live and let live suckas

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.

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.

so does that mean that Bevets is a closet agnostic?

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.

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

Conclusion: There is and isn't a God

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?

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!

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.

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

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.

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'

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

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

/atheist
/those Pillars of Hercules, actually exist.

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.

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

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

Jean-Paul Sartre farking Ayn Rand, doggie style?

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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

Conclusion: There is and isn't a God

Schrödinger's God?

The Lord is the name of the cat.

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

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?

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

/The more you Gnosis

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

thats g.o.d. backward

/the more you know

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

rastjr: Who says we're not.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.