuous agendistas. The bottom line is there's just no way that an eternal truth can be false - and all religious truths are false if you go back in time far enough.

I live in Texas and nobody of either side has come to my house, or even attempted to preach about their idealogy anywhere.

/except once, there was this communist dude handing out pamphlets

Ant

2009-07-02 03:21:07 PM

rastjr: Maybe. But maybe not. Which one works better for you and the world?

Being a good person, of course. But do you really need a deity to tell you what's good?

servoled

2009-07-02 03:21:24 PM

DeanMoriarty: servoled: Would it be fair to say that they lack belief in the supernatural then?

"does not hold a belief."

I'm not sure how this is confusing.

Thats a "no" then?

csxtrainwreck

2009-07-02 03:22:06 PM

iollow

2009-07-02 03:22:52 PM

Wow there's a lot of "no, I'm going to tell you what you believe" in this thread. The article could be about this thread.

Linux_Yes

2009-07-02 03:23:07 PM

Agnostics are the only honest ones around because everyone else knows the answer, even though that is impossible, they still have all the answers about the 'supreme being'.

it is arrogant that so many people claim to know what 'God' is thinking, assuming 'it' exists.

Agnostic and proud of it.

PS -- loved the t-shirt that says:I'd rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven"

cruel humor, but funny anyway.

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 03:23:42 PM

amanogowa: servoled: amanogowa: Sigh... "agnostic" is not the same as "atheist".

Not its not... agnosticism relates to a completely different question.

No. It does not.

The opposite of theist is (atheist or agnostic).

It is possible to be either, and not a theist.

The opposite of atheist is (theist or agnostic).

It is possible to be either, and not an atheist.

The opposite of agnostic is (theist or atheist).

that's full of crap too. theist, atheist and agnostic are not three parts of the same belief system.

Agnosticism, AGAIN, applies to the ability to know something. KNOW. Not BELIEVE.

The opposite of agnostic is gnostic - believing you can know the absolute truth.

If I said "I'm gnostic about the existence of god," I'm saying that i have knowledge about the existence of god - not saying there is or is not a god.

Linux_Yes

2009-07-02 03:23:51 PM

Last One Left: What if I am convinced that I'm close-minded?

then you have reached the next level, grasshopper.

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 03:24:36 PM

Linux_Yes: Agnostics are the only honest ones around because everyone else knows the answer, even though that is impossible, they still have all the answers about the 'supreme being'.

it is arrogant that so many people claim to know what 'God' is thinking, assuming 'it' exists.

Agnostic and proud of it.

PS -- loved the t-shirt that says:I'd rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven"

cruel humor, but funny anyway.

honest to who? themselves? other people?

imfallen_angel

2009-07-02 03:25:03 PM

csxtrainwreck

i478.photobucket.com

Linux_Yes

2009-07-02 03:25:17 PM

there's nothing more close minded than a bible thumper from the south. those burnouts have ALL the answers. course, Hitler did too, but that is another story.......

CygnusDarius

2009-07-02 03:25:56 PM

Now that I have your attention. I think this whole thread went apeshiat the moment subby placed the article.

So what if the agnostics believe and don't at the same time? As long as they're not shoving it down your throats, there's no problem.

The problem here, is that subby was looking for a flamewar.

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 03:26:38 PM

servoled: Thats a "no" then?

nice try.

Linux_Yes

2009-07-02 03:27:12 PM

QUESTION OF THE YEAR TO ALL FARKERS: How can i piss on the floor when i have this irresistible urge to shhitt on the ceiling??

imfallen_angel

2009-07-02 03:27:39 PM

CygnusDarius: The problem here, is that subby was looking for a flamewar.

i478.photobucket.com

cowtipn

2009-07-02 03:28:01 PM

I drunk what: oh hai guys, what r we talkin' about?

Done.

Linux_Yes

2009-07-02 03:28:06 PM

Religion????....I Don't Know...Do I??

I drunk what

2009-07-02 03:28:20 PM

Das Meister: Atheism would be equivalent to "absense of god(s)".

is that a fact or just what they believe?

as an Agravitist I am absent of gravity

but an Anti-gravitist is against the belief in gravity?

your definition seems a bit shaky...

did I just step into a DC comic battle?

CygnusDarius

2009-07-02 03:29:08 PM

Linux_Yes: QUESTION OF THE YEAR TO ALL FARKERS: How can i piss on the floor when i have this irresistible urge to shhitt on the ceiling??

Antigravity.

CuteAsFark

2009-07-02 03:29:35 PM

What is it called when you claim not to know whether or not there is a god because you simply can't know, but believe in good and evil forces, supernatural or mystical otherwise?

/curious

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 03:29:53 PM

Linux_Yes: QUESTION OF THE YEAR TO ALL FARKERS: How can i piss on the floor when i have this irresistible urge to shhitt on the ceiling??

easy, piss on the floor, reorient your mind so that the ground is the ceiling, then proceed.

Linux_Yes

2009-07-02 03:29:56 PM

I AM GOD!

there. now the mystery is solved. see, that wasn't difficult.

run along now.

jso2897

2009-07-02 03:30:28 PM

Linux_Yes: QUESTION OF THE YEAR TO ALL FARKERS: How can i piss on the floor when i have this irresistible urge to shhitt on the ceiling??

You need a special attachment on your vacuum cleaner.

amanogowa

2009-07-02 03:30:36 PM

servoled: amanogowa: No. It does not.

Sure it does. One is a question of belief, the other is a question of knowledge. Belief is not the same thing as knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

How many times do people need to tell you that the belief in no god is different than the belief that you cannot know if there is a god are not the same thing?

Linux_Yes

2009-07-02 03:31:13 PM

You don't need BOOKS!!

you need THE BOOK, and Brother Harry!!

I drunk what

2009-07-02 03:31:16 PM

Linux_Yes: then you have reached the next level, grasshopper

then what happens if I accidentally ate the grasshopper?

CrankMyBlueSax

2009-07-02 03:31:44 PM

CygnusDarius:

I tell what I do believe. Those are some seriously fine jubblies.

Giggity

CygnusDarius

2009-07-02 03:32:26 PM

Linux_Yes: I AM GOD!

there. now the mystery is solved. see, that wasn't difficult.

run along now.

Umm... God of what, exactly?.

Also, do I have to sacrifice a virgin in Thy Holy (or unholy) name?.

Cublet

2009-07-02 03:32:31 PM

wow... I came here because I'm unsure of my beliefs about the various deities and didn't want to possibly become close-minded, but now my mind has fark filth all over it...

/agnostic wiccan
//thank your fark, kids
///thanks fark...

Linux_Yes

2009-07-02 03:32:54 PM

jso2897: Linux_Yes: QUESTION OF THE YEAR TO ALL FARKERS: How can i piss on the floor when i have this irresistible urge to shhitt on the ceiling??

You need a special attachment on your vacuum cleaner.

thank you and God bless you!!! [happily exits room to find a vacuum cleaner and shhitt his way to ceiling bliss]

CuteAsFark

2009-07-02 03:33:25 PM

Linux_Yes: QUESTION OF THE YEAR TO ALL FARKERS: How can i piss on the floor when i have this irresistible urge to shhitt on the ceiling??

Hold a mirror toward the ceiling and peer down into it whilst shiating. It will apear as though you are shiatting on the ceiling and perceptiion is all that really matters anyways.

SFlaxx

2009-07-02 03:34:10 PM

jso2897: Lord_Baull: vertiaset 2009-07-02 01:45:53 PM
Finally, as a belief system, atheism is bleak and hopeless. It offers no ethical or moral grounding. Quite the opposite it leads to alienation and disassociation. Some atheists, a tiny minority, embrace secular humanism which provides a moral basis. It would be well if more atheists embraced such a system.

Sorry, I don't need to believe in a supernatural force to blame for all life's ills. I also don't need a supernatural force to enjoy life.
And your painting of atheists as amoral is just....stupid.
Here's an example of some religious types that have less morals than your "tiny minority."

Ted Haggard
Gov. Sanford
Jimmy Swaggart
Hitler
Larry Craig
Fred Phelps
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

It's a common logical fallacy known as a "frozen abstraction". When you hear someone say "That person has no morals", what they really mean is "That person does not share MY morals".
The fallacy lies in holding only one member of a class of things to be solely representative of that entire class of things.
I, however, have found that it is pointless to argue with people who embrace that fallacy - since they have already essentially re-defined the abstraction in question (be it morality or anything else) to exclude all but a single member of that class of abstractions, they are incapable of perceiving any that do not meet their self-imposed definition.
The reasoning process is thus:"My system of moral belief is a top down set of mandates that proceed from a higher authority. Thus, morality IS a top down set of mandates from a higher authority. Therefore, anyone who does not embrace a top-down set of mandates from a higher authority has no morality".
It's airtight logic, and cannot be disproven or even effectively questioned, and there is little point in pursuing it.

I agree. And will add
But Faith is good to have.

And Religion is the control of Faith through mysticism and fable, by removing ones own personal responsibility for their own actions. And placing it on an imaginary deity.

Linux_Yes

2009-07-02 03:34:16 PM

CygnusDarius: Linux

no, but you should satisfy her EVERY earthly DESIRES of the Flesh.

if you don't, you will burn in Hell!!!!

Ant

2009-07-02 03:35:51 PM

This sums it up nicely

jso2897

2009-07-02 03:35:54 PM

CuteAsFark: Linux_Yes: QUESTION OF THE YEAR TO ALL FARKERS: How can i piss on the floor when i have this irresistible urge to shhitt on the ceiling??

Hold a mirror toward the ceiling and peer down into it whilst shiating. It will apear as though you are shiatting on the ceiling and perceptiion is all that really matters anyways.

I started to come back with something about "ceiling shiatter is watching you...." and then I thought about the photoshop I'd need to make to go with it, and changed my mind.

rastjr

2009-07-02 03:36:11 PM

Ant: rastjr: Maybe. But maybe not. Which one works better for you and the world?

Being a good person, of course. But do you really need a deity to tell you what's good?

No one said that you did. I sure didn't.

I gave my feeling on a subject. I like discussing things like this. That is all. You can be or do anything within the law you wish.

Linux_Yes

2009-07-02 03:36:16 PM

CuteAsFark: Linux

yea that would work. but only if i didn't know i was using a mirror. the knowledge of the mirror will kill the thrill.

I drunk what

2009-07-02 03:36:17 PM

maddogdelta: So what? Humans have a hard time grasping quantum mechanics

Speak for yourself Nancy, I eat quantum mechanics for breakfast!

Linux_Yes

2009-07-02 03:38:06 PM

I drunk what: Linux

then the grasshopper's wisdom would become your own. you might find yourself with an incredible desire to hop around rather than walk. eat grasshopper at your own risk!

utardsRock

2009-07-02 03:38:06 PM

SobrietyFighter: go now or i shall taunt you for a second time.

NI

ekky ekky pickinjaboooeyaaa

Ant

2009-07-02 03:38:37 PM

CuteAsFark: What is it called when you claim not to know whether or not there is a god because you simply can't know, but believe in good and evil forces, supernatural or mystical otherwise?

/curious

The ever annoying "I'm spiritual, but not religious"

Linux_Yes

2009-07-02 03:39:52 PM

jso2897: Linux

well, its true that, even though we may dine with family and friends, we will always shhitt alone.

such is the saddness of Life.

Clan Xpy

2009-07-02 03:40:03 PM

Some one explain this religion stuff to me in video game consoles.

I know the PS3 is atheist because it is all science.

I know the xtians are against the Wii because it is too fun and suggestive. Therefore the Wii is probably Hindu or some other polytheistic religion.

CrankMyBlueSax

2009-07-02 03:40:36 PM

Cublet: /agnostic wiccan

Dude, that's seriously messed up.

I drunk what

2009-07-02 03:42:52 PM

CuteAsFark: What is it called when you claim not to know whether or not there is a god because you simply can't know, but believe in good and evil forces, supernatural or mystical otherwise?

/curious

a squished grape

/you can't have your cake and eat it

if you're not sure there is a God, how are you sure there is Good/Evil?

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 03:45:15 PM

thats ok, you can keep your religion.

no thanks, seriously.

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 03:45:23 PM

I drunk what: if you're not sure there is a God, how are you sure there is Good/Evil?

this is only relevant if you ascribe different levels of human nature to a higher power.

Linux_Yes

2009-07-02 03:45:38 PM

CuteAsFark: Linux

it sorta sounds like you've tried that before.

lol

i couldn't help it.

RemyDuron

2009-07-02 03:46:38 PM

CuteAsFark

2009-07-02 03:47:04 PM

Linux_Yes: CuteAsFark: Linux

yea that would work. but only if i didn't know i was using a mirror. the knowledge of the mirror will kill the thrill.

You could always try this whilst upside down, fark gravity!

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 03:47:16 PM

what chair?

omris

2009-07-02 03:49:46 PM

DeanMoriarty: agnostic = unknowable.

Belief doesn't enter into it.

an agnostic doesn't hold a belief in the supernatural, either way. an agnostic simply thinks you can't know one way or the other other.

I am presently agnostic about whether there are two dinosaurs fighting on a planet 90 million miles from Saturn. That is not to say I have a belief one way or the other; I'm saying I can't know.

But you COULD...

You could be agnostic about whether or not the dinosaurs are there, but you could have faith that they are. Or are not. Either way.

grimnir

2009-07-02 03:50:01 PM

t3knomanser: Remember: if you say there is a god, you are a theist. If you are not a theist, you must be an atheist. An agnostic is someone who can't pick a side with complete confidence, but unless you say, "There is a god," you are an atheist.

No. I don't remember that. I don't remember that at all. What I remember is that an agnostic is a person who does not believe that the existence or nonexistence of a god can be known. What I remember is that the agnostic position is not the "centrist", "libertarian", or "this bowl of porridge is JUST right" position between theism and atheism, but an entirely distinct position of its own. But hey, thanks for the reminder.

Actually, I don't give a shiat. I just really freaking hate that "Remember: (something)" construction, more so when the (something) is a matter of opinion presented as fact, and most of all when the (something) is an opinion about something which is not a matter of of opinion, but a matter of fact, which is presented as a fact which is also wrong. It's like a goddamn poke in the eye every time I see it. It goes right up there with "That is called (whatever)" and its even more annoying cousin, "That's a little thing I like to call (whatever)".

Zamboro

2009-07-02 03:50:14 PM

All I'd like to add is that the sort of people you hear using the term "militant atheist" seriously are the same sort of people who, a few decades ago, would have been ranting about "militant feminists" and "uppity negros". They enjoy a privileged place in society and anyone who threatens that privilege must be painted as a villian whether or not they fit the bill.

CuteAsFark

2009-07-02 03:52:03 PM

I drunk what: CuteAsFark: What is it called when you claim not to know whether or not there is a god because you simply can't know, but believe in good and evil forces, supernatural or mystical otherwise?

/curious

a squished grape

/you can't have your cake and eat it

if you're not sure there is a God, how are you sure there is Good/Evil?

Not sure of anything, I just believe it exists. And cakes tastes best when you eat it twice.

I drunk what

2009-07-02 03:53:05 PM

Linux_Yes: I AM GOD

correct (new window)

omris

2009-07-02 03:53:23 PM

Accent:
I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information.

I have trouble with this idea too, but they keep doing it.

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 03:54:31 PM

weapons of mass destruction ring a bell?

CuteAsFark

2009-07-02 03:54:45 PM

omris: Accent:
I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information.

I have trouble with this idea too, but they keep doing it.

it's called brain-washing.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 03:56:43 PM

Accent: "I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information."

Is absolute proof the only kind of "strong information"? How is it that convictions occur in cases where there is no absolute proof that the defendant is guilty?

Moreover, you're likely quite sure Santa doesn't exist. How do you justify that view? You cannot provide absolute proof that he doesn't, so by what means do you determine that Santa's existence is improbable?

omris

2009-07-02 03:57:06 PM

CuteAsFark: it's called brain-washing.

We should have a law against that. It's terrible.

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 03:58:16 PM

omris: You could be agnostic about whether or not the dinosaurs are there, but you could have faith that they are. Or are not. Either way.

exactly. Which is why being agnostic or gnostic is not a subcategory of being atheist or theist.

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 03:58:42 PM

Zamboro: Accent: "I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information."

Is absolute proof the only kind of "strong information"? How is it that convictions occur in cases where there is no absolute proof that the defendant is guilty?

Moreover, you're likely quite sure Santa doesn't exist. How do you justify that view? You cannot provide absolute proof that he doesn't, so by what means do you determine that Santa's existence is improbable?

if you live in an apartment tower, you know santa don't exist.

Cthulhu Theory

2009-07-02 03:59:34 PM

Pshhhh everyone knows all the religions are wrong! God is WATER people! Think about it! It gives us life!

The holy trinity existing as one supreme entity? 2 Hydrogen atoms (The holy ghost, and the father) and 1 oxygen (the son - which is a byprodct of fusion reactions in the sun, which existed after hydrogen, which, notably, the son was theorized 200 yrs after Jesus' time) all composing the singular molecule that makes life as we know it possible. Water!

Now keep in mind the concepts of god were theorized long before the idea that the world was round or that the earth revolved around the sun let alone that it was simply a giant ball of burning gas.

In the beginning there was "god" - in the beginning there was water.

God works in "mysterious ways" - the physics of water is still something only vaguely understood.

You can feel his spirit, but you can't see god - You can touch water but pure water is clear and if something is truly clear then you can't really see it now can you? And for those of you about to argue that pure water is blue, it takes a significantly large amount of water to produce blue, consider your interactions with water on a day to day basis. The water you drink is clear in your glass, the water that comes out of your shower and faucets is clear. The only reason you can even see it is because it's directly interacting with the things around it like air (which incidentally carries water in it).

God is in us - about 70% of the bodies cells are made of H₂O (which should be similar to the single-celled organism that science theorized was the start of life as we know it).

But God is perfect! - If you believe this then you haven't read the bible. Also, even drinkably "pure" (synonymous for perfect) water has contaminants.

God is about peace - Water always follows the path of least resistance

God is vengeful - Hurricane Katrina anyone? What happened to the levies? What happened to that New Orleans? Anyone recall that tidal wave in the indian ocean? Yeah, the water was disturbed and wreaked havoc in response.

God is omnipotent - Water can cut steel, shape stone, give life, provide energy and destroy. I'd say that covers a lot of the bases of omnipotence.

Omnipresence? Yeah water is found all over the solar system and traces of water are found throughout our galaxy.

Should I go on?

Zamboro

2009-07-02 03:59:39 PM

DeanMoriarty: "exactly. Which is why being agnostic or gnostic is not a subcategory of being atheist or theist."

The spectrum of theistic probability

Clan Xpy

2009-07-02 04:00:30 PM

omris: CuteAsFark: it's called brain-washing.

We should have a law against that. It's terrible.

For some reason this comment made me daydream about America electing a gerontologist for president. For five seconds, the world felt very cold.

maddogdelta

2009-07-02 04:00:50 PM

I drunk what: quote mine out of context?

/am I getting warmer?
// :{

I mean cuz that same book said that God told Abraham to kill Isaac to test his faith, so clearly God is telling us that we all should kill our children...

He apparently does that quite a bit ^{(^)}.

Accent: where does HCl + H2O + NaOH come from

You mean, like Chlorine, Oxygen and Sodium, I'm sure you have heard of supernovae? ^{(^)}. The hydrogen was already there.

Accent

2009-07-02 04:01:02 PM

omris: Accent:
I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information.

I have trouble with this idea too, but they keep doing it.

I guess I'll just sit here and get yelled at for not "choosing a side".

Same goes for global warming/climate change and politics.

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 04:01:31 PM

Zamboro: You cannot provide absolute proof that he doesn't, so by what means do you determine that Santa's existence is improbable?

There is nothing in logic or science that says "in order to deny the existence of something you must provide absolute proof of it's non-existence."

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Denial requires nothing but the lack of evidence supporting the opposite position.

omris

2009-07-02 04:02:27 PM

Zamboro:
Is absolute proof the only kind of "strong information"? How is it that convictions occur in cases where there is no absolute proof that the defendant is guilty?

No. There are lots of kinds of evidence, of varying strengths.

Moreover, you're likely quite sure Santa doesn't exist. How do you justify that view? You cannot provide absolute proof that he doesn't, so by what means do you determine that Santa's existence is improbable?

You're right, I am quite certain that Santa is imaginary. I justify that view in the absence of absolute proof using all of the strong evidence suggesting that it is a story, part of a lovely tradition of imaginary stuff that makes people happy even when it's only a made up story. Just like I do with religion.

Clan Xpy

2009-07-02 04:02:53 PM

Zamboro: Accent: "I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information."

