Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(CNN)   Scientists: We finally found proof of the Big Bang and its aftermath. CNN: Scientists prove existence of god   (religion.blogs.cnn.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, god created  
•       •       •

10020 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2014 at 1:12 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



350 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-03-22 09:43:17 AM  

Dansker: Silly wars/sparkling repartee & witty banter. Tomahto/tomato.


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

look dude if you're a mehtheist, it's fine, you can spend all day arguing terms with apatheists on whether or not paperclips are atheists, i'm just saying i'm not interested

if/when you guys can sufficiently agree on some basic terms, we are already waiting to converse with those types

i looked for Gilruiz1 's handy image macro but i couldn't find it, so you'll just have to use your imagination

in the mean time, i like bacon

you kids have fun
 
2014-03-22 09:53:49 AM  

Dansker: So, you didn't mean the kind of people I said?


"prove conclusively" are terms most people around here cannot handle properly, you gotta dumb it down for this audience, you don't want to summon abbey and IDW in the same thread.

so like i said, start with blue gargoyle (gnostic meaning more like ghastly's take on it) apply IDW's criteria, 51% surety = atheist vs. theist and gnostic vs. agnostic

and we can proceed with a simple conversation, and clearly indicate where we stand

clear as mud?

Dansker: People who claim certain knowledge beyond strong conviction on the question of divine existence are very rare (or very quiet), and generally not taken seriously.


which is why i asked

/and you're talking to one

Dansker: But it kinda depends on which god we're talking about, if any one specifically.


I believe in the One True God.

/so say we all

Dansker: You must have asked the question before. Has anyone ever said "Yes, I'm one of those!"?


it's been a while either most of them are gone (or banned) or i've forgotten who the others were, since i don't frequent these parts anymore

which is why i asked

/you make good point though
//usually is better not to ask...
 
2014-03-22 10:00:30 AM  

trippdogg: I don't believe the people who wrote the Judeo-Christian creation myth were being figurative - I believe they were either trying to scam someone... or their kid was afraid of the dark and they were trying to get them to sleep - in other words, the same reasons people continue to propagate religion today.


So then Jews and Christians are just a bunch of idiots who are part of the great hoax in history?  fascinating...

trippdogg: Currently, the model for the foundation of the known physical universe most consistent with observable data is what is commonly known as the Big Bang Theory.


and this conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible how?

Next.

Ghastly: I would say originally, a lot of the mythology stories were either attempts to answer questions about the nature of the universe that they had no ability to comprehend or simply superhero comics from a time before we learned how to print comics.

So it's equal parts the dad from Calvin and Hobbes answering one of Calvin's questions about why something is the way it is and Stan Lee writing a story about why his god can beat up your god.


ah, so then those greedy corrupt idiotic jews and christians weren't so much a part of the most elaborate hoax in history, but more like idiots leading idiots by using saturday morning cartoons as their "philosophy"?

fascinating...

btw is-was Jesus a Myth?
 
2014-03-22 10:04:53 AM  

Ghastly: It's really not complicated.


and yet here we are explaining it for the brazillionth time

maybe THIS time everyone will get it...?

*holding my breath*

I dare you... no i DOUBLE dog dare you to ask anyone what Nature is ...

/DO EET

i have a definition in my profile if anyone needz it, lelz
 
2014-03-22 10:13:59 AM  

Ghastly: Now if we had time I could go through the list, name each god and ask you "do you believe this god exists", but there are tens of thousands of them and by the time we got to Zeus people would be pretty sick of it. Being open to the possibility of whether or not a god exists is not the same as believing that god exists.


erm, don't you mean "brazillions"  liek literally...

webclasses.qrsd.org

and you had such a solid start, meh
 
2014-03-22 10:20:44 AM  

Ghastly: Dansker: Sorry, Ghastly, I honestly can't find any sources that describe Christianity in general as a "gnostic faith". It doesn't seem to be a common usage.

Pentecostals are a gnostic sect. They believe you can know for a fact that god exists because when you are born again the spirit of god enters you and reveals itself to you. They also believe that god will reveal himself to you through prayer and meditation. They KNOW god exists and they only reason other people aren't Pentecostals is because they have not known god yet and once they do, of course they will convert. I grew up Pentecostal and they are very much a gnostic faith. Other evangelical faiths are similar. They KNOW for a fact that god exists because they have experienced personal revelation of gods existence in their lives. To them it is just as much a fact as the sky being blue and water being wet.