Is absolute proof the only kind of "strong information"? How is it that convictions occur in cases where there is no absolute proof that the defendant is guilty?

Moreover, you're likely quite sure Santa doesn't exist. How do you justify that view? You cannot provide absolute proof that he doesn't, so by what means do you determine that Santa's existence is improbable?

You know Santa doesn't exist, because you know your kids will cry all day if you don't go out and spend hard earned money to buy presents, and put them under the tree yourself.

CuteAsFark

2009-07-02 04:03:21 PM

Cthulhu Theory: Pshhhh everyone knows all the religions are wrong! God is WATER people! Think about it! It gives us life!

The holy trinity existing as one supreme entity? 2 Hydrogen atoms (The holy ghost, and the father) and 1 oxygen (the son - which is a byprodct of fusion reactions in the sun, which existed after hydrogen, which, notably, the son was theorized 200 yrs after Jesus' time) all composing the singular molecule that makes life as we know it possible. Water!

Now keep in mind the concepts of god were theorized long before the idea that the world was round or that the earth revolved around the sun let alone that it was simply a giant ball of burning gas.

In the beginning there was "god" - in the beginning there was water.

God works in "mysterious ways" - the physics of water is still something only vaguely understood.

You can feel his spirit, but you can't see god - You can touch water but pure water is clear and if something is truly clear then you can't really see it now can you? And for those of you about to argue that pure water is blue, it takes a significantly large amount of water to produce blue, consider your interactions with water on a day to day basis. The water you drink is clear in your glass, the water that comes out of your shower and faucets is clear. The only reason you can even see it is because it's directly interacting with the things around it like air (which incidentally carries water in it).

God is in us - about 70% of the bodies cells are made of H2O (which should be similar to the single-celled organism that science theorized was the start of life as we know it).

But God is perfect! - If you believe this then you haven't read the bible. Also, even drinkably "pure" (synonymous for perfect) water has contaminants.

God is about peace - Water always follows the path of least resistance

God is vengeful - Hurricane Katrina anyone? What happened to the levies? What happened to that New Orleans? Anyone recall that tidal wave in the indian ocean? Yeah, the water was disturbed and wreaked havoc in response.

God is omnipotent - Water can cut steel, shape stone, give life, provide energy and destroy. I'd say that covers a lot of the bases of omnipotence.

Omnipresence? Yeah water is found all over the solar system and traces of water are found throughout our galaxy.

Should I go on?

Interesting theory, I love it, kudos to you.

Accent

2009-07-02 04:03:28 PM

Zamboro: Accent: "I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information."

Is absolute proof the only kind of "strong information"? How is it that convictions occur in cases where there is no absolute proof that the defendant is guilty?

Moreover, you're likely quite sure Santa doesn't exist. How do you justify that view? You cannot provide absolute proof that he doesn't, so by what means do you determine that Santa's existence is improbable?

I didn't say I needed absolute proof.
one side: Why is there pretty strong proof of evolution if we were created in one image?
other side: Where in the hell did the first atom, bit of energy, anything come from to begin with?

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 04:03:32 PM

Clan Xpy: omris: CuteAsFark: it's called brain-washing.

We should have a law against that. It's terrible.

For some reason this comment made me daydream about America electing a gerontologist for president. For five seconds, the world felt very cold.

probably from the spray from cthulu cracking a beer.

brassknizz

2009-07-02 04:04:57 PM

I don't know
If i go somewhere special when I die
So i'll just go on living my way

Agnosticism is a philosophical proof. Maybe some agnostics are truly just unsure, but I'm completely certain that we humans do not know whether or not there is a god. I'm glad to have closed my mind on the right answer.

Accent

2009-07-02 04:05:14 PM

maddogdelta: I drunk what: quote mine out of context?

/am I getting warmer?
// :{

I mean cuz that same book said that God told Abraham to kill Isaac to test his faith, so clearly God is telling us that we all should kill our children...

He apparently does that quite a bit (^).

Accent: where does HCl + H2O + NaOH come from

You mean, like Chlorine, Oxygen and Sodium, I'm sure you have heard of supernovae? (^). The hydrogen was already there.

Yeah, I know what a supernova is.
Where did Hydrogen come from?

Zamboro

2009-07-02 04:06:14 PM

SobrietyFighter: "if you live in an apartment tower, you know santa don't exist."

Heh. You really don't, though. If as many adults were emotionally invested in the existence of Santa as in Yahweh, there'd be a centuries old tradition of Santanian apologetics ready to fill all of the gaps with superficially plausible excuses. Didn't receive gifts? You displeased Santa in some way. Satellite imagery shows no workshop at the North Pole? Santa possesses elven technology which makes his workshop imperceptible to our sensors, and so on.

Most would agree that it's eminently reasonable not only to lack belief in Santa but to conclude (provisionally, with the possibility for reversal still on the table) that he does not exist.

What it comes down to ultimately is how we know what we know. Anyone who tells you that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God doesn't understand how disproofs are actually accomplished in science, nor have they ever sat down and asked themselves why the countless notions science cannot disprove are not taught as potentially legitimate in the classroom. Science is our means of sorting truth from falsehood, and untestable hypotheses do not get a free pass.

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 04:08:04 PM

trivial details are trivial.

mrsirjojo

2009-07-02 04:08:32 PM

~~People who are unsure of their own beliefs are less open minded. Suck it agnostics.~~
People who know that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof are less likely to believe someone else's BS.

absoluteparanoia

2009-07-02 04:09:21 PM

Atheists confuse the null hypothesis with a negative result.

The default position of science is not to say that something doesn't exist. It's to say that there's no evidence that it does (i.e. relegated to being irrelevant or unknown). There's a huge difference.

That's what blows the whole "why don't you believe in unicorns and the tooth fairy?" argument out of the water. You only have to justify it if you claim you've seen them or been affected by them.

Until then, the set is null. Not negative, null.

omris

2009-07-02 04:09:26 PM

Accent: I guess I'll just sit here and get yelled at for not "choosing a side".

Same goes for global warming/climate change and politics.

You needn't choose a side. But not choosing a side doesn't make you agnostic. Being agnostic means that you think that people on both sides cannot know for certain. That it cannot be known. But you can choose a side regardless.

I am agnostic, because there simply is no way to PROVE the existence or lack of existence of a god. But I see no evidence to support one, so I reject theism, making me an atheist. I also happen to think it's a meaningless distinction, and the distinction of agnostic versus gnostic is much more important.

kibblesnbits

2009-07-02 04:10:27 PM

Mr.Z: I'm looking at a chair. My belief is... it is a chair. What exactly is a chair anyway? What makes it a 'chair'? Is it because I sit on it? Well, I can sit on a log --- then is not the log also a 'chair'? I can sit on a guard rail, too. I sit on the toilet (a whole other conversation)...... wait, it's no longer a chair, it's a 'throne'. I can't sit on my thumbs....they're not chairs...or they're not 'capable chairs', no feckin' armrest. Dammit, how does one 'sit on their arse'? What makes a chair a 'chair'? If I believe it's a chair, does that make it a chair? If so, who said? Who was the first one that said "I'll call this a 'chair'?" What, 'noodle' didn't sound right?
Damn this thread!

I had an art teacher who told us to draw a teacup, then failed all the drawings because it could not be a teacup if there was no tea in it. And since all the drawings were two dimensional, they could not hold tea.

Anyway, I'm quite sure that I'm unsure about the existence of all the various higher powers. Does that make me open or close minded?

At work, I'm usually the fundies' favorite heathen. Seems they've never met an agnostic they liked before. I think it's because I allow them their beliefs, and then insist that it goes two ways that they must allow me mine. Works with 99% of them anyway.

For instance, there's occasions they pray for me, like when I lost my dad a few months ago If nothing else I know it's a gesture of personally supporting me out of love and friendship. They spent a moment wishing us the best by asking someone, their god, to take care of us. Whether anyone else hears that prayer is completely besides the point to me. What counts is the thought behind the gift of that moment they spent on me, which is to hope things get better for me and my dad. So you bet I'll thank them for it too.

Try it. Respect. It works!

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 04:10:34 PM

if they consider themselves atheists, how are they confused? seems like they have a pretty firm ideology.

Jack31081

2009-07-02 04:12:08 PM

Has anyone pointed out that agnosticism simply means that you believe the truth of God's existence is unknowable.

It has nothing to do with whether you believe in God or not.

Believing and Knowing are two different things.

If you KNOW God exists = Gnostic Theist
If you BELIEVE God exists = Agnostic Theist
If you BELIEVE God doesn't exist = Agnostic Atheist
If you KNOW God doesn't exist = Gnostic Theist

Accent

2009-07-02 04:12:47 PM

omris:

Almost the entire above thread is 'one side' yelling at the 'other side'.

Agnostics (semantics aside) being yelled at by both.

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 04:13:00 PM

does god know he exists?

CrankMyBlueSax

2009-07-02 04:14:27 PM

Cthulhu Theory: Should I go on?

Tell us the story about how Jeebus turned himself into wine.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 04:14:56 PM

Accent: "I didn't say I needed absolute proof.
one side: Why is there pretty strong proof of evolution if we were created in one image?
other side: Where in the hell did the first atom, bit of energy, anything come from to begin with?"

What of the problems that cognitive neurobiology poses for those who believe in a soul? What of the mountains of evidence confirming that consciousness is produced by the brain, that cognition cannot be sustained outside of the brain just as you cannot process data outside of a physical processor?

As for the origin of the big bang, I actually have answered that one in a recent thread:

Zamboro: "What you seem to be arguing is that "matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed", a popular paraphrasing of the law of conservation. However the actual wording is "In a closed system, the total energy remains constant". Natural causation of the Big Bang is presently thought to have occurred by way of particle pair origination, i.e. Hawking radiation.

Supposing you were to add 1 and -1. You'd get zero, right? Now suppose you were to carry out the same operation in reverse, separating 1 and -1 out of 0. It would appear that you've gotten something from nothing, right? Except of course you haven't. You've gotten something and 'anti-something' from nothing, a particle and its anti-particle equivalent, creating an imbalance which nonetheless has a total energy state of zero. I like to describe it as digging a hole of level ground; where before you had flat ground, you now have a pile and a hole, identical in volume.

As it turns out matter (which, as you know, is interchangeable with energy) is actually distorted vacuum energy:

"It's Confirmed: Matter is Merely Vacuum Fluctuations"

These vacuum energy fluctuations occur by themselves (driven by entropy) as the collapsed, imbalanced particle/antiparticle state is actually *more stable* than the state of nothingness out of which they separate. Here's another good explanation on how this occurs:

"Something From Nothing is a Quantum Possibility"

Finally, here's the math that proves that the total energy state of the universe works out to be zero, which we might expect it to be if it were to have originated in the manner described above. The fact that the energy state is zero confirms that the spontaneous origination of the universe did not violate the law of conservation.

"Calculating the Zero Energy of the Universe"

Clan Xpy

2009-07-02 04:15:21 PM

Jack31081: Has anyone pointed out that agnosticism simply means that you believe the truth of God's existence is unknowable.

It has nothing to do with whether you believe in God or not.

Believing and Knowing are two different things.

If you KNOW God exists = Gnostic Theist
If you BELIEVE God exists = Agnostic Theist
If you BELIEVE God doesn't exist = Agnostic Atheist
If you KNOW God doesn't exist = Gnostic Theist

I lol'd.

maddogdelta

2009-07-02 04:15:50 PM

Accent: Where did Hydrogen come from?

Well, I will tell you that cosmologists have a damned good idea of what has happened since 1*10^-47 second after the instant of the start of the big bang. Because hydrogen started forming about 300,000 years after that.
If you want to get technical and ask "What about before that?", I'll just answer a question with a question..."So what?" If you want to argue the possibility of a deistic creation, have a blast. If someone wants to argue that they can prove an interventionist god whose ass we must continually kiss, I will ask you to provide evidence.

And considering a deistic style god, and no god, can anyone demonstrate a difference to me?

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 04:16:47 PM

Zamboro: DeanMoriarty: "exactly. Which is why being agnostic or gnostic is not a subcategory of being atheist or theist."

The spectrum of theistic probability

The fact that Dawkins made up a series of percentages for a book does not change the actual meaning of the words.

maddogdelta

2009-07-02 04:17:20 PM

SobrietyFighter: does god know he exists?

Since god doesn't believe in a higher power, he must be an atheist. And if it's good enough for god, it's good enough for me.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 04:17:42 PM

absoluteparanoia: "That's what blows the whole "why don't you believe in unicorns and the tooth fairy?" argument out of the water. You only have to justify it if you claim you've seen them or been affected by them."

Nearly all Christians do make such a claim, however. A Christian who had never seen or been affected by God would hardly have a defensible reason for believing such a being exists.

That said, "why don't you believe in X" is not meant to be a novelty "gotcha" style question. I'm sincerely curious. Why don't you believe in Santa? It's not rhetorical at all, I want to hear some reasons.

omris

2009-07-02 04:18:02 PM

spickus

2009-07-02 04:18:34 PM

Drakin020: Pocket Ninja: It's interesting how the words used in this headline manage to complete misdirect the actual point of the studies while still being technically accurate.

/Amused.fark you Frank.

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 04:19:16 PM

maddogdelta: SobrietyFighter: does god know he exists?

Since god doesn't believe in a higher power, he must be an atheist. And if it's good enough for god, it's good enough for me.

thats deep

Zamboro

2009-07-02 04:19:55 PM

Dean Moriarty: "The fact that Dawkins made up a series of percentages for a book does not change the actual meaning of the words."

The fact that you do not understand the definitions of words like "agnostic" and "atheist" does not somehow change where people stand on the question of whether a god or gods exist. The spectrum is merely a handy way to express ones degree of certainty to others.

I am an agnostic atheist. You may not recognize the validity of the term, but I am one nonetheless.

wmoonfox

2009-07-02 04:20:30 PM

Cthulhu Theory: Pshhhh everyone knows all the religions are wrong! God is WATER people! Think about it! It gives us life!

But, Bruce Lee was water.

Wait....... Oh. My. God.

Accent

2009-07-02 04:22:44 PM

maddogdelta: If you want to get technical and ask "What about before that?", I'll just answer a question with a question..."So what?" If you want to argue the possibility of a deistic creation, have a blast. If someone wants to argue that they can prove an interventionist god whose ass we must continually kiss, I will ask you to provide evidence.

And considering a deistic style god, and no god, can anyone demonstrate a difference to me?

No, they can't. You cannot prove it either way. Leaving an open mind to either solution should not get someone coming after your balls in a conversation.
Welcome to the club.

Zamboro
I am not arguing that the Big Bang did not happen.
The theories of conservation of mass and energy does not prove where the first anything came from.
Please read "Newscientist" with a grain of salt.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 04:23:15 PM

wmoonfox: "But, Bruce Lee was water."

...He was also an atheist. With that, the final puzzle piece falls into place.

Gameshot911

2009-07-02 04:23:33 PM

Jubeebee: We know that the Universe is finite in space, but it is expanding. And we know roughly when it (and therefore time) began, so it is finite in time as well.

Only had enough time to read this part of your response, gotta skidoodle out of the office.

I think your "statements of fact" require clarification. We do not know that the universe is finite in space. We do know that the observable universe is finite. However, since most people define the universe as the observable universe, your point may stand with clarification.

Same is true with the "finite time" thing. True for observable universe, but not a statement on anything that could be outside of that. The universe that contains our universe could have it's own start of time, or perhaps no start/end of time.

CuteAsFark

2009-07-02 04:23:35 PM

maddogdelta: SobrietyFighter: does god know he exists?

Since god doesn't believe in a higher power, he must be an atheist. And if it's good enough for god, it's good enough for me.

I lol'd at this!

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 04:24:55 PM

Zamboro: I am an agnostic atheist. You may not recognize the validity of the term, but I am one nonetheless.

I totally do. That's what I've been arguing. Agnosticism pertains to knowledge, atheism pertains to faith.

One could very easily be an agnostic theist. In fact, I think that's very prevalent. I've heard many people admit that they have no proof or knowledge supporting their faith, yet are very strong in that faith.

Dawkins argues that agnosticism is a level between theist and atheist. It isn't, and it's not even a qualifier to one's level of faith. It's simply term relating to one's level of knowledge of a god.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 04:27:00 PM

Accent: "I am not arguing that the Big Bang did not happen."

I know that.

Accent: "The theories of conservation of mass and energy does not prove where the first anything came from."

I didn't suggest such a thing. Read the rest of the quoted portion. If you come across something you don't understand, ask for clarification.

Accent: "Please read "Newscientist" with a grain of salt."

I do. However the studies in question were not carried out by the NewScientist staff. It's a bit like Wikipedia; the articles themselves can't be presented as any sort of authority, but the studies they refer to can be. The fact that legitimate studies are referenced on a wikipedia page (or in this case paraphrased in a NS article) does not somehow diminish their legitimacy.

You also did not address the materials I provided re: cognitive neurobiology and its implications for those who believe in souls. I'm interested to know what you think about that.

absoluteparanoia

2009-07-02 04:27:41 PM

Zamboro: Nearly all Christians do make such a claim, however. A Christian who had never seen or been affected by God would hardly have a defensible reason for believing such a being exists.

That said, "why don't you believe in X" is not meant to be a novelty "gotcha" style question. I'm sincerely curious. Why don't you believe in Santa? It's not rhetorical at all, I want to hear some reasons.

It's not that I don't believe in Santa. It's that it's a nonsense question in the absence of data. It's like saying "Why can't you smell the color green?"

It's because I haven't and it doesn't jive. It's not a rejection so much as a "I never claimed he existed." It's like the difference between "meh" and "no".

I drunk what

2009-07-02 04:28:21 PM

Jack31081: If you KNOW God exists = Gnostic Theist
If you BELIEVE God exists = Agnostic Theist
If you BELIEVE God doesn't exist = Agnostic Atheist
If you KNOW God doesn't exist = Gnostic Theist

since Jesus is the only gnostic, maybe it would be a more useful definition to separate the divide as

gnostic = one who has learned-studied, and in light of the information available is pretty sure (about their belief)

agnostic = one who has not learned-studied OR has learned-studied but cannot make an educated guess one way or the other, but they feel their belief is true

?

though I agree your original definition is probably the most accurate

wmoonfox

2009-07-02 04:28:46 PM

Zamboro: He was also an atheist. With that, the final puzzle piece falls into place.

I'm not sure if that distant pop I just heard was the universe cracking or just a strained blood vessel in my pounding head.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 04:29:31 PM

DeanMoriarty: "I totally do. That's what I've been arguing. Agnosticism pertains to knowledge, atheism pertains to faith."

But that makes no sense. Is a-fairyism an article of faith? Is a-Santaism? If there's anything you don't believe is true but which cannot in principle be disproven, why do you feel it's reasonable to disbelieve?

Once again, not rhetorical. I'm actually asking you why you don't believe in Santa, for instance. Once we can agree that it's perfectly reasonable to disbelieve in Santa, everything else follows.

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 04:31:39 PM

I drunk what: gnostic = one who has learned-studied, and in light of the information available is pretty sure (about their belief)

Not really - a gnostic can simply be someone who is sure because of what they know (no matter how limited that knowledge). They don't need to have a lot of information at their disposal; they just need to be using information as the basis.

A woman who sees god's face in a piece of toast, and thereby declares that god is real, is gnostic.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 04:32:09 PM

absoluteparanoia: "It's not that I don't believe in Santa. It's that it's a nonsense question in the absence of data. It's like saying "Why can't you smell the color green?"

It's because I haven't and it doesn't jive. It's not a rejection so much as a "I never claimed he existed." It's like the difference between "meh" and "no"."

Do you believe in Santa Claus, yes or no? Step outside of the "must win argument" mindset and be real with me for a moment. Is it reasonable to conclude, based on all of the available information, that Santa Claus doesn't exist?

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 04:32:42 PM

so god is really just lapses in quality control?

Accent

2009-07-02 04:33:02 PM

Zamboro:

I've been through many articles like these before. The bottom line that you and I both come to is that we don't know* either way.

The difference is I am not convinced strongly enough either way to believe* either side. Scientific theories have changed many times over history... and each one was accepted as "the new one" because it was thought to have been right.

Either way... if I understand this right... this God fella is a pretty forgiving guy, and I'll be alright if I grovel enough if I meet him. If he isn't there, then why waste my time trying to prove or disprove.. as you stated... Santa Clause

Cthulhu Theory

2009-07-02 04:34:17 PM

CuteAsFark:

Interesting theory, I love it, kudos to you.

Gotta admit it's a different take. I think if this were to go mainstream it could get into a feng shui groove with science.

CuteAsFark

2009-07-02 04:37:30 PM

Zamboro: Do you believe in Santa Claus, yes or no? Step outside of the "must win argument" mindset and be real with me for a moment. Is it reasonable to conclude, based on all of the available information, that Santa Claus doesn't exist?

Santa DOES exist!
Link (new window)

I met him once when I was little. He let me touch his north pole.

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 04:40:02 PM

Zamboro: DeanMoriarty: "I totally do. That's what I've been arguing. Agnosticism pertains to knowledge, atheism pertains to faith."

But that makes no sense. Is a-fairyism an article of faith? Is a-Santaism? If there's anything you don't believe is true but which cannot in principle be disproven, why do you feel it's reasonable to disbelieve?

Once again, not rhetorical. I'm actually asking you why you don't believe in Santa, for instance. Once we can agree that it's perfectly reasonable to disbelieve in Santa, everything else follows.

As stated above - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is reasonable to disbelieve anything that falls outside the norms of conventional knowledge, until proven otherwise.

It's the total root of agnosticism - the position that we can't know, evidence-wise, that god exists.

On a purely faith-level, yes: a 6 year-old believes in Santa for many of the same reasons people believe in god. and my atheist ass says it's a similar construct: people who should know better have built up a false framework to support that faith.

ilikechocolatemilk

2009-07-02 04:40:02 PM

/this is all SO entertaining, had to throw this out
//still dosen't explain why you drive on a parkway and park in a driveway, though...

Barbecue Bob

2009-07-02 04:40:08 PM

It's not even a real story. Why all the blab?

\What "research" exactly did they base that dribble on?
/I really coun't read much of it.

CrankMyBlueSax

2009-07-02 04:40:14 PM

CrankMyBlueSax: Cthulhu Theory: Should I go on?

Tell us the story about how Jeebus turned himself into wine.

So, if you are God and you turn yourself into wine, then you drink yourself, is that some sort of auto-erotic asphyxiation?

Barbecue Bob

2009-07-02 04:42:30 PM

/TFA is BS in other words.

Brainsick

2009-07-02 04:42:48 PM

Zamboro

2009-07-02 04:43:15 PM

Accent: "I've been through many articles like these before. The bottom line that you and I both come to is that we don't know* either way."

In other words, you won't consider the evidence I've presented to you.

Accent: "The difference is I am not convinced strongly enough either way to believe* either side. Scientific theories have changed many times over history... and each one was accepted as "the new one" because it was thought to have been right."

So is science always wrong? Surely not. You're using a computer right now. It's not as though tomorrow it will be discovered that the theories underlying our useo f electricity are mistaken and your computer will suddenly stop working, so the pattern of paradigm shifts in science can't be as simple as you describe.

The history of science began on shaky foundations, like a newborn fawn struggling to stand on its own. Early methdology was highly flawed, little more than a series of guesses, but as the methdology itself was refined and formalized the frequency of grievous errors slowed. We are not about to discover that the world is actually flat, for instance; Huge upheavals (the world going form flat to round) have given way to slight revisions (the world going from a perfect sphere to a slightly squashed elliptoid) as we make fewer large mistakes thanks to a more rigorous, self-critical scientific method.

So to cite the fact that science made a great deal of big mistakes in its infancy as an excuse to simply disregard anything it has to say that you don't like ignores the history of science, denigrates the men and women who give their life to its practice, and grossly unerestimates its power to pry hard-won truths from a silent and mysterious natural world.

Accent: "Either way... if I understand this right... this God fella is a pretty forgiving guy, and I'll be alright if I grovel enough if I meet him. If he isn't there, then why waste my time trying to prove or disprove.. as you stated... Santa Clause"

You're not cooperating with a very simple line of questioning. I wonder why that is. Could it be that you already know where it leads?

SobrietyFighter

2009-07-02 04:43:18 PM

heck i know i would, i'd be delicious

Zamboro

2009-07-02 04:45:46 PM

DeanMoriarty: "As stated above - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is reasonable to disbelieve anything that falls outside the norms of conventional knowledge, until proven otherwise.

It's the total root of agnosticism - the position that we can't know, evidence-wise, that god exists."

Precisely, I meant only to argue that there are many things we cannot know don't exist but which we can nonetheless determine to be nonexistent. The conclusion is merely probabilistic and provisional rather than absolute, like any other conclusion in science. That's the only definition of "true" that actually means anything.

YoungSwedishBlonde

2009-07-02 04:45:57 PM

FlyingPig: This is news? I see self-righteous agnostics on Fark claiming that "Atheists are no different from fundies" all the time.

And they/we would be right

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 04:49:29 PM

Zamboro:
Precisely, I meant only to argue that there are many things we cannot know don't exist but which we can nonetheless determine to be nonexistent. The conclusion is merely probabilistic and provisional rather than absolute, like any other conclusion in science. That's the only definition of "true" that actually means anything.

In which case, I'm not sure what you're arguing.

I drunk what

2009-07-02 04:49:30 PM

DeanMoriarty: they just need to be using information as the basis.

well i'm glad you narrowed that down...

DeanMoriarty: A woman who thinks she sees god's face in a piece of toast, and thereby declares (believes not knows) that god is real, is agnostic.

according to the accurate definition

which is why I proposed a more useful application which skips the knows part

none of us know, but we all believe something

so my proposal is:

gnostic theist = i know (am pretty sure) God exists and here is why

agnostic theist = i don't know why but i kinda sorta believe God exists

agnostic = I don't know maybe he does maybe he doesn't

agnostic atheist = i don't know why but I kinda sorta don't believe God exists

gnostic theist = i know (am pretty sure) God does not exist and here is why

I personally don't believe anyone is truly a 50/50 agnostic (or even gnostic) but I guess it is theoretically possible

even the truly hardcore agnostics are really 51/49 if they are really honest with themselves

+2
+1
0
-1
-2

jso2897

2009-07-02 04:51:36 PM

Zamboro: absoluteparanoia: "It's not that I don't believe in Santa. It's that it's a nonsense question in the absence of data. It's like saying "Why can't you smell the color green?"

It's because I haven't and it doesn't jive. It's not a rejection so much as a "I never claimed he existed." It's like the difference between "meh" and "no"."

Do you believe in Santa Claus, yes or no? Step outside of the "must win argument" mindset and be real with me for a moment. Is it reasonable to conclude, based on all of the available information, that Santa Claus doesn't exist?

He sees you when you're eating. He knows when you're on drugs.

Galileo's Daughter

2009-07-02 04:51:50 PM

UberDave: Diogenes: Drawing a limit to what is knowable and what is not is not being "unsure" of your beliefs.

"...in order to draw a limit to thinking we should have to be able to thnk both sides of this limit (we should therefore have to be able to think what cannot be thought).

The limit can, therefore, only be drawn in language and what lies on the other side of the limit will be simply nonsense." - Wittgenstein

Very good point. But some would claim that Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as schloshed as Schlegel....

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

Rockstone

2009-07-02 04:52:00 PM

Yeah, suck it Agnostics.

See, I told you I'm not closed minded.

/I'm a Catholic in case you haven't figured it out in the other threads.

Accent

2009-07-02 04:53:19 PM

Zamboro: Accent: "In other words, you won't consider the evidence I've presented to you."

I've already read articles presenting the same principles. Read my posts and take them literally.

So is science always wrong?
Twisting my words to fit your argument is not the way to 'win' a discussion. There is a probability that the current theories (and your articles) we hold to be true today will be proven flawed in the future.

You're not cooperating with a very simple line of questioning. I wonder why that is. Could it be that you already know where it leads?

I am cooperating perfectly, and have stated the same answer every.. farking.. time. I don't know. You don't know. What you believe is your own personal thought. What I believe is not going to be swayed by anyone.. or it is merely a thought. When I feel strongly enough to believe whether there is or isn't a god, I'll let you know since you seem so concerned.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 04:54:01 PM

YoungSwedishBlonde: "And they/we would be right"

Well no, it's an absurd position. Both sides of any social conflict will be passionate and spirited. Were some feminists "just as bad" as their opponents? Perhaps. Were women's suffrage and the women's lib movement therefore misguided? Should they never have happened? Likewise, there were no doubt abolitionists and civil rights protestors who were just as aggressive and violent as their opponent. Was their cause invalidated by it? Should we never have freed the slaves and worked towards a state of social equality with their descendants?

The fact of the matter is that the atheists you regularly argue with an denigrate are part of a social movement that has never harmed or killed anyone. You're making an apples to apples comparison between a group of people who stand for freedom of thought/women's rights/human rights/secularism/better living through science, and the sort of fanatics who bomb abortion clinics, blow themselves up at funerals, fly planes into skyscrapers, mail anthrax to people and so on.

I'll buy that you hate us as much as you hate any religious terrorist. That doesn't make us the same, however.

Rockstone

2009-07-02 04:54:01 PM

CrankMyBlueSax: CrankMyBlueSax: Cthulhu Theory: Should I go on?

Tell us the story about how Jeebus turned himself into wine.

So, if you are God and you turn yourself into wine, then you drink yourself, is that some sort of auto-erotic asphyxiation?

He didn't turn himself into wine. He is the body and the blood, which is the wine and the bread- but when we drink the wine and eat the bread, we are not eating a part of him. Its confusing, I know- but read up on Transubstantiation if you want to know more.

I drunk what

2009-07-02 04:54:57 PM

I drunk what: gnostic atheist = i know (am pretty sure) God does not exist and here is why

sorry I couldn't resist

let he who is without typos cast the first stone!

cthellis

2009-07-02 04:55:35 PM

vertiaset: Direct experience is the only way to "know" God. It is a simple process. Sit quietly. Empty your mind of its ubiquitous chatter and noise. Forget your "self". Seek. Seek and you shall find; although, what you find may no be what you "expected' to find.

** Reminder: Works best while high. **

SobrietyFighter: rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock beats scissors beats paper beats

What about lizard and Spock?

I drunk what: oh hai guys, what r we talkin' about?

Bacon.

maddogdelta: Oh really?

...so, who do you think is FloydA, making good on his trolling threat?

Zamboro: All I'd like to add is that the sort of people you hear using the term "militant atheist" seriously are the same sort of people who, a few decades ago, would have been ranting about "militant feminists" and "uppity negros". They enjoy a privileged place in society and anyone who threatens that privilege must be painted as a villian whether or not they fit the bill.

Yeah, but they were RIGHT about all the uppity Negroes!

SobrietyFighter: if you live in an apartment tower, you know santa don't exist.

Nuh-uh, man. You only disprove the "chimney" aspect!

absoluteparanoia: The default position of science is not to say that something doesn't exist. It's to say that there's no evidence that it does...

...and then to ignore it, until such a time as relevant evidence is procured. Which is pretty much all atheists do about the whole "deity" thing.

Not even Lord High Atheist-God Almighty Dawkins believes what you're implying: "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.".

SobrietyFighter: so god is really just lapses in quality control?

God is Klaus?

Lord_Baull

2009-07-02 04:56:56 PM

imgod2u 2009-07-02 02:09:00 PM
Lord_Baull: There was a Creationist on another website that suggested to me how Koalas, who dine exclusively on Eucalyptus leaves found exclusively in Australia, were able to make it back to Australia after the flood. This (new window) was her explanation.
Yeah, the logic from the close-minded Fundie borders on insanity.

But what she hot? And if so, did you hit that like the crazy hand of her angry God?

Yeah, I e-f*cked her like a jackhammer.

CrankMyBlueSax

2009-07-02 04:58:06 PM

Rockstone: Its confusing, I know- but read up on Transubstantiation if you want to know more.

Yeah, I dunno. When it comes to magic, JK Rowling is a lot more fun to read.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 04:59:24 PM

Accent: "I've already read articles presenting the same principles. Read my posts and take them literally."

I have. You won't consider those articles or the studies they describe as supportive of my position, and that's unreasonable.

Accent: "Twisting my words to fit your argument is not the way to 'win' a discussion. There is a probability that the current theories (and your articles) we hold to be true today will be proven flawed in the future."

You ignored the rest of my rebuttal, which explained how scientific methodology has been improved over the centuries such that its errors have become less frequent and less severe. Cognitive neurobiology isn't about to be invalidated, any more than evolution is.

Accent: "I am cooperating perfectly,"

No, you aren't.

Accent: "and have stated the same answer every.. farking.. time. I don't know. You don't know. What you believe is your own personal thought."

That is not an answer to "why don't you believe in Santa Claus". It's an effort to dodge the question.

Accent: "What I believe is not going to be swayed by anyone.. or it is merely a thought."

That is an admission of dogmatism.

Accent: "When I feel strongly enough to believe whether there is or isn't a god, I'll let you know since you seem so concerned."

I am not in the habit of participating in arguments and then suddenly losing interest halfway through.

abb3w

2009-07-02 04:59:47 PM

If anyone cares, the actual paper is here.

I drunk what

2009-07-02 05:00:40 PM

lordargent: Or the people who aren't sure god exists, but worship him "just incase".

+0.000...000000001

/which math smarties will tell you = zero

lordargent: what about the people that aren't sure god exists, but if he does exist, he's a bit of an asshole and isn't worthy of worship.

+/- 0.005

(depending on your final choice)

Cthulhu Theory

2009-07-02 05:00:43 PM

CrankMyBlueSax: Cthulhu Theory: Should I go on?

Tell us the story about how Jeebus turned himself into wine.

*hic* I don't know the shtory but i can tells ya he's quite *hic* tasty!

LoL seriously though, I'd prefer not to go the "christian route" and mix fabels in with all of this. I'd prefer to just back up the core ideas with what chemistry, physics and general science can account for.

/the otters were right!

Zamboro

2009-07-02 05:01:07 PM

DeanMoriarty: "In which case, I'm not sure what you're arguing."

Nothing. It may surprise you to learn this but not everything that comes out of my mouth is an argument. I just didn't understand you at first so, after a bit of discussion, we came to a point of understanding. Hooray, right?

servoled

2009-07-02 05:01:27 PM

amanogowa: servoled: amanogowa: No. It does not.

Sure it does. One is a question of belief, the other is a question of knowledge. Belief is not the same thing as knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

How many times do people need to tell you that the belief in no god is different than the belief that you cannot know if there is a god are not the same thing?

I'll just leave it at that... Have a nice day.

I drunk what

2009-07-02 05:02:25 PM

cthellis: Bacon

I like bacon!

forget flying cars or curing cancer, WHY haven't scientists invented broccoli that tastes like bacon?!?

you FAIL me science

/F-

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 05:03:21 PM

I drunk what: DeanMoriarty: A woman who thinks she sees god's face in a piece of toast, and thereby declares (believes not knows) that god is real, is agnostic.

according to the accurate definition

no, you have that entirely wrong.

agnostic - says you cannot ascertain, using knowledge, a basis for the faith.

toast woman is using "knowledge" (however faulty) as the basis for her faith. Ergo, she's gnostic.

servoled

2009-07-02 05:05:35 PM

abb3w: If anyone cares, the actual paper is here.

Error - DOI Not Found

GreenAdder

2009-07-02 05:05:41 PM

Wow. It seems that all of you are missing the point of this article. They didn't single out atheists or agnostics. It said "people who are unsure." That is to say, maybe a guy who goes to church but he's not quite convinced. Or maybe an atheist who's non-faith is starting to shake a little.

Or maybe even a Liberal who's starting to get Conservative views (or vice versa). A Trekkie who's starting to realize that DS9 was kind of lame. A PS3 fanboy who discovers that he (gasp!) actually enjoyed a Wii or 360 game once.

These people, once their beliefs are shaken, have two directions they can take. Either overcompensate like hell by rushing back to "home base," or get their feet a little more wet by realizing not everything is set in stone. Most people choose option A.

Rockstone

2009-07-02 05:05:56 PM

CrankMyBlueSax: Rockstone: Its confusing, I know- but read up on Transubstantiation if you want to know more.

Yeah, I dunno. When it comes to magic, JK Rowling is a lot more fun to read.

Except, you know- transubstantiation is not magic.

Accent

2009-07-02 05:06:10 PM

Zamboro: I have. You won't consider those articles or the studies they describe as supportive of my position, and that's unreasonable.

Where did I say that?

"You ignored the rest of my rebuttal, which explained how scientific methodology has been improved over the centuries such that its errors have become less frequent and less severe. Cognitive neurobiology isn't about to be invalidated, any more than evolution is.

Probably the same reasoning why other theories were accepted as well.

"That is not an answer to "why don't you believe in Santa Claus". It's an effort to dodge the question.

You're analogy of using Santa is dumb. Believing in where the presents under my tree came from and where the first anything came from is not the same.

"I am not in the habit of participating in arguments and then suddenly losing interest halfway through.

How is this not sinking in... there is no "end" to this because you cannot prove or disprove anything. It isn't a loss of interest, but it has now become clear that your agenda isn't worth considering.
This is me leaving your own personal "argument" and my statements.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 05:06:20 PM

I drunk what: "forget flying cars or curing cancer, WHY haven't scientists invented broccoli that tastes like bacon?!?"

Put some bacon salt on it.

Rockstone

2009-07-02 05:09:03 PM

Rockstone: CrankMyBlueSax: Rockstone: Its confusing, I know- but read up on Transubstantiation if you want to know more.

Yeah, I dunno. When it comes to magic, JK Rowling is a lot more fun to read.

Except, you know- transubstantiation is not magic

Transubstantiation is very real.

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 05:09:20 PM

Zamboro: DeanMoriarty: "In which case, I'm not sure what you're arguing."

Nothing. It may surprise you to learn this but not everything that comes out of my mouth is an argument. I just didn't understand you at first so, after a bit of discussion, we came to a point of understanding. Hooray, right?

I wasn't aware there was a misunderstanding. you just started asking a bunch of weird-ass questions.

Ed Grubermann

2009-07-02 05:11:20 PM

When I was eleven I was given a book called "Album Of Dinosaurs", published in 1971 by Rand McNally. It was a kids book, but was fairly up to date on the major scientific ideas about dinosaurs of the day. Over the years many of the theories that were used in writing the book have been overturned as new evidence has come to light. Today nearly 75% of the text in the book is dead wrong. We now know that Apatosaurus (and no, Firefox spell check, "Brontosaurus" is NOT the correct spelling, you asshat) did not eat clams as was thought it might back in 1971, among other errors.

I still have this book. Even with all of its errors. I keep it to remind me that everything I know could be proven wrong at any time. I keep it to keep my mind open. (That doesn't mean I'm going to keep my mind so open that my brains leak out of my ears however.)

Clan Xpy

2009-07-02 05:11:57 PM

YoungSwedishBlonde: FlyingPig: This is news? I see self-righteous agnostics on Fark claiming that "Atheists are no different from fundies" all the time.

And they/we would be right

It is the human condition for one to make their personal truth their religion regardless of whether is about religion at all. Really you aren't any different or more correct so please don't try to come across as so. Elitism is what turned atheism into a religion, after all.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 05:12:30 PM

Accent: "Where did I say that?"

Here:

Accent: "I've been through many articles like these before. The bottom line that you and I both come to is that we don't know* either way."

Translation: "It doesn't matter what studies you show me, I won't concede that either side can come to any conclusions."

Accent: "Probably the same reasoning why other theories were accepted as well."

Citation please.

Accent: "You're analogy of using Santa is dumb."

;-)

Accent: "Believing in where the presents under my tree came from and where the first anything came from is not the same."

That's not the focal point of the analogy, though. Both Santa and God are impossible in principle to absolutely disprove. The matter we've been debating is whether or not we can reasonably conclude something doesn't exist in spite of the impossibility of absolutely proving that it doesn't.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 05:14:47 PM

Clan Xpy: "Elitism is what turned atheism into a religion, after all."

Boy I hope you've never mocked a creationist. That'd make evolution a religion by your metric, would it not?

CrankMyBlueSax

2009-07-02 05:15:15 PM

Rockstone: Transubstantiation is very real.

The Easter Bunny was telling me the very same thing just the other day. I'm convinced.

13.media.tumblr.com

God's Hubris

2009-07-02 05:15:41 PM

What someone that gets their morals from the Bible might look like:

i13.photobucket.com

jso2897

2009-07-02 05:16:42 PM

Rockstone: Rockstone: CrankMyBlueSax: Rockstone: Its confusing, I know- but read up on Transubstantiation if you want to know more.

Yeah, I dunno. When it comes to magic, JK Rowling is a lot more fun to read.

Except, you know- transubstantiation is not magic

Transubstantiation is very real.

i18.photobucket.com

No it isn't.

Rockstone

2009-07-02 05:17:08 PM

Zamboro: Accent: "Where did I say that?"

Here:

Accent: "I've been through many articles like these before. The bottom line that you and I both come to is that we don't know* either way."

Translation: "It doesn't matter what studies you show me, I won't concede that either side can come to any conclusions."

Accent: "Probably the same reasoning why other theories were accepted as well."

Citation please.