But the problem with Blue Gargoyle's thing is that it says everybody is either "gnostic" or "agnostic". Some Christians are gnostic, but most are not, and neither are they agnostic; "God is unknowable"* is not common Christian dogma. In Abrahamic scripture, God is definitely knowable, when it wants to be, although seeing its face or pronouncing its name may cause problems.

So most Christians are neither gnostic, nor agnostic, and the same goes for atheists. When agnostic is defined as "asserting that gods are unknowable", being an agnostic atheist becomes an absurdity, because it doesn't make sense to ascribe qualities to something you don't think exists. It's like saying "I don't believe in Santa, and he lives in Greenland!"

-----------------------------------------------
*) Does "gods are unknowable" mean that it's impossible to know if they are real or that it's impossible to prove it, that it's impossible to fully comprehend the divine, or simply that they exist beyond human perception?
 
2014-03-22 10:33:24 AM  

Dansker: But the problem with Blue Gargoyle's thing is that it says everybody is either "gnostic" or "agnostic".


look dude, it is pretty simple

either you are 51% sure you have sufficient knowledge of a god's existence (whether or not you can "prove" it) or you do not

and you are already confusing ideas about whether or not God is "knowable" vs. one can know OF God

youaren'thelping.jpg

good luck ghastly let me know if you make any progress

Ghastly: If you believe in a god you are a theist.
If you are without believe in a god then you are an atheist.

It's really not complicated.

If you believe it is possible to know a god does or does not exist you are a gnostic.
If you believe it in not possible to know a god does or does not exist you are agnostic.


the only part i would add to the gnostic/agnostic bits are that the possibility of knowledge also includes the claims of having (or not having) that knowledge, so then merely just acknowledging the 'possibility' is a bit too vague

but understandable, given your audience

itz sad when we can't converse because our terms are governed by the audience's ability to comprehend... :(

meh
 
2014-03-22 10:44:03 AM  

I drunk what: Dansker: Silly wars/sparkling repartee & witty banter. Tomahto/tomato.

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 253x199]

look dude if you're a mehtheist, it's fine, you can spend all day arguing terms with apatheists on whether or not paperclips are atheists, i'm just saying i'm not interested


I'm not sure what those tems mean, and you're the one who asked a question. I've tried to answer seriously a couple of times, but you seem to ignore that.

if/when you guys can sufficiently agree on some basic terms, we are already waiting to converse with those types

Is that the royal "We", or just you and the voices in your head?

and you are already confusing ideas about whether or not God is "knowable" vs. one can know OF God

Never mind God, what about gods? Is Shiva unknowable? Is Thor? What about Jupiter? Do greek demigods like Achilles and Dionysus count?
 
2014-03-22 10:59:53 AM  
Dansker:
So most Christians are neither gnostic, nor agnostic, and the same goes for atheists. When agnostic is defined as "asserting that gods are unknowable", being an agnostic atheist becomes an absurdity, because it doesn't make sense to ascribe qualities to something you don't think exists. It's like saying "I don't believe in Santa, and he lives in Greenland!"

Believing it is possible to know if something is knowable and knowing it are two different things. And you can still believe it is possible to know something but not know it yourself. I believe it is possible to know the 10^29th digit of π but I don't know it. I am gnostic when it comes to π .

Gnostics might not know for fact that god exists they just believe it is possible to know. You're praying to god for guidance and BOOM! you suddenly hear god's voice in your head clear as a bell telling you what you need to do (which co-incidentally enough always seems to be pretty much what you wanted to do in the first place). Clearly you can know god exists because god has just spoken to you directly.

You might be a Christian and believe it is possible for god to speak to you directly through revelation, but have not had it happen but have known people who have and believe them and thus even through you have not experienced revelation you believe it is possible and thus you can KNOW for a fact god exists.

Agnostic atheist makes perfect sense and most atheists are agnostic. They believe you cannot know with certainty  that god exists because god is by its nature something completely outside of our ability to perceive. In fact some go so far as to say that conceptually god is so far removed from our experience that we can not even come up with a cogent definition  of what god is. 200 foot tall bearded man in a robe appears in the sky and tells you he's god and performs miracles, well how can you know that's god? It could be just an advanced alien intelligent yanking our chain for galactic shirts and giggles. So it's simply "why can't know for a certainty whether or not got exists but I don't believe in a god" is the very definition of an agnostic atheist.

I fail to understand why people feel the need to take what are very simple concepts and over complicate them by kludging their layperson definitions onto them.
 