Accent: "You're analogy of using Santa is dumb."

;-)

Accent: "Believing in where the presents under my tree came from and where the first anything came from is not the same."

That's not the focal point of the analogy, though. Both Santa and God are impossible in principle to absolutely disprove. The matter we've been debating is whether or not we can reasonably conclude something doesn't exist in spite of the impossibility of absolutely proving that it doesn't.

It is very easy to disprove Santa's Existence entirely, but impossible to do that with god. Any evidence we have shows that god does exist.

Anyway- how do you prove Santa Doesn't exist? Does he do everything little kids and tradition say he does? No. Does he live in the North Pole? Its all frozen ice water, no. Therefore, he does not exist.

But God- he has done everything the prophecies have said he will, and that is the difference.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 05:17:34 PM

Ed Gruberman: "When I was eleven I was given a book called "Album Of Dinosaurs", published in 1971 by Rand McNally. It was a kids book, but was fairly up to date on the major scientific ideas about dinosaurs of the day. Over the years many of the theories that were used in writing the book have been overturned as new evidence has come to light. Today nearly 75% of the text in the book is dead wrong. We now know that Apatosaurus (and no, Firefox spell check, "Brontosaurus" is NOT the correct spelling, you asshat) did not eat clams as was thought it might back in 1971, among other errors.

I still have this book. Even with all of its errors. I keep it to remind me that everything I know could be proven wrong at any time. I keep it to keep my mind open. (That doesn't mean I'm going to keep my mind so open that my brains leak out of my ears however.)"

Ah, but apatosaurs never having eaten clams is a pretty small error wouldn't you say? At least compared to the sorts of errors science made when it was young. That is the point I had hoped to make to Accent. Science can and will err on occasion, but there are nonetheless things which are so thoroughly proven that we can safely conclude that they are true.

Clan Xpy

2009-07-02 05:19:50 PM

Zamboro: Clan Xpy: "Elitism is what turned atheism into a religion, after all."

Boy I hope you've never mocked a creationist. That'd make evolution a religion by your metric, would it not?

Yeah if said person holds it as their personal truth. It's just one of those things people do. Like Fox Mulder from X Files had "The Truth" or House had cynicism. Same applies to real life. At least that is my observation. This will just turn into a semantics argument by the way.

Rockstone

2009-07-02 05:21:32 PM

Zamboro: Ed Gruberman: "When I was eleven I was given a book called "Album Of Dinosaurs", published in 1971 by Rand McNally. It was a kids book, but was fairly up to date on the major scientific ideas about dinosaurs of the day. Over the years many of the theories that were used in writing the book have been overturned as new evidence has come to light. Today nearly 75% of the text in the book is dead wrong. We now know that Apatosaurus (and no, Firefox spell check, "Brontosaurus" is NOT the correct spelling, you asshat) did not eat clams as was thought it might back in 1971, among other errors.

I still have this book. Even with all of its errors. I keep it to remind me that everything I know could be proven wrong at any time. I keep it to keep my mind open. (That doesn't mean I'm going to keep my mind so open that my brains leak out of my ears however.)"

Ah, but apatosaurs never having eaten clams is a pretty small error wouldn't you say? At least compared to the sorts of errors science made when it was young. That is the point I had hoped to make to Accent. Science can and will err on occasion, but there are nonetheless things which are so thoroughly proven that we can safely conclude that they are true.

Technically, we can't prove that we are alive, that we were ever born, or hell- that anything exists. I could be imagining you guys right now, in a lucid dream or a plane, but I somehow doubt it.

We could be at the bottom of the ocean, amphibious blobs that perceive everything as we do. Or we could be in the matrix.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 05:21:35 PM

Rockstone: "It is very easy to disprove Santa's Existence entirely, but impossible to do that with god."

Not so.

Rockstone: "Any evidence we have shows that god does exist."

Then why is his existence not regarded as scientific fact? If what you say is true it should be an easy task to prove God's existence formally, through the proper channels and settle the question once and for all.

Rockstone: "Anyway- how do you prove Santa Doesn't exist? Does he do everything little kids and tradition say he does? No. Does he live in the North Pole? Its all frozen ice water, no. Therefore, he does not exist."

Not so fast. Supposing he does all those things, but imperceptibly? Supposing his North Pole base is invisible and intangible, or that those portions of Christmas Scripture were metaphorical and his workshop resides in another dimension? Presto, you haven't disproven the existence of Santa.

Rockstone: "But God- he has done everything the prophecies have said he will, and that is the difference."

A great deal was done in the New Testament "so that the prophecies could be fulfilled". That exact phrasing. Setting out to do things in order to fulfill prophecies does not make those prophecies legitimate.

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 05:22:13 PM

Zamboro: Both Santa and God are impossible in principle to absolutely disprove. The matter we've been debating is whether or not we can reasonably conclude something doesn't exist in spite of the impossibility of absolutely proving that it doesn't.

That applies to everything ever. I cannot prove there isn't a lizard in my pocket right now. If i check my pockets, that will only prove there isn't a lizard there when i check. it won't prove it wasn't there before I checked.

I wish i'd known that's what we were debating. Coulda saved me a couple of hours.

JWideman

2009-07-02 05:22:36 PM

Rockstone:
But God- he has done everything the prophecies have said he will, and that is the difference.

images1.fanpop.com

Clan Xpy

2009-07-02 05:22:45 PM

Clan Xpy: Zamboro: Clan Xpy: "Elitism is what turned atheism into a religion, after all."

Boy I hope you've never mocked a creationist. That'd make evolution a religion by your metric, would it not?

Yeah if said person holds it as their personal truth. It's just one of those things people do. Like Fox Mulder from X Files had "The Truth" or House had cynicism. Same applies to real life. At least that is my observation. This will just turn into a semantics argument by the way.

In Addition: Some people use a scientific fact. Others grab a specific philosophy, and even more grab their truths from a traditional faith. Either three of these things becomes one's religion. It's just a matter of whether you wanna be fanatical based on faith, science, or ideology.

Rockstone

2009-07-02 05:23:31 PM

Rockstone: Zamboro: Ed Gruberman: "When I was eleven I was given a book called "Album Of Dinosaurs", published in 1971 by Rand McNally. It was a kids book, but was fairly up to date on the major scientific ideas about dinosaurs of the day. Over the years many of the theories that were used in writing the book have been overturned as new evidence has come to light. Today nearly 75% of the text in the book is dead wrong. We now know that Apatosaurus (and no, Firefox spell check, "Brontosaurus" is NOT the correct spelling, you asshat) did not eat clams as was thought it might back in 1971, among other errors.

I still have this book. Even with all of its errors. I keep it to remind me that everything I know could be proven wrong at any time. I keep it to keep my mind open. (That doesn't mean I'm going to keep my mind so open that my brains leak out of my ears however.)"

Ah, but apatosaurs never having eaten clams is a pretty small error wouldn't you say? At least compared to the sorts of errors science made when it was young. That is the point I had hoped to make to Accent. Science can and will err on occasion, but there are nonetheless things which are so thoroughly proven that we can safely conclude that they are true.

Technically, we can't prove that we are alive, that we were ever born, or hell- that anything exists. I could be imagining you guys right now, in a lucid dream or a plane, but I somehow doubt it.

We could be at the bottom of the ocean, amphibious blobs that perceive everything as we do. Or we could be in the matrix.

But, Judging from what we know- we can conclude that god exists.

/I might turn this into a philosophical argument, fun.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 05:24:22 PM

Rockstone: "Technically, we can't prove that we are alive, that we were ever born, or hell- that anything exists. I could be imagining you guys right now, in a lucid dream or a plane, but I somehow doubt it.

We could be at the bottom of the ocean, amphibious blobs that perceive everything as we do. Or we could be in the matrix."

That's why the foundational axioms of science and logic exist. Even if we exist inside some sort of illusory simulation, it allows us to pin down and examine the properties of that simulation and build up a knowledge base about it. The discovery that we're all living in such a simulation wouldn't invalidate the discoveries of science, merely change their context from "here's everything we understand about the universe" to "here's everything we understand about the simulation".

Besides which, solipsism is the refuge of the guy who knows his position is untenable in light of the evidence.

DeanMoriarty

2009-07-02 05:24:40 PM

Rockstone: Any evidence we have shows that god does exist.

he hee. This thread would have been more fun if you were here an hour ago.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 05:25:31 PM

Rockstone: "But, Judging from what we know- we can conclude that god exists."

You could, but that conclusion would not be supported by the evidence. Most scientists are atheists precisely because the totality of presently available evidence points to a godless universe.

Rockstone

2009-07-02 05:25:56 PM

Zamboro: Rockstone:
Not so fast. Supposing he does all those things, but imperceptibly? Supposing his North Pole base is invisible and intangible, or that those portions of Christmas Scripture were metaphorical and his workshop resides in another dimension? Presto, you haven't disproven the existence of Santa.
.

You can trace the origin of products from the industrial factory in China to the USA- when you do that, you disprove Santa's existence.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 05:30:03 PM

Clan Xpy: "In Addition: Some people use a scientific fact. Others grab a specific philosophy, and even more grab their truths from a traditional faith. Either three of these things becomes one's religion. It's just a matter of whether you wanna be fanatical based on faith, science, or ideology."

I suppose my objection would be that you're equivocating, attempting to simplify a very complex issue by treating a number of very different things as being the same.

You regard scientific fact as fact just as I do, because science is how we know things. If there were some other way that worked, we'd be using it right now. I know it goes against your sense of fairness to suppose that there's only one way of getting at truth, but all I need to do is challenge you to provide some other methodology which is as effective as science at separating fact from fiction. If there is such an alternative, name it.

If I am emphatic that we live on a (more or less) round planet, has it become a religion for me? If I insist that life evolved, is it a religion?

Doesn't the word "religion" have a more specific definition than that?

Rockstone

2009-07-02 05:30:56 PM

Zamboro: Rockstone: "But, Judging from what we know- we can conclude that god exists."

You could, but that conclusion would not be supported by the evidence. Most scientists are atheists precisely because the totality of presently available evidence points to a godless universe.

Yet, evidence can't prove everything, there is some stuff in Science that will never be solved, and some stuff in science that will always contradict what we know is fact. That means, that either we are so stupid we can't solve it, or (and far more likely) god Exists.

One thing I hope a lot agree with me on though- is that "You shouldn't adjust Science to your Religious beliefs, But Adjust Religious beliefs to science". That is why, I believe that the Big Bang occurred and Evolution exists, yet also believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 05:33:27 PM

Rockstone: "You can trace the origin of products from the industrial factory in China to the USA- when you do that, you disprove Santa's existence."

Ah, but Santa magically changes the labels when he delivers them! :-)

So long as we're evaluating the reality of elusive beings by scrutinizing what they give us, are you aware of prayer studies? Where they research what effect prayer actually has on recovering patients? Would you care to speculate on the results before I reveal them to you....?

Would you say, for instance, that the fact that God has never answered an amputee's prayer for a new limb is proof that God does not exist?

Rockstone

2009-07-02 05:34:12 PM

jso2897

2009-07-02 05:34:22 PM

Rockstone: Zamboro: Rockstone:
Not so fast. Supposing he does all those things, but imperceptibly? Supposing his North Pole base is invisible and intangible, or that those portions of Christmas Scripture were metaphorical and his workshop resides in another dimension? Presto, you haven't disproven the existence of Santa.
.

You can trace the origin of products from the industrial factory in China to the USA- when you do that, you disprove Santa's existence.

Oh come now. We are talking about a virtually omnipotent being - one who is capable of delivering gifts to a planet of six billion people in a single evening. Santa merely creates false evidence to make it APPEAR that his toys come from Chinese sweatshops, because, in his infinite modesty, he wants to share the credit for his largesse with humanity at large. It is not for mere mortal man to understand the workings of Santa.

I drunk what

2009-07-02 05:35:21 PM

DeanMoriarty: no, you have that entirely wrong

I still like my version better :P

/of course if it really bothers you
//you can always
///kiss my grits
//that means I don't wanna argue about it anymore...

Rockstone

2009-07-02 05:35:47 PM

Zamboro: Rockstone: "You can trace the origin of products from the industrial factory in China to the USA- when you do that, you disprove Santa's existence."

Ah, but Santa magically changes the labels when he delivers them! :-)

So long as we're evaluating the reality of elusive beings by scrutinizing what they give us, are you aware of prayer studies? Where they research what effect prayer actually has on recovering patients? Would you care to speculate on the results before I reveal them to you....?

Would you say, for instance, that the fact that God has never answered an amputee's prayer for a new limb is proof that God does not exist?

My Speculation is that those who pray have a much higher chance to get better. Give me the statistics.

jso2897

2009-07-02 05:35:58 PM

Zamboro: Rockstone: "You can trace the origin of products from the industrial factory in China to the USA- when you do that, you disprove Santa's existence."

Ah, but Santa magically changes the labels when he delivers them! :-)

So long as we're evaluating the reality of elusive beings by scrutinizing what they give us, are you aware of prayer studies? Where they research what effect prayer actually has on recovering patients? Would you care to speculate on the results before I reveal them to you....?

Would you say, for instance, that the fact that God has never answered an amputee's prayer for a new limb is proof that God does not exist?

Hey, god answers all prayers. It's just that the answer is always "no".

Zamboro

2009-07-02 05:37:30 PM

Rockstone: "Yet, evidence can't prove everything, there is some stuff in Science that will never be solved, and some stuff in science that will always contradict what we know is fact."

It's true, science can't explain everything. But it's the only thing that can explain anything.

Rockstone: "That means, that either we are so stupid we can't solve it, or (and far more likely) god Exists."

There was a time when electricity was beyond our ability to understand. And microorganisms as the cause of diseases we were dying from en masse. But those impasses didn't last forever, we eventually built up the knowledge base necessary to unlock their secrets.

I'd also like to know how you figure that our inability to explain everything right now proves that god exists.

Rockstone: "One thing I hope a lot agree with me on though- is that "You shouldn't adjust Science to your Religious beliefs, But Adjust Religious beliefs to science". That is why, I believe that the Big Bang occurred and Evolution exists, yet also believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit."

Yes, just like many Hindus believe that the big bang occurred and evolution exists, but they also believe in Vishnu, Brahma, Ganesh and the rest of their gods. Do you think that their gods exist? If not, how is your god any more credible than theirs? They think you're just as wrong, after all.

Rockstone

2009-07-02 05:39:42 PM

Zamboro: Rockstone: "Yet, evidence can't prove everything, there is some stuff in Science that will never be solved, and some stuff in science that will always contradict what we know is fact."

It's true, science can't explain everything. But it's the only thing that can explain anything.

Rockstone: "That means, that either we are so stupid we can't solve it, or (and far more likely) god Exists."

There was a time when electricity was beyond our ability to understand. And microorganisms as the cause of diseases we were dying from en masse. But those impasses didn't last forever, we eventually built up the knowledge base necessary to unlock their secrets.

I'd also like to know how you figure that our inability to explain everything right now proves that god exists.

Rockstone: "One thing I hope a lot agree with me on though- is that "You shouldn't adjust Science to your Religious beliefs, But Adjust Religious beliefs to science". That is why, I believe that the Big Bang occurred and Evolution exists, yet also believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit."

Yes, just like many Hindus believe that the big bang occurred and evolution exists, but they also believe in Vishnu, Brahma, Ganesh and the rest of their gods. Do you think that their gods exist? If not, how is your god any more credible than theirs? They think you're just as wrong, after all.

No, I don't think their god exists, but mine is more credible because there is evidence for him.

I drunk what

2009-07-02 05:39:45 PM

Rockstone: A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

would you care to share your religion so I can make fun of it?

Bumshway

2009-07-02 05:40:42 PM

GreenAdder

2009-07-02 05:41:17 PM

What the article stated: People tend to get defensive if their political, ethical, religious, or other views aren't concrete, because they're insecure about them.

What Fark read: Agnostics and Atheists are stupid. Let's have a 700-post flame war.

Rockstone

2009-07-02 05:41:19 PM

I drunk what: Rockstone: A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

would you care to share your religion so I can make fun of it?

If you didn't know I'm Catholic, you must be drunk.

Clan Xpy

2009-07-02 05:41:40 PM

Zamboro: Clan Xpy: "In Addition: Some people use a scientific fact. Others grab a specific philosophy, and even more grab their truths from a traditional faith. Either three of these things becomes one's religion. It's just a matter of whether you wanna be fanatical based on faith, science, or ideology."

I suppose my objection would be that you're equivocating, attempting to simplify a very complex issue by treating a number of very different things as being the same.

You regard scientific fact as fact just as I do, because science is how we know things. If there were some other way that worked, we'd be using it right now. I know it goes against your sense of fairness to suppose that there's only one way of getting at truth, but all I need to do is challenge you to provide some other methodology which is as effective as science at separating fact from fiction. If there is such an alternative, name it.

If I am emphatic that we live on a (more or less) round planet, has it become a religion for me? If I insist that life evolved, is it a religion?

Doesn't the word "religion" have a more specific definition than that?

I specifically use the term personal truth instead. My personal truth can be that My Little Pony figurines come to life at night when I sleep, or it can be something based on scientific fact. Admittedly the word religion applies very abstractly. I was merely trying to impress the idea that any sort of personal truth of a group of people becomes treated like a traditional religion, because of the fervor (for lack of a better word) of the human ego.

I suppose certain ideologies can be treated as fact by the masses. I think that is where atheist and agnostics get their sense of right and wrong from. Ultimately yeah it's subjective. For me it is fact that nothing has an inherent value, but I wouldn't be able to convince a christian or muslim that.

Bumshway

2009-07-02 05:42:15 PM

Zamboro: Rockstone:
Besides which, solipsism is the refuge of the guy who knows his position is untenable in light of the evidence.

Solipsism is not contrary to evidence.

http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/scandal.pdf

(pdf file)

Zamboro

2009-07-02 05:42:15 PM

Rockstone: "My Speculation is that those who pray have a much higher chance to get better. Give me the statistics."

Power of Prayer flunks an Unusual Test ~ MSNBC

Long Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer ~ NY Times

The Deity in the Data ~ Slate

abb3w

2009-07-02 05:44:25 PM

abb3w: If anyone cares, the actual paper is ~~here~~.
servoled: Error - DOI Not Found

Well, it's SUPPOSED to be, dammit!!!

Try here.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 05:44:31 PM

Clan Xpy: "I specifically use the term personal truth instead. My personal truth can be that My Little Pony figurines come to life at night when I sleep, or it can be something based on scientific fact. Admittedly the word religion applies very abstractly. I was merely trying to impress the idea that any sort of personal truth of a group of people becomes treated like a traditional religion, because of the fervor (for lack of a better word) of the human ego.

I suppose certain ideologies can be treated as fact by the masses. I think that is where atheist and agnostics get their sense of right and wrong from. Ultimately yeah it's subjective. For me it is fact that nothing has an inherent value, but I wouldn't be able to convince a christian or muslim that."

That makes more sense I suppose, although I hope we can agree that a great many movements fit that description yet were also vital for social progress. Once you involve enough people it's bound to start looking, walking and quacking like a duck whether it is one or not, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate their cause.

Pengfish

2009-07-02 05:45:42 PM

Golly! Sure is a lot of fuss about the next life going on in this life. Couldn't we all just have a big party until we die from it? Ya know, conga line into the next world.

/Agnostic because religion is boring. Dancing, however, is much fun.

Bumshway

2009-07-02 05:45:59 PM

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."
-Albert Einstein

Thats atheism in a nutshell.

Rockstone

2009-07-02 05:46:33 PM

Zamboro: Rockstone: "My Speculation is that those who pray have a much higher chance to get better. Give me the statistics."

Power of Prayer flunks an Unusual Test ~ MSNBC

Long Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer ~ NY Times

The Deity in the Data ~ Slate

Interesting, but that isn't a scientific test anyway. For one, god assists both spoken and silent intentions. And, we can't read someones mind- who is to say that the family didn't pray for them anyway?

Zamboro

2009-07-02 05:51:27 PM

Rockstone: "Interesting, but that isn't a scientific test anyway."

Ah, exactly as predicted:

Slate article: "If the data had turned out the other way, clerics would be trumpeting the power of prayer on every street corner. Instead, the study's authors and many media outlets are straining to brush off the results. The study "cannot address a large number of religious questions, such as whether God exists, whether God answers intercessory prayers, or whether prayers from one religious group work in the same way as prayers from other groups," the authors shrug.

Bull. If these findings involved any other kind of therapy, doctors would spin hypotheses about the underlying mechanisms and why the treatment failed or backfired. And that's exactly what theologians and scientists are doing as they try to explain away the data. They're implicitly sketching possibilities as to what sort of God could account for the results."

In other words, you're making excuses. Exactly like the ones I've been making for Santa Claus.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 05:53:09 PM

Bumshway: "Thats atheism in a nutshell."

I don't think Einstein meant for that to refer to atheism:

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." ~Albert Einstein

Bumshway

2009-07-02 05:56:49 PM

I didn't say Einstein meant that about atheists specifically. I'm saying that line perfectly applies to most atheists in general.

And Einstein specifically said he wasn't an atheist.

xria

2009-07-02 05:56:50 PM

boredomatwork: Myself being agnostic, I thought it is literally the open-minded view on religion. There may be a supernatural force, or maybe not. I just choose not to pretend I know the answer.

But I guess it is close minded that I assume everyone else is wrong. Except the athiests, who might actually be on to something.

Being agnostic (as relates to theism/atheism/antitheism) wouldn't mean that you assume everyone else is wrong - unless you are assuming that the answer is something no one has ever thought of (which you might call Strong Agnosticism for a laugh) - i.e. it isn't that there is or isn't a god, it is something far different from anything a human being can conceive of.

If you are agnostic normally you would think some group is probably right, but you can't tell which one.

Rockstone

2009-07-02 06:00:01 PM

Zamboro: Rockstone: "Interesting, but that isn't a scientific test anyway."

Ah, exactly as predicted:

Slate article: "If the data had turned out the other way, clerics would be trumpeting the power of prayer on every street corner. Instead, the study's authors and many media outlets are straining to brush off the results. The study "cannot address a large number of religious questions, such as whether God exists, whether God answers intercessory prayers, or whether prayers from one religious group work in the same way as prayers from other groups," the authors shrug.

Bull. If these findings involved any other kind of therapy, doctors would spin hypotheses about the underlying mechanisms and why the treatment failed or backfired. And that's exactly what theologians and scientists are doing as they try to explain away the data. They're implicitly sketching possibilities as to what sort of God could account for the results."

In other words, you're making excuses. Exactly like the ones I've been making for Santa Claus.

Yeah, and if the study had gone the other way Atheists would have done the same- arguing the same points.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 06:00:43 PM

Bumshway: "And Einstein specifically said he wasn't an atheist."

Quote please. Not that I doubt what you've said but because I'm pretty sure I know the one you're talking about and he doesn't affirm any sort of belief in a higher power therein.

So far as I can tell from his writings he was an agnostic who regarded religion as childish and primitive but who played at a religious presentation of science to please a public that was, at one point, hostile to his apparent godlessness (he regularly did receive and reply to angry letters from priests accusing him of undermining peoples' faith)

Cthulhu Theory

2009-07-02 06:02:03 PM

SobrietyFighter: Clan Xpy: omris: CuteAsFark: it's called brain-washing.

We should have a law against that. It's terrible.

For some reason this comment made me daydream about America electing a gerontologist for president. For five seconds, the world felt very cold.

probably from the spray from cthulu cracking a beer.

MMMmmm AmberBock.

/sip

Zamboro

2009-07-02 06:02:43 PM

Rockstone: "Yeah, and if the study had gone the other way Atheists would have done the same- arguing the same points."

But the results weren't indeterminate. They came out as atheists expected.

You didn't answer any other portions of my post, by the way. Why is it that God has never regenerated the lost limb of an amputee? Why is it always things that might've healed on their own, things that the patients were receiving treatment for at the time?

xria

2009-07-02 06:04:05 PM

SobrietyFighter: Zamboro: Accent: "I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information."

Is absolute proof the only kind of "strong information"? How is it that convictions occur in cases where there is no absolute proof that the defendant is guilty?

Moreover, you're likely quite sure Santa doesn't exist. How do you justify that view? You cannot provide absolute proof that he doesn't, so by what means do you determine that Santa's existence is improbable?

if you live in an apartment tower, you know santa don't exist.

So Santa can travel at 50 times the speed of sound delivering 100 million tonnes of goods across the entire world in a single night using magical reindeer that fly. But he can't deal with the lack of a chimney.

abb3w

2009-07-02 06:04:26 PM

filth: I'm merely asserting that the attempt to restrict matters of faith to logical analysis is one of the greatest exercises in missing the point known to man.

img529.imageshack.us

Talon: if we cannot express it in language then it is nonsense

You've not gone far enough into math. About half a dozen major steps after you've gotten א_ω, "express" gets smashed like it was run over by a steamroller, even while sense (in at least a philosophical use) may not have. Admittedly, as a rule all the philosophers except the pure mathematicians have gone "what's the point?" and wandered off by then....

T.rex: i think if someone believes something, it is true (for them).

The question is whether the belief system uses a boolean algebra where TRUE and FALSE are "different" elements, or the trivial algebra on {MU} where NOT MU is MU and thus where MU=TRUE=FALSE.

emkajii: The only valid position to take on the existence of anything is disbelief until satisfactory evidence has been provided for its existence.

img529.imageshack.us

I drunk what

2009-07-02 06:04:50 PM

Rockstone: If you didn't know I'm Catholic, you must be drunk.

oh yeah, i was just in that catholic thread, duh!

/my memory is horrrrible

so I guess you've already witnessed my catholic rantings and don't care to beat that dead horse then?

jso2897

2009-07-02 06:06:35 PM

Zamboro: Bumshway: "And Einstein specifically said he wasn't an atheist."

Quote please. Not that I doubt what you've said but because I'm pretty sure I know the one you're talking about and he doesn't affirm any sort of belief in a higher power therein.

So far as I can tell from his writings he was an agnostic who regarded religion as childish and primitive but who played at a religious presentation of science to please a public that was, at one point, hostile to his apparent godlessness (he regularly did receive and reply to angry letters from priests accusing him of undermining peoples' faith)

At any rate, Einstein was a physicist. He is no more an authority on the existence or nonexistence of deities than my cat Spooky.

Rockstone

2009-07-02 06:06:39 PM

Zamboro: Rockstone: "Yeah, and if the study had gone the other way Atheists would have done the same- arguing the same points."

But the results weren't indeterminate. They came out as atheists expected.

You didn't answer any other portions of my post, by the way. Why is it that God has never regenerated the lost limb of an amputee? Why is it always things that might've healed on their own, things that the patients were receiving treatment for at the time?

But you didn't address my statement, you went around it.

And god has never regenerated the lost limb because we don't know the mind of god to begin with. And it isn't always things that might've healed- all the time you hear of people getting better from things that should have killed them.

Rockstone

2009-07-02 06:08:08 PM

I drunk what: Rockstone: If you didn't know I'm Catholic, you must be drunk.

oh yeah, i was just in that catholic thread, duh!

/my memory is horrrrible

so I guess you've already witnessed my catholic rantings and don't care to beat that dead horse then?

Not if I can avoid it.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 06:09:28 PM

abb3w: I don't think the last one was wharrgarbl. A proclamation of certainty that something does not exist if it has not yet been proven to would be outright scientism, but to meet someone's suggestion that something exists with a "what good reason is there to suppose that it does?" is not. Coming to a tenative negative conclusion is a way of reigning in speculation, pruning the tendrils of wishful thinking so that we do not assume more than we can know at any given point in time.

Does that make any sense? It would be way easier to visualize this in Maya. :-\

Cthulhu Theory

2009-07-02 06:11:43 PM

Zamboro

2009-07-02 06:13:21 PM

Rockstone: "But you didn't address my statement, you went around it."

How so?

Rockstone: "And god has never regenerated the lost limb because we don't know the mind of god to begin with."

If there is a mind of god in the first place and if indeed we cannot know it, that does not in itself constitute an explanation of why god has never healed an amputee. At best it's an assertion that the answer cannot be known, which I'd agree with while also pointing out that the unwillingness to heal amputees (in spite of allegedly healing other types of afflictions) raises some troublesome questions about your god.

Rockstone: "And it isn't always things that might've healed- all the time you hear of people getting better from things that should have killed them."

Examples, please.

xria

2009-07-02 06:14:17 PM

lordargent: I drunk what

You need to add some more parameters.

For example, what about the people that aren't sure god exists, but if he does exist, he's a bit of an asshole and isn't worthy of worship.

Or the people who aren't sure god exists, but worship him "just incase".

etc

So the people that aren't sure that gods exists but think he is an asshole have assumed that only the Christian god is possible then?

jso2897

2009-07-02 06:14:40 PM

Rockstone: Zamboro: Rockstone: "Yeah, and if the study had gone the other way Atheists would have done the same- arguing the same points."

But the results weren't indeterminate. They came out as atheists expected.

You didn't answer any other portions of my post, by the way. Why is it that God has never regenerated the lost limb of an amputee? Why is it always things that might've healed on their own, things that the patients were receiving treatment for at the time?

But you didn't address my statement, you went around it.

And god has never regenerated the lost limb because we don't know the mind of god to begin with. And it isn't always things that might've healed- all the time you hear of people getting better from things that should have killed them.

Wait a minute. God has never regenerated a lost limb because we don't know the mind of god to begin with?
I fail to see the slightest logical link between those two concepts.
Let alone a causative relationship.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 06:14:49 PM

jso2897: "At any rate, Einstein was a physicist. He is no more an authority on the existence or nonexistence of deities than my cat Spooky."

I think physicists presently studying the mechanism by which the big bang occurred might have something authoritative to say about a god alleged to have created the universe.

xria

2009-07-02 06:15:24 PM

(I should say Christian/Jewish/Muslim god I guess, but I think that is implied as most of them agree they are worshipping the same god and some of them will kill each other to prove it)

Zamboro

2009-07-02 06:17:00 PM

xria: "So the people that aren't sure that gods exists but think he is an asshole have assumed that only the Christian god is possible then?"

I think it's meant to ask why on earth any person who considers themselves ethical would worship a god who commanded a series of genocides in the books of Joshua and Numbers, and who explicitly permitted slavery. It puts one on the level of a neo-nazi who reveres Hitler.

servoled

2009-07-02 06:18:13 PM

abb3w: Well, it's SUPPOSED to be, dammit!!!

Try here.

That one worked, thanks.

maddogdelta

2009-07-02 06:18:39 PM

Rockstone: Yeah, and if the study had gone the other way Atheists would have done the same- arguing the same points.

"BALLS!" Said the queen, "if I had 'em I'd be king"...

And interesting proposition, that if the study went the other way...

But it didn't, did it? Is there something in those numbers that says god really did help out the people who were prayed for? Any study that shows prayer regrowing limbs?

farkMcFark

2009-07-02 06:19:16 PM

Rockstone:

Transubstantiation is very real.

Tell me about it. My pants are all wet now.

CygnusDarius

2009-07-02 06:20:11 PM

Zamboro

2009-07-02 06:20:46 PM

xria: "but I think that is implied as most of them agree they are worshipping the same god"

Oh ho, no they don't. Ask Tatsuma if he worships the same God as the Christians. Ask any given American Christian whether they worship the same God as the muslims. They often do deny that their gods share common ancestry, as the implications of religious evolution are just as problematic for true believers as biological evolution.

Rockstone

2009-07-02 06:20:58 PM

Zamboro: Rockstone: "But you didn't address my statement, you went around it."

How so?

Rockstone: "And god has never regenerated the lost limb because we don't know the mind of god to begin with."

If there is a mind of god in the first place and if indeed we cannot know it, that does not in itself constitute an explanation of why god has never healed an amputee. At best it's an assertion that the answer cannot be known, which I'd agree with while also pointing out that the unwillingness to heal amputees (in spite of allegedly healing other types of afflictions) raises some troublesome questions about your god.

Rockstone: "And it isn't always things that might've healed- all the time you hear of people getting better from things that should have killed them."

Examples, please.

1. "They came out as atheists expected." So if the results had come out the other way- you would have been making excuses too.

2. God has however: Cured the blind

3. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-08-29-rabies-survivor_N.htm;

rocketpants

2009-07-02 06:21:51 PM

Whether God exists or not, religion is still for farktards.

Rockstone

2009-07-02 06:22:29 PM

maddogdelta

2009-07-02 06:23:28 PM

Rockstone: And god has never regenerated the lost limb because we don't know the mind of god to begin with.

Actually, according to this book ^{(^)}, we do...

Matthew 7:7-11
Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Matthew 17:20
For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

Matthew 21:21
I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

Mark 11:24
Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

John 14:12-14
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.

Matthew 18:19
Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them

TheRealJC

2009-07-02 06:23:51 PM

I don't see any sources nor do I see any relevant "studies". Who conducted them?

How was this article allowed to be published?

jso2897

2009-07-02 06:26:33 PM

Zamboro: jso2897: "At any rate, Einstein was a physicist. He is no more an authority on the existence or nonexistence of deities than my cat Spooky."

I think physicists presently studying the mechanism by which the big bang occurred might have something authoritative to say about a god alleged to have created the universe.

I don't see how. "God", as posited by those who believe in him, is essentially an airtight theory - his alleged omnipotence trumps the existence or non-existence of any supporting evidence. Once you have accepted the existence of an omnipotent being, ANY fact you may determine can be construed as evidence of it's existence. Note, for instance, the frequent employment of the "accuracy" of prophesies - in which the fact that it is possible for human beings to make reasonably accurate, if broad and generalized, predictions of human events is construed as "evidence" of god's existence. If you accept the premise that a being created our universe, then anything within that universe can be cited as "evidence" of that being's existence.
Sorry, pal - it's turtles all the way down.

Ncoded

2009-07-02 06:26:46 PM

I don't know if I believe that

Ant

2009-07-02 06:26:58 PM

Hey, my random work playlist just started playing Dear God by XTC while I was reading this thread. It's a miracle!

xria

2009-07-02 06:26:59 PM

Zamboro: xria: "but I think that is implied as most of them agree they are worshipping the same god"

Oh ho, no they don't. Ask Tatsuma if he worships the same God as the Christians. Ask any given American Christian whether they worship the same God as the muslims. They often do deny that their gods share common ancestry, as the implications of religious evolution are just as problematic for true believers as biological evolution.

Except the two later religions self-defined themselves as worshipping the same god as the Jews, so the Jews have no say in it. They can all argue that the way people in the other two religions (or sects within any of the three) are worshipping/acting isn't doing them any good (and no doubt plenty of them do it very frequently), but that is something else entirely.

And I wouldn't ask Tatsuma anything, as I won't be able to see his answer so it would be fairly pointless.

nmathew01

2009-07-02 06:27:24 PM

Rockstone: If they deny that, then that's really sad. I take pride in knowing that half of the world's population believes in my god, the Abrahamic God.

I'm a bit confused by this. Muslims deny the divinity of Jesus and the existence of the Trinity, but Catholics worship the same deity as Muslims?

There is a clear and easy to follow historical linking, but no longer agree with the argument that Jews, Christians and Muslims actually worship the same deity.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 06:27:51 PM

Rockstone: "So if the results had come out the other way- you would have been making excuses too."

I don't need to. Once again, the evidence has favored atheism.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 06:30:13 PM

xria: "Except the two later religions self-defined themselves as worshipping the same god as the Jews, so the Jews have no say in it. They can all argue that the way people in the other two religions (or sects within any of the three) are worshipping/acting isn't doing them any good (and no doubt plenty of them do it very frequently), but that is something else entirely."

Don't get me wrong, I agree. I'm just repeating what I've heard in threads where it came up. No matter how concretely you demonstrate that Christianity and Islam share common descent, the Christian who denies it will persist in denying it as he cannot bear for it to be true. That attitude is, after all, the essence of religion.

jso2897

2009-07-02 06:30:46 PM

Rockstone: Zamboro: xria: "but I think that is implied as most of them agree they are worshipping the same god"

Oh ho, no they don't. Ask Tatsuma if he worships the same God as the Christians. Ask any given American Christian whether they worship the same God as the muslims. They often do deny that their gods share common ancestry, as the implications of religious evolution are just as problematic for true believers as biological evolution.

If they deny that, then that's really sad. I take pride in knowing that half of the world's population believes in my god, the Abrahamic God.

Half the world's population are of below-average intelligence.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 06:34:10 PM

Rockstone: I have reviewed your link and I see nothing miraculous. While rabies is typically lethal, so is AIDs, and yet it has been discovered recently that there exist a handful of individuals worldwide with an immunity. That's how we have historically overcome diseases; large portions of the global population died out and those with an immunity survived to spread their genes to future generations.

I also specified that your example should not include anyone who received medical care:

The Article: "In a desperate attempt to save her, Wisconsin doctors intentionally put her in a coma and gave her a slew of antiviral drugs and other medications to prevent a cascade of events that causes nerve cells to die. She spent two months in intensive care before returning home on New Year's Day, 2005."

Rockstone

2009-07-02 06:36:26 PM

Zamboro: Rockstone: I have reviewed your link and I see nothing miraculous. While rabies is typically lethal, so is AIDs, and yet it has been discovered recently that there exist a handful of individuals worldwide with an immunity. That's how we have historically overcome diseases; large portions of the global population died out and those with an immunity survived to spread their genes to future generations.

I also specified that your example should not include anyone who received medical care:

The Article: "In a desperate attempt to save her, Wisconsin doctors intentionally put her in a coma and gave her a slew of antiviral drugs and other medications to prevent a cascade of events that causes nerve cells to die. She spent two months in intensive care before returning home on New Year's Day, 2005."

But even with all of that, she probably wouldn't have lived.

Rockstone

2009-07-02 06:37:56 PM

Zamboro: xria: "Except the two later religions self-defined themselves as worshipping the same god as the Jews, so the Jews have no say in it. They can all argue that the way people in the other two religions (or sects within any of the three) are worshipping/acting isn't doing them any good (and no doubt plenty of them do it very frequently), but that is something else entirely."

Don't get me wrong, I agree. I'm just repeating what I've heard in threads where it came up. No matter how concretely you demonstrate that Christianity and Islam share common descent, the Christian who denies it will persist in denying it as he cannot bear for it to be true. That attitude is, after all, the essence of religion.

I am Christian, and I acknowledge it.

Zamboro

2009-07-02 06:41:59 PM

Rockstone: "But even with all of that, she probably wouldn't have lived."

I presume this is your expert medical opinion....?

Rockstone: "I am a Christian, and I acknowledge it."

If you wanna pay for my plane ticket I can come over and give you a pat on the back.

erikike

2009-07-02 06:42:24 PM

jso2897

2009-07-02 06:43:03 PM

Rockstone: Zamboro: Rockstone: I have reviewed your link and I see nothing miraculous. While rabies is typically lethal, so is AIDs, and yet it has been discovered recently that there exist a handful of individuals worldwide with an immunity. That's how we have historically overcome diseases; large portions of the global population died out and those with an immunity survived to spread their genes to future generations.

I also specified that your example should not include anyone who received medical care:

The Article: "In a desperate attempt to save her, Wisconsin doctors intentionally put her in a coma and gave her a slew of antiviral drugs and other medications to prevent a cascade of events that causes nerve cells to die. She spent two months in intensive care before returning home on New Year's Day, 2005."

But even with all of that, she probably wouldn't have lived.

The fact that sometimes people who are very ill get well again is evidence that sometimes people who are very ill get well again. I see no evidentiary link to anything else here. Of course, you can construe any fact as evidence of anything you wish - but if you can't establish any positive link between the two, it's only "evidence" in your own mind.

abb3w

2009-07-02 06:47:16 PM

Blind_Io: The problem is that, for many, disbelief in X means the same as belief in the non-existence of X.

Depends whether you're taking "belief" in the Gnostic sense of absolute certainty, or merely a "hold is most probable" sense.

vertiaset: Atheists share a common world view and a common set of beliefs.

However, you fail to identify any of those which are foundational, and fail to distinguish between provisional probabilistic and philosophical absolute inferences; all those you note are Inferences under more basic premises. EG, the belief that the universe "just happened" is a provisional probable, the belief that the universe IS is the philosophical absolute used as a starting point.

And, of course, some of your claims are just plain wrong.

vertiaset: This answer is far simpler and more elegant than the random bumping of atoms over a few billion years.

Not in the formal sense of "Simpler", no.

Formally, simpler doesn't mean how many steps it takes to understand the implications; it just means how simple the starting rules are that allow you to differentiate what-is from what-isn't.

vertiaset: It offers no ethical or moral grounding.

Incorrect; morality and ethics both eventually shows up as a by-product of information theory.

proMidget: -God is the decider and that is the whole point

img529.imageshack.us

Tartha De Tear: To answer this question, you'll need currently non-existent solid ground in ethics, meta-ethics, epistemology, semantics, theory of language, philosophy of science, and metaphysics.

Actually, a few bits of trivial math and a bit of statistical mechanics get you that. Would you like a balloon as well?

img359.imageshack.us

vertiaset: How can I "know" anything beyond this limited sensory experience which may or may not be dependable?

Do you really want the math for the answer, or would you rather continue misstating the positions of others?

GilRuiz1

2009-07-02 06:48:35 PM

Zamboro: I think physicists presently studying the mechanism by which the big bang occurred might have something authoritative to say about a god alleged to have created the universe.

Likes the cut of your jib:

outreach.atnf.csiro.au

Tawnos

2009-07-02 06:54:04 PM

Cthulhu Theory

2009-07-02 06:57:33 PM

CygnusDarius: Cthulhu Theory: Pshhhh everyone knows all the religions are wrong! God is WATER people! Think about it! It gives us life!

The holy trinity existing as one supreme entity? 2 Hydrogen atoms (The holy ghost, and the father) and 1 oxygen (the son - which is a byprodct of fusion reactions in the sun, which existed after hydrogen, which, notably, the son was theorized 200 yrs after Jesus' time) all composing the singular molecule that makes life as we know it possible. Water!

Now keep in mind the concepts of god were theorized long before the idea that the world was round or that the earth revolved around the sun let alone that it was simply a giant ball of burning gas.

In the beginning there was "god" - in the beginning there was water.

God works in "mysterious ways" - the physics of water is still something only vaguely understood.

You can feel his spirit, but you can't see god - You can touch water but pure water is clear and if something is truly clear then you can't really see it now can you? And for those of you about to argue that pure water is blue, it takes a significantly large amount of water to produce blue, consider your interactions with water on a day to day basis. The water you drink is clear in your glass, the water that comes out of your shower and faucets is clear. The only reason you can even see it is because it's directly interacting with the things around it like air (which incidentally carries water in it).

God is in us - about 70% of the bodies cells are made of H2O (which should be similar to the single-celled organism that science theorized was the start of life as we know it).

But God is perfect! - If you believe this then you haven't read the bible. Also, even drinkably "pure" (synonymous for perfect) water has contaminants.

God is about peace - Water always follows the path of least resistance

God is vengeful - Hurricane Katrina anyone? What happened to the levies? What happened to that New Orleans? Anyone recall that tidal wave in the indian ocean? Yeah, the water was disturbed and wreaked havoc in response.

God is omnipotent - Water can cut steel, shape stone, give life, provide energy and destroy. I'd say that covers a lot of the bases of omnipotence.

Omnipresence? Yeah water is found all over the solar system and traces of water are found throughout our galaxy.

Should I go on?

So... Does that mean God is in the Beer?.

/Communion time!

Why yes, yes it does! Sweet delicious God!

Also it means that "he's" in your ... how to put this delicately so as not to offend... "he" is also in anything you've put in the toilet as a byproduct of your various bodily functions.

/hopes that was roundabout but descriptive enough

krambrain

2009-07-02 07:04:56 PM

Robert Anton Wilson - Maybe Logic

//check it out
///just because

CygnusDarius

2009-07-02 07:05:48 PM

Cthulhu Theory: Why yes, yes it does! Sweet delicious God!

Also it means that "he's" in your ... how to put this delicately so as not to offend... "he" is also in anything you've put in the toilet as a byproduct of your various bodily functions.

/hopes that was roundabout but descriptive enough

Well that makes 'holy shiat' more interesting.

CygnusDarius

2009-07-02 07:06:23 PM

krambrain: Robert Anton Wilson - Maybe Logic

//check it out
///just because

Maybe.

I drunk what

2009-07-02 07:07:12 PM

Rockstone: Not if I can avoid it.

i'll wait until the thread dies a bit

/after the cabal runs its cycle

abb3w

2009-07-02 07:12:47 PM

Accent: You cannot prove it either way.

img91.imageshack.us

Zamboro: I don't think the last one was wharrgarbl.

Either do I. There are four options; I just want 'em to start explicitly picking one. I don't particularly care which.

Plus, I'm having fun with the new toy. When you have a shiny new hammer, a lot of things look like they need pounding. =)

cthellis: What about lizard and Spock?

Look it up yerself.

Rockstone: But, Judging from what we know- we can conclude that god exists.

img529.imageshack.us

Rockstone: some stuff in science that will always contradict what we know is fact

imgs.xkcd.com

cthellis

2009-07-02 07:16:38 PM

Rockstone: You can trace the origin of products from the industrial factory in China to the USA- when you do that, you disprove Santa's existence.

Santa has his elves put those stickers on to confuse people. He doesn't want nosy kids poking around where they don't belong.

I drunk what

2009-07-02 07:19:20 PM

abb3w: Would you like a balloon as well?

I'd like one! and a basket of apples...

[clippy]

(b) As an inference...

maddogdelta

2009-07-02 07:23:04 PM

Rockstone: and some stuff in science that will always contradict what we know is fact

I don't suppose you could provide an example of that, could you?

I drunk what: [clippy]

(b) As an inference...

i150.photobucket.com

Sev79

2009-07-02 07:24:49 PM

Agnostics are not uncertain of their opinion on whether God exists, they are certain that neither you nor I has any way of knowing the answer to that question in the first place, so fark it, there's nothing wrong with a good old honest "I don't know." They are, in fact, quite certain that "I don't know" is the best answer, since neither side can prove or disprove the other. Most agnostics lean one way or the other, but they do not feel a need to stamp that opinion with false certainty.

Certainty in an unknowable answer may be comforting, but it's not sane, and it's really farking annoying.

I drunk what

2009-07-02 07:25:38 PM

Zamboro: [random quote picked to make a point]

there is a reason why most farker's quotes appear blue

/link your farkin' quotes!!!1!
//scrolls to find quote
///*scroll scroll*
// -.-

erikike

2009-07-02 07:27:36 PM

erikike: Rockstone: CrankMyBlueSax: Rockstone: Its confusing, I know- but read up on Transubstantiation if you want to know more.

Yeah, I dunno. When it comes to magic, JK Rowling is a lot more fun to read.

Except, you know- transubstantiation is not magic.

HAHAHAHAHA No no not at all. Its nothing like magic. Turning wine to blood and bread to flesh its totally scientific and stuff.

This reminds me of when I was a kid and lived on an Army base. There was just the one chapel that all the denominations shared.

Well there was this pantry that was full of these great crackers. I eat them all the time. The were yummy and just melted in your mouth.
It wasn't until years later that I learned that they were Catholic communion wafers.

I drunk what

2009-07-02 07:28:48 PM

xria: as I won't be able to see his answer

you got him on ignore? why?

spamdog

2009-07-02 07:32:32 PM

Sev79: They are, in fact, quite certain that "I don't know" is the best answer

But....how can you be so certain? ;)

I drunk what

2009-07-02 07:33:00 PM

Rockstone: I am Christian

what is your definition of a "Christian" ?

/this is to warm up for the discussion later

maddogdelta

2009-07-02 07:33:18 PM

erikike: Well there was this pantry that was full of these great crackers. I eat them all the time. The were yummy and just melted in your mouth.

Yummy? Damn son, you need to have yourself a Ritz or a Triscut if you want yummy crackers..

JQPublic

2009-07-02 07:33:55 PM

The Believer: "Leprechauns exist!"
The Atheist: "Leprechauns do not exist!"
The Agnostic: "I don't know if leprechauns exist or not and neither do you."

bburgis

2009-07-02 07:34:37 PM

If Santa is yer parents, then isn't it just the same thing with this god stuff?

bighasbeen

2009-07-02 07:35:53 PM

CygnusDarius:
So... Does that mean God is in the Beer?.

www.filmdope.com

Aye!

I drunk what

2009-07-02 07:41:02 PM

JQPublic: The Believer: "Leprechauns exist!"
The Atheist: "Leprechauns do not exist!"
The Agnostic: "I don't know if leprechauns exist or not and neither do you."

The Believer: "Gravity exists!"
The Atheist: "Gravity does not exist!"
The Agnostic: "I don't know if Gravity exists or not and neither do you."

/oops did I make a bad analogy?
//how silly of me...

Zamboro

2009-07-02 07:44:49 PM

Oh, and because this guy's either an excellent troll or the stupidest person I've ever seen:

Milkbeer: "Do some in here find it "ironic" that our, as the media professes, completely non-religious scientific community is looking for something called the "God Particle"? Gee. What context would they even begin imagining would relate to such a seriously flawed religous biggotted fundie viewpoint such as their being a GAWDBEJEEBUS? Scientists must TEH RIGHT WHINGE NUT JOBZERS!"

The 'god particle' was originally named "The goddamned particle" because of the difficulty physicists were having in finding it. It was renamed for appropriateness. I can provide a link to the interview with the man who named it (in which he confirms what I've said) if you doubt this explanation.

If I were to name a particle "The Ganesh particle", would it suggest to you that the Hindu god Ganesh actually exists? Is that how your thought process goes? Honestly?

abb3w

2009-07-02 07:50:10 PM

I drunk what: (b) As an inference...

So, what underlying premises, and how do they enable inference from themselves to this as a conclusion?

bighasbeen

2009-07-02 08:15:05 PM

Zamboro:

If I were to name a particle "The Ganesh particle", would it suggest to you that the Hindu god Ganesh actually exists? Is that how your thought process goes? Honestly?

Well, we were afraid this asteroid was going to hit us, so naturally it was named Apophis, the enemy of Ra, the uncreator in Ancient Egyptian religion, because Apophis is real.

stevedidntgotocollege

2009-07-02 08:20:07 PM

JQPublic: The Believer: "Leprechauns exist!"
The Atheist: "Leprechauns do not exist!"
The Agnostic: "I don't know if leprechauns exist or not and neither do you."

The Agnostic Atheist (Teapot agnostic): "While it is highly improbable that leprechauns do exist due to the lack of concrete evidence, I can't dismiss the possibility that they do exist however slim it may be."

whatshisname

2009-07-02 08:29:37 PM

stevedidntgotocollege: The Believer: "Leprechauns exist!"
The Atheist: "Leprechauns do not exist!"
The Agnostic: "I don't know if leprechauns exist or not and neither do you."

The Atheist: "I have no belief in Leprechauns"

spamdog

2009-07-02 08:32:13 PM

Always this hair-splitting about the definition of atheism.
"God doesn't exist." What's the matter with that? Worried someone's going to come out with a photograph of God one day?

RaisedOnATARI

2009-07-02 08:41:12 PM

I thought W was the decider

Thank God for SobrietyFighter

/sorry I'm late

GreenAdder

2009-07-02 08:43:25 PM

I wants me gold!
/seriously. RTFA. It's about beliefs in general. Not about religion.

whatshisname

2009-07-02 08:48:36 PM

spamdog: Always this hair-splitting about the definition of atheism.
"God doesn't exist." What's the matter with that? Worried someone's going to come out with a photograph of God one day?

God is no more likely to exist than my dog will start speaking in fluent German one day. And God occupies as much of my thoughts and life as my wondering about why my dog does not speak German i.e. so little as to be insignificant.

Man On Pink Corner

2009-07-02 09:16:53 PM

filth: Except I'm not smug, satisfied, or convinced that I'm right. I'm merely asserting that the attempt to restrict matters of faith to logical analysis is one of the greatest exercises in missing the point known to man.

Considering that there's no other kind of analysis that actually works other than logical analysis, I agree, I must be missing the point.

Fuller

2009-07-02 09:24:46 PM

/reads headline, nods and notes complete lack of surprise
//reads number of comments, giggles
///decision made: will not read
////second decision made, will post this comment:

Agnostics are certain that a particular question can never be answered. Yes, this is a close-minded attitude, not to mention a depressingly incurious one.

Fuller

2009-07-02 09:33:09 PM

JQPublic: The Believer: "Leprechauns exist!"
The Atheist: "Leprechauns do not exist!"
The Agnostic: "I don't know if leprechauns exist or not and neither do you."

Damn, I read some and now I'm sucked in. Let me correct this analogy.

The Believer: "Leprechauns exist!"
The Atheist: "There is no evidence that Leprechauns exist nor is there any logical reason to believe that Leprechauns exist. This is why I don't believe in Leprechauns and consider their existence to be highly improbable, but am always open to revision should sufficient evidence present itself."
The Agnostic: "I don't know, you don't know, lets just not think about it anymore and have a big 'I don't know' party in the middle of Misunderstanding Probability Square"

ninjakirby

2009-07-02 09:42:17 PM

Man On Pink Corner: Considering that there's no other kind of analysis that actually works

There is too!

Or three or four or..

Man On Pink Corner

2009-07-02 09:50:59 PM

Do you actually read those from the back cover forwards, or was that photo flipped?

Rockstone

2009-07-02 09:53:04 PM

I drunk what: Rockstone: I am Christian

what is your definition of a "Christian" ?

/this is to warm up for the discussion later

Someone who believe Jesus Christ to be the savior- who died for our sins and rose three days later, ascended into heaven- and is now seated at the right hand of the Father.

I'm Catholic- It doesn't get more Christian than that.

lordargent

2009-07-02 09:54:36 PM

xria: So the people that aren't sure that gods exists but think he is an asshole have assumed that only the Christian god is possible then?

See, you have to take the cartesian product of EVERYTHING.

I mean, what about the people who think god was really just a super powerful alien that seeded the planet?

Or any one of a number of other things from the list of deities.

/------------------------------

The way I see it, people look at the universe and marvel at the complexity, and wonder how such a thing came to be

So they imagine up some god(s) to create it all.

But to me, none of that ever made any sense. You have one thing that's complex that you can't explain the origin of. So you create something else to create that first complex thing.

But at the end of the day, you now you two complex things. The second, which you can't explain the origin of. And the first (the universe), whose origin relies on the 2nd thing.

So then some folks take it a step further, and create a third complex thing to explain the origin of the second complex thing, which was created to explain the origin of the first complex thing (the universe).

And before you have it

"What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!

I can't participate in such a fallacy of logic. And I think, if you can have a deity that "just exists" and didn't need to be created by something else, then why can't you likewise have a universe that "just exists" without having to have a deity to create it?

maddogdelta

2009-07-02 09:59:42 PM

Rockstone: I drunk what: Rockstone: I am Christian

what is your definition of a "Christian" ?

/this is to warm up for the discussion later

Someone who believe Jesus Christ to be the savior- who died for our sins and rose three days later, ascended into heaven- and is now seated at the right hand of the Father.

I'm Catholic- It doesn't get more Christian than that.

I think you will find that IDW's opinion differs from yours, to a fairly large extent.

Rockstone

2009-07-02 10:06:03 PM

maddogdelta: Rockstone: I drunk what: Rockstone: I am Christian

what is your definition of a "Christian" ?

/this is to warm up for the discussion later

Someone who believe Jesus Christ to be the savior- who died for our sins and rose three days later, ascended into heaven- and is now seated at the right hand of the Father.

I'm Catholic- It doesn't get more Christian than that.

I think you will find that IDW's opinion differs from yours, to a fairly large extent.

If he argues this point, I'll easily make him look like a fool, since you know- we were the first and original Christians.

ninjakirby

2009-07-02 10:27:25 PM

Man On Pink Corner: Do you actually read those from the back cover forwards, or was that photo flipped?

Arabic is read right to left, so I assume that's accurate.

Rockstone: I'm Catholic- It doesn't get more Christian than that.

I almost wish I didn't have I drunk what muted so I could read his response to this comment. Hell, I'd pay money to physically be there when he reads it.

Rockstone: If he argues this point, I'll easily make him look like a fool, since you know- we were the first and original Christians.

Hard cash.

*If you're wondering why this is so funny, it's because I drunk what is of the opinion that Catholics are idolatrous satanists who may or may not have purposefully created Islam to beguile sinners and foment war.

maddogdelta

2009-07-02 10:30:11 PM

ninjakirby: I almost wish I didn't have I drunk what muted so I could read his response to this comment. Hell, I'd pay money to physically be there when he reads it.

You could always un-mute just to watch...

ninjakirby

2009-07-02 10:31:37 PM

maddogdelta: You could always un-mute just to watch...

I don't think I have the will-power.

I drunk what

2009-07-02 11:19:47 PM

ninjakirby: Hell, I'd pay money to physically be there when he reads it.

you know Hayward isn't that far from Salinas...

/just sayin'

ninjakirby: I don't think I have the will-power.

I find your willful ignorance disingenuous and I'm tempted to place you on ~~ignore~~ mute...

ninjakirby: it's because I drunk what is of the opinion that Catholics are idolatrous satanists who may or may not

Rule No. 1:

THOU SHALT NOT SPEAK FOR ME

/i've asked you nicely
//please don't make me repeat myself...

Rockstone: I'll easily make him look like a fool

perhaps you should choose your words more carefully, "brother"

Rockstone: since you know- we were the first and original Christians.

perhaps, though I've heard many-o-theories of how it was possible that severe corruption was present, even from the start

does not our very Bible warn us against false prophets-teachers, and something about an apostasy?

nevertheless even in your statement I can agree that "were" could be an accurate description...

(though OMiN has made many valid objections)

btw, from the beginning was there only one group of Christians? and they were catholic right?

Lagrange

2009-07-02 11:27:15 PM

Yawn.

I'm sure it's been said, but I'm ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that there's no way to be sure that God exists.

Accordingly, there's no uncertainty whatsoever with respect to my beliefs, and the submitter is a moron.

I drunk what

2009-07-02 11:36:53 PM

Rockstone: Someone who believe Jesus Christ to be the savior- who died for our sins and rose three days later, ascended into heaven- and is now seated at the right hand of the Father.

so are all of these Christians?: Branch Davidians, Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses...so on and so forth

...and just to humor ninjakirby's troll

if we were able to gain audience with Lucifer, and we were to ask him, does he believe Jesus Christ to be the savior- who died for our sins and rose three days later, ascended into heaven- and is now seated at the right hand of the Father.

what do you suppose his response would be? So is he also a Christian?

it sounds like you are suggesting that any one who simply claims to be a Christian, is ?

I wonder if Jesus had anything to say about this...

csxtrainwreck

2009-07-02 11:46:50 PM

JQPublic: The Believer: "Leprechauns exist!"
The Atheist: "Leprechauns do not exist!"
The Agnostic: "I don't know if leprechauns exist or not and neither do you."

It takes more faith to not believe in leprechauns.

"Leprechauns gave us magic. We chose to be rational because he lets us. Our stupid society is trying to push reason." -Albert Einstein

Tartha De Tear

2009-07-02 11:50:46 PM

abb3w: Tartha De Tear: To answer this question, you'll need currently non-existent solid ground in ethics, meta-ethics, epistemology, semantics, theory of language, philosophy of science, and metaphysics.

Actually, a few bits of trivial math and a bit of statistical mechanics get you that. Would you like a balloon as well?

First off, you missed that I was just being funny. DON'T MISS THE FUNNY.

Second, I'd really like to read the paper to which you refer. I have a substantial background in logic - likely enough to understand the paper to which you point. Is this a Bertrand Russell thing?

I drunk what

2009-07-02 11:51:42 PM

abb3w: So, what underlying premises, and how do they enable inference from themselves to this as a conclusion?

That is an exquisitely cromulent inquiry, that shall require contemplation perhaps even beyond a fortnight or two.

/i'll try to brain and give ya a decent answer
//i actually wondered if you were going to reply

hovsm

2009-07-02 11:53:49 PM

It says people who are less confident in there beliefs subby not people who are unsure of the existence of a diety. Agnostics are pretty confident that they don't know whether or not there is a god. I think they are referring to insecure believers. They argue because they need someone to reassure that they are believing in the right stuff.

I drunk what

2009-07-03 12:01:16 AM

maddogdelta: I think you will find that IDW's opinion differs from yours, to a fairly large extent.

perhaps, but I will try to remain as fair and open-minded as humanly possible...

and I think many here can testify that I speak with no malice and am very sincere

/though I wouldn't poll them for their opinion of my intelligence level
//I'm afraid I haven't impressed them much in that department

CygnusDarius

2009-07-03 12:02:47 AM

I drunk what: JQPublic: The Believer: "Leprechauns exist!"
The Atheist: "Leprechauns do not exist!"
The Agnostic: "I don't know if leprechauns exist or not and neither do you."

The Believer: "Gravity exists!"
The Atheist: "Gravity does not exist!"
The Agnostic: "I don't know if Gravity exists or not and neither do you."

/oops did I make a bad analogy?
//how silly of me...

The Believer: "Zombies exists!" *grabs shotgun*
The Atheist: "Zombies do not exist!" *grabs a copy of World War Z
The Agnostic: "I don't know if Zombies exists or not and nei-- AAGGUUHHH!!! HELP ME!! HEEEEEELL.....Braaaainsss"

ninjakirby

2009-07-03 12:15:40 AM

Lagrange: Accordingly, there's no uncertainty whatsoever with respect to my beliefs, and the submitter is a moron.

No uncertainty eh? Zero? You've checked yourself have you?

LavenderWolf

2009-07-03 12:21:40 AM

devildog123: FlyingPig: This is news? I see self-righteous agnostics on Fark claiming that "Atheists are no different from fundies" all the time.

Not all Atheists, just the ones that are insanely arrogant and obnoxious about it, and believe that they are right, and everyone else is a stupid, ignorant, and wrong. They sound like religious fundies to me.

FTA: Overall, the studies suggested people are about twice as likely to cherry-pick information that supports their own viewpoints than to consider an opposing idea. Nearly 70 percent cherry-picked compared to about 30 percent who ponder the other side.

That sounds like they spent a whole lot of time on the Fark political page. The left wing nuts and the right wing nuts do that all the time.

/agnostic
//Libertarian
///I think I'm more open minded than most of you.

Agnosticism. It's like Atheism, except you get to think you're enlightened.

/you're blind, hypocrite.

CygnusDarius

2009-07-03 12:46:06 AM

I think I'll sum up the thread...

Agnostics:
www.centernegative.com

Atheists:

Religious:
www.licktheballs.com

When they mix together:
motivateurself.files.wordpress.com

SobrietyFighter:
static-p3.fotolia.com

I drunk what

2009-07-03 12:50:58 AM

aww you lost one

CygnusDarius: Agnostics:

try again?

imfallen_angel

2009-07-03 12:51:49 AM

We, I for one find it hilarious to see that Farkers are able to repeat the same driven again and again in these flame wars about the same subject and think that they are doing something worthwhile.

Funny how those that take it seriously doesn't get that:

1) they prove the whole point of "their" side having asshats.

2) they prove that they are clueless but believe that whining about their set of beliefs in a public forum is accomplishing something.

3) they provide entertainment thanks to 1) and 2)

4) they miss out, or can't understand the reality that in the end, there is only one truth.... nobody has all the answers.

CygnusDarius

2009-07-03 12:53:07 AM

I drunk what: aww you lost one

CygnusDarius: Agnostics:

try again?

The whole thread is pointless flaming. I think it's a waste of time to take this thread seriously from the get-go. But, that it's my personal opinion, and you're entitled to yours.

What would've been your interpretation from the agnostics, then?.

Rockstone

2009-07-03 12:56:18 AM

I drunk what: ninjakirby: Hell, I'd pay money to physically be there when he reads it.

you know Hayward isn't that far from Salinas...

/just sayin'

ninjakirby: I don't think I have the will-power.

I find your willful ignorance disingenuous and I'm tempted to place you on ignore mute...

ninjakirby: it's because I drunk what is of the opinion that Catholics are idolatrous satanists who may or may not

Rule No. 1:

THOU SHALT NOT SPEAK FOR ME

/i've asked you nicely
//please don't make me repeat myself...

Rockstone: I'll easily make him look like a fool

perhaps you should choose your words more carefully, "brother"

Rockstone: since you know- we were the first and original Christians.

perhaps, though I've heard many-o-theories of how it was possible that severe corruption was present, even from the start

does not our very Bible warn us against false prophets-teachers, and something about an apostasy?

nevertheless even in your statement I can agree that "were" could be an accurate description...

(though OMiN has made many valid objections)

btw, from the beginning was there only one group of Christians? and they were catholic right?

First of all. Yes, Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church, and they were Catholic. The Church was NEVER corrupt, because god would not allow it. Also, we are the one, True, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Second of all- in my bible it states: "But I tell you, if you call your brother a "Worthless Good For Nothing", you are in danger of entering the fires of hell. And I'm not calling you a fool, I'm making you look like one. There is a difference!

I drunk what

2009-07-03 01:14:16 AM

CygnusDarius: I drunk what: aww you lost one

CygnusDarius: Agnostics:

try again?

The whole thread is pointless flaming. I think it's a waste of time to take this thread seriously from the get-go. But, that it's my personal opinion, and you're entitled to yours.

What would've been your interpretation from the agnostics, then?.

No, dude. I mean you literally lost it, that first pic just says link broken on my computer.

I found the rest to be quite amusing actually ;P

/i was just wondering what the first pic was
//that's all

I drunk what

2009-07-03 01:18:36 AM

imfallen_angel: ... nobody has all the answers.

I do!

what's the question?

/please keep the math to a minimum

CygnusDarius

2009-07-03 01:23:18 AM

I drunk what: No, dude. I mean you literally lost it, that first pic just says link broken on my computer.

I found the rest to be quite amusing actually ;P

/i was just wondering what the first pic was
//that's all

Wharrgarrbll, nothing else.

I drunk what

2009-07-03 01:27:20 AM

Rockstone: The Church was NEVER corrupt

ORLY?

/i'll let you think about that one for a while

Rockstone: Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church

[citation needed]

Rockstone: and they were Catholic.

[ditto]

Rockstone: because god would not allow it

so he temporarily revoked our free will?

[citation needed]

Rockstone: And I'm not calling you a fool, I'm making you look like one.

that remains to be seen

There is a difference!

I'm looking for it...

/does it require an electron-microscope?

I drunk what

2009-07-03 01:29:59 AM

CygnusDarius: Wharrgarrbll, nothing else.

so which one of those are you again?

I drunk what

2009-07-03 01:36:44 AM

maddogdelta: You could always un-mute just to watch...

Quiltedquiche hasn't given him permission...

Rockstone

2009-07-03 01:44:09 AM

I drunk what: Rockstone: The Church was NEVER corrupt

ORLY?

/i'll let you think about that one for a while

Rockstone: Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church

[citation needed]

Rockstone: and they were Catholic.

[ditto]

Rockstone: because god would not allow it

so he temporarily revoked our free will?

[citation needed]

Rockstone: And I'm not calling you a fool, I'm making you look like one.

that remains to be seen

There is a difference!

I'm looking for it...

/does it require an electron-microscope?

In line of apostolic succession, our Catholic lineage is traced back to Peter, one of Jesus Christ's Disciples.

Kliffoth

2009-07-03 01:44:43 AM

Rockstone: First of all. Yes, Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church, and they were Catholic. The Church was NEVER corrupt, because god would not allow it. Also, we are the one, True, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Hahahahaha! Never corrupt...hehe...haha!

If the Catholic Church has never been 'corrupt' in God's eyes then you worship a vile despicable God.

But I knew that already.

/raised Catholic

ninjakirby

2009-07-03 01:57:06 AM

Gawdzila

2009-07-03 02:52:30 AM

devildog123: Not all Atheists, just the ones that are insanely arrogant and obnoxious about it, and believe that they are right, and everyone else is a stupid, ignorant, and wrong. They sound like religious fundies to me.

While I don't really like the attitude either, I think there is a marked difference between "sounding like" a fundie and "being like" a fundie. There is usually a vastly different way that the two of them arrive at their positions, and this is an important characteristic, I think.

Erythros

2009-07-03 03:02:51 AM

T.rex: i disagree entirely.

I'm agnostic BECAUSE i'm open-minded. I fully admit that the belief systems of various people all have some merit that could be helpful to them.

Thus, on that vary token, they are all correct, (but they are also all wrong, if looked at from the point of view of a competing theory).

i think if someone believes something, it is true (for them). Even if someone else thinks the opposite, their beliefs are also true.

Theories by definition are not correct until PROVEN!

You either BELIEVE there is a GOD or you do not based on current knowledge. PICK ONE!!! This doesn't mean you are closed minded and unable to change your mind at a later date.
This makes you a THEIST or an ATHEIST.

As a THEIST, you can belong to a particular religion and be liberal or fundamentalist within your religion.

You can also realize that religion is a man-made entity based on someone's interpretation about their own belief in a GOD.

If you believe in a GOD, but reject organized religion then you are a Religious Skeptic Theist

\Theist
\Religious Skeptic

The disease that has claimed the lives of more people than any other is religion.

belowner

2009-07-03 03:04:40 AM

And since even a slight breeze could flatten a house of cards, the researchers found people with little confidence in their own beliefs are less likely to expose themselves to contrary views compared with their confident counterparts. In fact, another recent study showed that people with stronger party affiliation and greater interest in politics were more likely to read articles with opposing views.

The new study, however, found politics can prompt blinders: People are more reluctant to look at different viewpoints regarding political, religious or ethical values, the studies showed. Specifically, study participants stuck with their own ideas 70 percent of the time when it came to issues of moral values or politics, compared with 60 percent for other issues.

"If you are really committed to your own attitude - for example, if you are a very committed Democrat - you are more likely to seek congenial information, that is, information that corresponds with your views," Albarracin said.

Oh, they've read a Fark political thread.

Gawdzila

2009-07-03 03:09:17 AM

Accent: where does HCl + H2O + NaOH come from

Quantum physics.

Erythros

2009-07-03 03:13:24 AM

Thankfully God created Fark so that we may all have this discussion.....

WayToBlue

2009-07-03 03:29:01 AM

Yup, because nothing says tolerance like religious fanatics.

Good thinking, subby.

BTW, you do know that agnostic does not mean undecided or unsure right? It means it is impossible to prove, and thus unknowable.

Wraithbane

2009-07-03 03:36:10 AM

CrazyCracka420
Weird, every girl I've been with had a much more intense orgasm from vaginal sex, than oral. Sucks for you

I've never seen somebody so openly admit they suck at oral sex.

belowner

2009-07-03 03:39:11 AM

Erythros: The disease that has claimed the lives of more people than any other is religion.

Horseshiat.

The disease that has claimed the lives of more people than any other is malaria or the flu (yeah, by number they beat the bubonic plague), depending on your period of history. The largest culprit, by organized number, is the entire goddamn insect world.

In terms of human causes of death over the whole expanse of our limited history? IT'S JUST US! Not religion, not politics, just "human nature" which is a bullshiat term for "animal response".

Religion probably had a hand in preventing me from bashing your skull in because I thought you said something stupid. Back in the day, I'd kill you and that would be that. Until "we" (royal we - humans) started forming social bonds we didn't have any inherent contract to not do another harm.

Wolves will still kill other wolves if they're pissed off. Gorillas will kill the children of females they want to fark so they have to get pregnant again. We're no better. Actually, we're arguably worse, because we have the talent to mass murder. More importantly, we have the will and the capability. No other mammal does. You have to get down to the insect kingdom to find an example of proper pre-planned genocide outside of humans.

Hell, that you can even post tripe like this:

If you believe in a GOD, but reject organized religion then you are a Religious Skeptic Theist

\Theist
\Religious Skeptic

Is evidence enough that religion has done something for you, because the planet wouldn't be anywhere near organized enough without it. Nor without politics, but that's just a natural extension of religion. And religion is just a natural extension of tribalism, etc., on down the chain to a single family unit.

Religion is just an organizing tool, and a powerful one at that. It isn't necessary, but whatever replaces it will be just as powerful because it fulfills the same need: organization.

ggggbabybabybaby

2009-07-03 03:51:06 AM

Most Humans only think on the individual level. Religion epsecially.

For example, 1 billion people on this planet right now don't have enough food,
they're going hungry/starving/etc..

None of that has anything to do with God. But has everything to do with
economics, government, war, logic, reason, etc..

I'm open to evidence that supports how god is behind world-wide events
such as those. But beyond anecdotal indivual stories like "He helped
me to choose whether to have that operation or not through prayer!",
there's nothing. Because there isn't any evidence that God exists
only individual faith.

I'm still open to any evidence, but even my own faith won't hold up
when some Afghani insurgentbelieves that firing a rocket at me is going to get him into heaven,
while I believe that me firing my m-16 back at him will get me into heaven as well. (although it's the kindof stuff my parents, parents preacher, grandparents etc.. email and write to me)

It's 50/50 if I'm not religious... but based on the situation I'm in it's 50/50 anyways since if I'm fully religious and believe in god, the muslim guy might be right and I'm believing in the wrong one.

Erythros

2009-07-03 04:24:26 AM

belowner:
Religion probably had a hand in preventing me from bashing your skull in because I thought you said something stupid. Back in the day, I'd kill you and that would be that.

You are proof positive that because you are a religious fanatic you are also violent.. Thank you for proving my point :-)

Is evidence enough that religion has done something for you, because the planet wouldn't be anywhere near organized enough without it. Nor without politics, but that's just a natural extension of religion. And religion is just a natural extension of tribalism, etc., on down the chain to a single family unit.

Religion is just an organizing tool, and a powerful one at that. It isn't necessary, but whatever replaces it will be just as powerful because it fulfills the same need: organization.

Religion has not done anything negative to me.

Through thorough examination of various religions, their origins, beliefs, teaching and motivations led me to the conclusion of the reality that religion is just what I stated. A MAN-MADE system of somebody's belief of what worship of a God should be like.

If only religion served the need for organization then it would be fine, but unfortunately there are way too many fallacies logical and historical within every religion to justify allegiance within any particular one.

The religious fundamentalists are more into the religion then they are into God and so they forget the reason they wanted to become religious in the first place or they joined the organization for the wrong reasons. Possibly only for organization at which point you need a day-timer and some introspection.

For example: If you consider yourself Christian, tell me when the first bible was written, and how many times it was translated/transcribed? How many times the words were slightly changed during transcription to reflect the transcriber's beliefs? Which version of the bible you read, and how many changes were made, even from just the Old King James version to your present version?
How many times the bible mentions that if the word is changed/altered/deleted the alterer will pay severely?
And finally.....Why do you follow a bible that is so vastly different from the original?
If you truly want to do what is best in the eyes of God, understand what you are practicing, and why you do what you do. Take a good hard look at your religion, you may not like what you see.
Or, you can be a lemming.

\Not said in anger
\God would not have it any other way

belowner

2009-07-03 04:50:49 AM

Erythros: You are proof positive that because you are a religious fanatic you are also violent.. Thank you for proving my point :-)

Goody, a point by point argument by someone who hasn't read to the end! And a stereotypical assumption to boot!

I will go ahead an quote all of this so you think you've said something important, but you didn't read a damn word I said:

Through thorough examination of various religions, their origins, beliefs, teaching and motivations led me to the conclusion of the reality that religion is just what I stated. A MAN-MADE system of somebody's belief of what worship of a God should be like.

If only religion served the need for organization then it would be fine, but unfortunately there are way too many fallacies logical and historical within every religion to justify allegiance within any particular one.

The religious fundamentalists are more into the religion then they are into God and so they forget the reason they wanted to become religious in the first place or they joined the organization for the wrong reasons. Possibly only for organization at which point you need a day-timer and some introspection.

For example: If you consider yourself Christian, tell me when the first bible was written, and how many times it was translated/transcribed? How many times the words were slightly changed during transcription to reflect the transcriber's beliefs? Which version of the bible you read, and how many changes were made, even from just the Old King James version to your present version?
How many times the bible mentions that if the word is changed/altered/deleted the alterer will pay severely?
And finally.....Why do you follow a bible that is so vastly different from the original?
If you truly want to do what is best in the eyes of God, understand what you are practicing, and why you do what you do. Take a good hard look at your religion, you may not like what you see.
Or, you can be a lemming.

You're an animal. Animal response. It's an organized animal response, and it throws out signals, all the proper ones, to people you hope will come to your aid.

I am not one of those people.

Everything past "for example" that you wrote is based on an assumption you want so you can write the rest of your drivel.

You haven't actually addressed anything I wrote. You dismissed my hypothetical threat of killing you and then went into some nonsense about being a Christian.

At no point did you answer or even address base human nature. You didn't even bother addressing the nature of man. Instead, you ask me about the farking bible.

Meh. I had higher hopes.

ggggbabybabybaby

2009-07-03 04:54:13 AM

Most first-world countries are barely religious, while the poorest and most poverty stricken third world countries are deeply religious.

United States is the notable exception, since while Church and State are seperate, Religion still plays a major role in our country.

But still the statement that "Religion promotes organization" is laughable at best. Maybe if there were only one religion, but there are literally thousands and thousands of variations... and fairly common theme between them is that whatever your variation is is 100% right and all the other variations should be stoned to death (i.e. see modern day middle east).

Armandeus

2009-07-03 05:32:44 AM

Rockstone: "At any rate, Einstein was a physicist. He is no more an authority on the existence or nonexistence of deities than my cat Spooky."

OK, you say Einstein can not comment authoritatively on god.

Rockstone: "And god has never regenerated the lost limb because we don't know the mind of god to begin with. And it isn't always things that might've healed- all the time you hear of people getting better from things that should have killed them."

But you can!?

Lagrange: "I'm sure it's been said, but I'm ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that there's no way to be sure that God exists."

There is a way to be certain that its all make-believe: the claims are self-contradictory and there is no empirical evidence.

Erythros

2009-07-03 05:33:26 AM

Belowner

The saddest thing is that your religious fanaticism clearly shows in your unwillingness to be tolerant of others' beliefs and shows just how closed-minded you truly are.

Wolves will still kill other wolves if they're pissed off. Gorillas will kill the children of females they want to fark so they have to get pregnant again. We're no better. Actually, we're arguably worse, because we have the talent to mass murder. More importantly, we have the will and the capability. No other mammal does. You have to get down to the insect kingdom to find an example of proper pre-planned genocide outside of humans.

There are so many things wrong with this statement I really didn't feel like writing a book of a response to it. You mix a few mini truths together to come to some random assumption about human nature which is for the better because we as higher mammals have religion?
Me thinks not.

Based on your argument then,
-all horrific crimes throughout history are committed by atheists, or those without organized religion, like gorillas or insects.

I figured the fallacies of your argument were so glaringly obvious I wouldn't need to respond and embarrass you , but you forced my hand.

Religion probably had a hand in preventing me from bashing your skull in because I thought you said something stupid. Back in the day, I'd kill you and that would be that. Until "we" (royal we - humans) started forming social bonds we didn't have any inherent contract to not do another harm.

Moral people do not need a religion to stop them from injuring a fellow human.

You're an animal. Animal response. It's an organized animal response, and it throws out signals, all the proper ones, to people you hope will come to your aid.

Another fallacy of argument is to attack the presenter rather than stick to the argument at hand. This is juvenile.
I am secure enough in my research and beliefs that I need not have others come to my aid. I seek only to show people another door to a realm of possibilities accessible only with an open mind.

At no point did you answer or even address base human nature. You didn't even bother addressing the nature of man. Instead, you ask me about the farking bible.
At no point did YOU truly address human nature.

The For Example was just that, an example. It is addressed to the forum and not a personal attack.
Get over yourself.
Let me spell this out so a fourth grader can understand;
If you are religious, delve into the history and inner working of your religion.
Ask questions. Understand why rules are there, why rituals are performed and wonder if this is truly what God wants you to do.

I have on numerous occasions engaged Jehovah's Witnesses in biblical and religious discussion. There is no group better trained to sell their religion than the Jehovah's Witnesses. I enjoy opportunities to open the minds of those willing to truly be a better person in the eyes of God. By being a better person I mean by placing the focus on God, NOT your religion.

If you do not believe in God then just be a good person.
If you have a religion, why? This is an answer you should have. If not, then why have a religion? If your answer is "Because it is the right/best/only/first/oldest/family/etc religion." Then you may be misguided.

nerdoverlord

2009-07-03 07:50:39 AM

Nature just is, biatches.

You'll believe whatever the fark gets you through the day, you have no choice. You will believe some stuff that suits you, because that's what your brain does. As an apparent result of stimuli and initial conditions, it forms conceptual relationships that channel thought. So your thoughts are channeled and in turn change the conceptual relationships, like a river forming a canyon or something except like, a lot faster and stuff.

Free will is a misnomer.

Individualized cost / benefit heuristic maximizing what's learned to be maximized with all sorts of feedback loops and projections. It's sort of free will, sort of probability.

But I'm very open minded about it.

As if I have a sort of have a choice.

nerdoverlord

2009-07-03 07:55:45 AM

Linux_Yes: Last One Left: What if I am convinced that I'm close-minded?

then you have reached the next level, grasshopper.

i lol'ed

thanks

xria

2009-07-03 08:04:53 AM

lordargent: See, you have to take the cartesian product of EVERYTHING.

I mean, what about the people who think god was really just a super powerful alien that seeded the planet?

Thiest. Just with a different conception of god. After all god already can be meant to include pagan/neopagan concepts like forest spirits, gaia, etc., and ancient Greek/Roman gods include those that were born human and ascended to godhood for their deeds, etc.

Dollyknot

2009-07-03 09:30:09 AM

Ah yes a breakthrough in the science of oxymoronology

imfallen_angel

2009-07-03 09:31:54 AM

I have to wonder one thing about these threads...

If this was a high class, and I'd be the teacher and be asking for the kids to raise their hands, how many would?

1) who's trolling on purpose

2) who's really convince that they "know the truth", are the "right" ones, and are correct about life, reality, etc.

It's easy to point out that whomever didn't raise their hands on either would be the third group.

WayToBlue: Yup, because nothing says tolerance like ~~religious~~ fanatics, regardless of belief system.

Good thinking, subby.

BTW, you do know that agnostic does not mean undecided or unsure right? It means it is impossible to prove, and thus unknowable.

FTFY

imfallen_angel

2009-07-03 09:32:38 AM

high class ... high school class

_{/forgive me for it is morning}

guyinjeep16

2009-07-03 09:46:13 AM

imfallen_angel: Let's see..

FTFA:

People who are less confident in their beliefs are more reluctant than others to seek out opposing perspectives, researchers said today.

While it's not news that like-minded people often flock together, the new review suggests we actively keep our blinders on when opposing views are nearby.

Overall, the studies suggested people are about twice as likely to cherry-pick information that supports their own viewpoints than to consider an opposing idea. Nearly 70 percent cherry-picked compared to about 30 percent who ponder the other side.

Close-minded individuals opted for information that went along with their views 75 percent of the time.

"Close-minded people are very certain and dogmatic in their views, and generally believe that there is a single correct point of view," said study researcher Dolores Albarracin, a psychology professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "The implication is that you have a group of people who would only seek to confirm their points of view, resisting all evidence to the contrary via avoidance of exposure."

This described the Fark militant Atheist more than agnostic people.

So who funded this study? The institute of NoshiatSherlock?

You should miz up your word usage, and writing style better.

Kerpal32...

GibbyTheMole

2009-07-03 10:40:23 AM

EWreckedSean

"Agnostics aren't unsure in their beliefs. They are just really sure that god might exist, and he might not. We just accept the possibility that either could be true."

Yeah, pretty much sums it up for me. Though I think if there is a god, it's not as petty and retarded as people make it out to be. You know, sending people to Hell to get poked in the ass for all eternity by a little red guy with a pitchfork for listening to the wrong music, wearing the wrong clothes, getting a divorce, having a few beers, jerkin' the gherkin, or anything like that. That just seems to be making the all-knowing, supreme master of the universe you're worshiping into a dumbass. And that strikes me as silly. But you know, if that's what turns ya on...

Plus, I figure it is what it is, so why lose sleep over it?

abb3w

2009-07-03 11:15:33 AM

Tartha De Tear: First off, you missed that I was just being funny. DON'T MISS THE FUNNY.

Looks aren't everything, dahling. =)

Tartha De Tear: Second, I'd really like to read the paper to which you refer.

There's not (yet) a single paper with all of that.

The central paper is the one on "simple"; presumably, you've had the background to go from set theory (ZF-based von Neumann integer construction) to Chomsky grammars and the arithmetical heirarchy.

The next step is the trivial observation that the information theory concept of Mutual Information provides a resolution to the Riddle of the Ship of Theseus. (Floridi is right to be thinking about information entities, but since he approaches the problem like a stereotypical liberal arts major pretty much all the ethics he infers is bogus.) The non-obvious (and previously non-trivial) bit is how this gives a Green Knight for Hume's guillotine. Very loosely, if there is no "keeping same" in the goals, then existence of change implies probability as time→∞ of change to develop some degree of such goal, and there will be such a goal; if there is such a goal... then there is such a goal. Ergo, development of a natural tendency for "ought" to include trying to maximize the chances of having something somewhat the "same" as you around in the future.

Take that with you as statistical mechanics goes to thermodynamics and thermodynamics to evolution. The next step (seemingly trivial but unpublished) is how this Green Knight on board the Ship of Theseus gives rise to each ethical axis of the five Haidt and Graham have identified.

The main pothole along the way is the still unanswered question of how the thermodynamic arrow of time ties to the relativistic axis of time. For going past the current endpoint, I think the ideas associated with constructals look promising for more advanced developments in the future.

imfallen_angel: in the end, there is only one truth.... nobody has all the answers

img529.imageshack.us

Erythros: There is no group better trained to sell their religion than the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Iggy's boys?
They're not trained to be as pushy in the sale, I suppose, but better trained to do the sale when they encounter an interested customer.

maddogdelta

2009-07-03 11:29:20 AM

abb3w: but better trained to do the sale when they encounter an interested customer.

This guy is a prime example

imfallen_angel

2009-07-03 12:37:16 PM

abb3w: There's not (yet) a single paper with all of that.

_{/what I think of your trolling...}

abb3w

2009-07-03 12:45:05 PM

imfallen_angel: I think

img529.imageshack.us

imfallen_angel

2009-07-03 01:00:39 PM

abb3w:

i478.photobucket.com

I drunk what

2009-07-03 04:04:45 PM

guyinjeep16: You should miz up your word usage, and writing style better.

KiltedBastich...

I drunk what

2009-07-03 04:18:38 PM

Kliffoth: /raised Catholic

are you still catholic?

if not, can you indicate the main items that turned you away?

Rockstone: In line of apostolic succession, our Catholic lineage is traced back to Peter, one of Jesus Christ's Disciples.

I see. And were these apostles able to dub new apostles or did that authority have to come directly from a certain person?

do all of your popes have this direct authority given to them in each and every case?

also the IDW vs Catholicism thread may be a good place to start, and see if you find anything that strikes you particularly odd, then perhaps you still would like to defend your position?

(...if you've had enough time to think...)

/unfortunately I've lost the link to that IDW vs catholic thread
//could some kind farker throw me a bone?
///the one where I really went into details instead of my drive-by jabs

I drunk what

2009-07-03 04:23:57 PM

imfallen_angel: 2) who's really convinced that they "know the truth", are the "right" ones, and are correct (but are still learning) about life, reality, etc.

raises his hand

/with a slight modification
//i hope you don't mind
///"right" until shown better...

I drunk what

2009-07-03 04:28:35 PM

Erythros: \Religious Skeptic

of all of them or just the incorrect, hypocritical, misguided, corrupt or political ones?

/what's your religion of choice?

maddogdelta

2009-07-03 04:41:20 PM

I drunk what: of all of them or just the incorrect, hypocritical, misguided, corrupt or political ones?

I'm sure you have evidence to show which religion you feel is correct.

Kliffoth

2009-07-03 04:58:51 PM

I drunk what: are you still catholic?

if not, can you indicate the main items that turned you away?

Nope. I never really believed. Even when I was little the whole concept of God seemed unreal to me. Transubstantiation sounded downright stupid even to my 5 year old mind. I tried to believe because my parents wanted me to.

Until I was about 15 I couldn't shake the guilt though, I felt guilty for my unbelief, I thought something was wrong with me.

Why must religions that preach love and tolerance (supposedly) use fear and guilt to control their followers? You'd think if the message was that great people would stay faithful without all that...

Rockstone

2009-07-03 05:02:49 PM

I drunk what: Kliffoth: /raised Catholic

are you still catholic?

if not, can you indicate the main items that turned you away?

Rockstone: In line of apostolic succession, our Catholic lineage is traced back to Peter, one of Jesus Christ's Disciples.

I see. And were these apostles able to dub new apostles or did that authority have to come directly from a certain person?

do all of your popes have this direct authority given to them in each and every case?

also the IDW vs Catholicism thread may be a good place to start, and see if you find anything that strikes you particularly odd, then perhaps you still would like to defend your position?

(...if you've had enough time to think...)

/unfortunately I've lost the link to that IDW vs catholic thread
//could some kind farker throw me a bone?
///the one where I really went into details instead of my drive-by jabs

Wow I drunk what. first of all: yes, the Pope when he died was replaced with new ones, however- the bishops vote for the next pope when he dies.

Stop insulting the Catholic Church- you are just insulting yourself! All Christian Religions come from the Catholic Church, all Christian denominations split from it, changing whatever they desired for whatever reason they could imagine. *Cough* Martin Luther and his blatant removal of the Deuterocanonical books *Cough*

I drunk what

2009-07-03 05:38:51 PM

Rockstone: the bishops vote for the next pope when he dies

I am able to find bishops in the Bible, perhaps you can show me the passages that describe the role and authority of "popes", "cardinals", "nuns", "priests", etc...

/not the jewish priests, btw

Rockstone: Stop insulting the Catholic Church-

wouldn't I need to start?

Rockstone: you are just insulting yourself!

I'm not catholic and never was.

Rockstone: All Christian Religions come from the ~~Catholic Church~~ Jesus The Christ

FTFY

/though yours was one of the oldest
//and easily the most influential

Rockstone: ~~all~~ most Christian denominations split from it

or "returned to the original", if you will

Rockstone: changing whatever they desired for whatever reason they could imagine.

such as:

-infant baptism
-selling of indulgences
-torturing people to "convert" them
-worshipping Mary
-worshipping the Pope
-calling priests "father"
-teaching that men are able to forgive sins
-idol worship
-forbidding marriage
-the suppression of true scientific advancement
..
..
so on and so forth, etc...

/just to name a few

Rockstone: *Cough* Martin Luther and his blatant removal of the Deuterocanonical books *Cough*

so if you were to restore these books you would then be able to justify all these things?

please feel free to copy-pasta any scripture you feel is pertinent from any of your books...

/*cough* *cough*

the Mormons have suggested that the Bible was incomplete and submitted their supplemental material, do catholics (who participate in similar behavior) agree with this?

should we hold creed books-material to be equal (or in many cases superior) to the divinely inspired Word of God?

I drunk what

2009-07-03 05:42:41 PM

maddogdelta: I'm sure you have evidence to show which religion you feel is correct.

Take your pick (new window) kiddies

Rockstone

2009-07-03 07:05:14 PM

I drunk what: Rockstone: the bishops vote for the next pope when he dies

I am able to find bishops in the Bible, perhaps you can show me the passages that describe the role and authority of "popes", "cardinals", "nuns", "priests", etc...

/not the jewish priests, btw

Rockstone: Stop insulting the Catholic Church-

wouldn't I need to start?

Rockstone: you are just insulting yourself!

I'm not catholic and never was.

Rockstone: All Christian Religions come from the Catholic Church Jesus The Christ

FTFY

/though yours was one of the oldest
//and easily the most influential

Rockstone: all most Christian denominations split from it

or "returned to the original", if you will

Rockstone: changing whatever they desired for whatever reason they could imagine.

such as:

-infant baptism
-selling of indulgences
-torturing people to "convert" them
-worshipping Mary
-worshipping the Pope
-calling priests "father"
-teaching that men are able to forgive sins
-idol worship
-forbidding marriage
-the suppression of true scientific advancement
..
..
so on and so forth, etc...

/just to name a few

Rockstone: *Cough* Martin Luther and his blatant removal of the Deuterocanonical books *Cough*

so if you were to restore these books you would then be able to justify all these things?

please feel free to copy-pasta any scripture you feel is pertinent from any of your books...

/*cough* *cough*

the Mormons have suggested that the Bible was incomplete and submitted their supplemental material, do catholics (who participate in similar behavior) agree with this?

should we hold creed books-material to be equal (or in many cases superior) to the divinely inspired Word of God?

Wow, what you just argued was all typical protestant bull- here is why.

-The Catholic Church baptizes infants because Christ wills it. He must will it because He said, ``Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me.' And one can not come to Christ without Baptism, surely you agree.

-You mean alcoholic beverages? Jesus's First miracle was turning water into wine.

- The Protestants did the same, and one or two torturing someone is not a reflection on the whole of the church.

-We do NOT worship Mary, but she was born without original sin, she was the mother of Jesus Christ- the only son of god, and she was a virgin her entire life, this means more than ignorance- we admire her.

-We do not worship the pope, stop pulling things out of your rear.

-Catholics call their priests ``Father' because in all matters pertaining to Christ's holy faith they perform the duties of a father, representing God. The priest is the agent of the Christian's supernatural birth and sustenance in the world. ``Father' is a title which does not conflict in the slightest with Matthew 23:9. Christ forbids the Christian to acknowledge any fatherhood which conflicts with the Fatherhood of God--just as He commands the Christian to ``hate' his father, mother, wife, and his own life, insofar as these conflict with the following of Christ. (Luke 14:26). But Christ does not forbid Christians to call His own representatives by the name of ``Father.' Catholic priests share in the priesthood of Jesus Christ (not a human priesthood), and their sacred ministry partakes of the Fatherhood of God.

-Catholics see several advantages in confessing their sins to a priest in the Sacrament of Penance. First, there is the Church's guarantee of forgiveness, which private confessions do not provide; secondly, there is the sacramental grace which private confessions do not provide; and thirdly, there is the expert spiritual counseling which private confessions do not provide. With the Apostles, Catholics recognize that the Church is, in a mysterious way, the Body of Christ still living in the world (Col. 1:18); therefore they recognize that God will receive their pleas for mercy and forgiveness with far greater compassion if their pleas are voiced within the Church, in union with the Mystical Body of His Divine Son, than if they are voiced privately, independent of the Mystical Body of His Divine Son.

-We do not worship idols.

-Catholic priests do not marry because, while Christ does indeed approve of marriage for the Christian clergy, He much prefers that they do not marry. He made this quite clear when He praised the Apostles for giving up ``all' to follow Him, saying, ``And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting.' (Matt. 19:27-29). The Apostle Paul explained why the unmarried state is preferable to the married state for the Christian clergy: ``He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided.' (1 Cor. 7:32-33). In other words, matrimony is good-- Christ made it one of the holy sacraments of His Church--but it is not conducive to that complete dedication which is incumbent upon those who submit themselves to another of Christ's holy sacraments--that of Holy Orders. Even so, the unmarried state of the Catholic priesthood is not an inflexible law--under certain conditions a priest may be dispensed from this law.

-the suppression of true scientific advancement. Protestants are Just as Guilty.

The Mormons might have pulled the material from thin air, the Deuterocanonicals came from the greek Jewish Bible that the apostles used. You removed them because you didn't think purgatory existed etc. etc. The Deuterocanonicals ARE the divinely inspired word of god.

/Yes you are insulting yourself, because your Christian Denomination came from the Catholic Faith.

Main reference: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/faq-cc.html

JQPublic

2009-07-03 09:27:04 PM

The Believer: "I have magical beans."
The Atheist: "You do not have magical beans."
The Agnostic: "No one has all the answers."

Kliffoth

2009-07-03 09:56:41 PM

Rockstone: -We do NOT worship Mary, but she was born without original sin, she was the mother of Jesus Christ- the only son of god, and she was a virgin her entire life, this means more than ignorance- we admire her.

No, Catholics worship her. Mary is mentioned more than Jesus in Catholic prayers.

When you sin the priest tells you to say 'Hail Marys' not 'Forgive me Jesus's'.

Early Christians needed a Goddess figure to convert the Pagans.

Rockstone

2009-07-03 10:24:31 PM

Kliffoth: Rockstone: -We do NOT worship Mary, but she was born without original sin, she was the mother of Jesus Christ- the only son of god, and she was a virgin her entire life, this means more than ignorance- we admire her.

No, Catholics worship her. Mary is mentioned more than Jesus in Catholic prayers.

When you sin the priest tells you to say 'Hail Marys' not 'Forgive me Jesus's'.

Early Christians needed a Goddess figure to convert the Pagans.

You are spewing bull and lies. Jesus is mentioned much more in our prayers.

We do not worship her, we admire her and venerate her, we believe she is queen of the universe and was born without original sin, but we do not believe she was a goddess. We do not pray to her like a god, we ask her to pray for us. The first part of the Hail Mary is directly from the bible.

I drunk what

2009-07-03 10:36:21 PM

Kliffoth: No

is that all you disagree with?

/i've already done this before (still waiting for someone to find the link for my Vs. Cats thread)

I feel a picture show coming...

/they are worth a thousand words

swarms909

2009-07-03 11:23:15 PM

I'm a very liberal atheist. I am currently reading The Purpose-Driven Life and listening to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck each day. Know your enemy.

Rockstone

2009-07-03 11:29:11 PM

I think this thread is gonna terminate before you find it.

Kliffoth

2009-07-03 11:48:04 PM

I drunk what: is that all you disagree with?

I fail to see what you're getting at.

Kliffoth

2009-07-04 12:11:38 AM

Rockstone: Kliffoth: Rockstone: -We do NOT worship Mary, but she was born without original sin, she was the mother of Jesus Christ- the only son of god, and she was a virgin her entire life, this means more than ignorance- we admire her.

No, Catholics worship her. Mary is mentioned more than Jesus in Catholic prayers.

When you sin the priest tells you to say 'Hail Marys' not 'Forgive me Jesus's'.

Early Christians needed a Goddess figure to convert the Pagans.

You are spewing bull and lies. Jesus is mentioned much more in our prayers.

We do not worship her, we admire her and venerate her, we believe she is queen of the universe and was born without original sin, but we do not believe she was a goddess. We do not pray to her like a god, we ask her to pray for us. The first part of the Hail Mary is directly from the bible.

So you don't worship 'God's Wife' the 'Queen of the Universe' even though you pray to her constantly? So what it's part of the Bible, it's still a part that's repeated ad nauseum.

What about that whole part of the Bible where it says to go into your room and pray to God in private? Why do Catholics confess to priests then? Oh yeah, because it's earier to control someone when you know all their dirty little secrets. Ask the Scientologists.

Erythros

2009-07-04 01:36:36 AM

I drunk what: Erythros: \Religious Skeptic

of all of them or just the incorrect, hypocritical, misguided, corrupt or political ones?

/what's your religion of choice?

\Religious Skeptic of ALL religions.
\Raised Catholic
\Father converted to Jehovah's Witnesses (Don't even get me started) and tried in earnest to convert me.

I do not subscribe to any "religion" for many reasons, some which have been pleasantly pointed out in this thread, although there are many many more which would require the time of a 4 year degree in true religious studies to get through.

Erythros

2009-07-04 01:55:02 AM

swarms909: I'm a very liberal atheist. I am currently reading The Purpose-Driven Life and listening to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck each day. Know your enemy.

You can add Hannity to the list of "reporters" who put more of their own "spin" to relevant issues to increase their following of sheep.

Rush is the epitome of a self-centered boss of all bosses right wing capitalist and Beck, O'Reilly, and Hannity all aspire to be like him for the sake of one day hoping to make the money he makes.
In any given week if you listen carefully enough you can find them contradicting themselves from the week prior just to have a "Strong Opinion" on something that will wrangle in more sheep.
Know Your Enemy

belowner

2009-07-04 04:35:49 AM

Erythros: Based on your argument then,
-all horrific crimes throughout history are committed by atheists, or those without organized religion, like gorillas or insects.

OK, this statement alone is so farking stupid, so lacking in argument, that I conclude you're farking retarded.

Go nuts. You aren't interested in having an argument. You're interested in bleating whatever you think your eventual thesis paper is going to be about.

I'm not talking about religion, asshole. Is that direct enough for you?

maddogdelta

2009-07-04 07:20:35 AM

I drunk what: Take your pick (new window) kiddies

A holy book being authoritative because it says so isn't evidence. Check out "Kissing Hank's Ass" ^{(^)}. Just because the list says it's perfect doesn't make it perfect.

I'm sure you have actual evidence, right? Otherwise, you claim is complete bull.

I drunk what

2009-07-04 12:20:25 PM

Rockstone: I think this thread is gonna terminate before you find it.

you may be right

/usually there is some lurker that will help me out...
//I guess no one remembers THAT thread where we totally covered all this stuff
///ah well lets do it again

Kliffoth: I fail to see what you're getting at.

while your response showed that somebody was paying attention, I was slightly disappointed that of all of Rockstone's "rebuttals" you only found a discrepency with that one particular item..?

maybe after a quick lil picture show you may see what i'm getting at...

Erythros: \Religious Skeptic of ALL religions.
\Raised Catholic
\Father converted to Jehovah's Witnesses (Don't even get me started) and tried in earnest to convert me.

I do not subscribe to any "religion" for many reasons, some which have been pleasantly pointed out in this thread, although there are many many more which would require the time of a 4 year degree in true religious studies to get through.

well no wonder, after be presented with those choices

I'm surprised you didn't have a Mormon mother trying to convert you as well, just to "seal it"

so have you given up on Christianity altogether, or just feel like there isn't a flavor that is even close to what it "should" be...?

maddogdelta

2009-07-04 01:12:40 PM

I drunk what: or just feel like there isn't a flavor that is even close to what it "should" be...?

How about evidence that any are correct?

I drunk what

2009-07-04 01:23:30 PM

I drunk what: -infant baptism

Rockstone: The Catholic Church baptizes infants because Christ wills it. He must will it because He said, ``Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me.' And one can not come to Christ without Baptism, surely you agree.

Since baptism is for the remission of sins (new window), what sin has a newborn infant committed? (thought I already know you're going to say "original sin", so we can talk about that (new window) if you'd like) Furthermore a pre-requisite of baptism is the confession (new window) from the person to be baptized that they believe Jesus The Christ is the Son of God, do you have such confessions from each infant that is baptized?

I drunk what: -selling of indulgences

Login: Password: more options...	Create account
Stay logged in until from now Forgot password?