2014-03-22 11:55:49 AM  

Dansker: I'm not sure what those tems mean, and you're the one who asked a question. I've tried to answer seriously a couple of times, but you seem to ignore that.


i don't ignore things

however ghastly seems to be making more progress with you and he enjoys typing more than me so there's that

i'll just wait here patiently, as you've already indicated we've probably had this conversation before (brazillions of times)

Dansker: Is that the royal "We", or just you and the voices in your head?


whynotboth?.jpg

Dansker: Never mind God, what about gods? Is Shiva unknowable? Is Thor? What about Jupiter? Do greek demigods like Achilles and Dionysus count?


Everything is knowable in time.  All one needs is a brain and senses, then the possibilities are endless!

assuming one is using said brain-senses

Never mind a geodal shaped earth, what about a perfectly spherical shape?  Is the earth flat? Is shaped like a coin? or a doughnut? do theories about it being a cube count?

so many questions so many questions

so little time
 
2014-03-22 12:04:41 PM  

Ghastly: I fail to understand why people feel the need to take what are very simple concepts and over complicate them by kludging their layperson definitions onto them.


welcometofark.jpg

also i cannot help but notice that you aren't responding to IDW's posts...

may we ask why?

:)
 
2014-03-22 12:16:51 PM  
I drunk what:

btw is-was Jesus a Myth?

Biblical Jesus? Yes.

Was there a prophet called Yeshua Bin Yoseph who preached that god offers salvation to those who ask for it and that the greatest commandment is love god with all your heart and love your neighbour as your self and this Yeshua Bin Yoseph was executed for whatever reason? Probably. The middle east was lousy with self professed prophets at that time. It could be that an amalgamation of several of them coalesced into what we know know as the biblical Jesus but that biblical Jesus would still simply be a legend and myth.

Then there's the Jesus of Paul and Marcion of Sinope which are quite clearly mythical gods cobbled together from the assimilated believes and cultural fragments of other older gods.

So yeah, basically more retconned ancient superhero comics.
 
2014-03-22 12:18:41 PM  

Ghastly: I fail to understand why people feel the need to take what are very simple concepts and over complicate them by kludging their layperson definitions onto them.


They are clearly not simple concepts. As you say, to some "God" is undefinable and beyond human perception, what is simple about that?
Even the word "know" has a myriad of meanings and connotations depending on context and perspective, and phrasing the question itself will change the response. E.g. "Do you know in your heart that Jesus is real?" is not the same as "Do you know for a fact that Jesus is real?"

Who exactly isn't a layperson, when it comes to the existence and intricate, indescribable qualities of a possibly, hypotetically imperceptible and undefinable deity? Philosophy majors? Clerics? Fantasy Writers?
Anthropologists? Really?
Don't get me wrong, I like your comics, your sense of humour and your general commentary, but kindly go know yourself.
 
2014-03-22 12:18:52 PM  

I drunk what: Ghastly: I fail to understand why people feel the need to take what are very simple concepts and over complicate them by kludging their layperson definitions onto them.

welcometofark.jpg

also i cannot help but notice that you aren't responding to IDW's posts...

may we ask why?

:)


Aren't you IDW?
 
2014-03-22 12:32:37 PM  

I drunk what: Dansker: I'm not sure what those tems mean, and you're the one who asked a question. I've tried to answer seriously a couple of times, but you seem to ignore that.

i don't ignore things


Has any one ever replied "Yes, I'm one of those" to your question?

Dansker: Is that the royal "We", or just you and the voices in your head?

whynotboth?.jpg


We salute you, sirs.

Everything is knowable in time.  All one needs is a brain and senses, then the possibilities are endless!

What is eleventysex plus potato?
If you don't believe leprechauns are real, will he still give you his gold, when you catch one?
If a rainbow is really a bridge to Asgård, and leprechauns have pots of gold at the end of rainbows, does that mean leprechauns store their gold in Asgård? Makes sense, I guess, as long as you can trust the Asir... wait, did I hear Odin say something about tiling Valhalla completely in gold?
 
2014-03-22 12:34:38 PM  

Dansker: .

They are clearly not simple concepts. As you say, to some "God" is undefinable and beyond human perception, what is simple about that?


Defining god, yeah that's not simple because there is no consensus on what that means. To a Christian, they hold up the bible and say "this is the definition of god", to a Muslim it's in the Koran. But even amongst the believers there is still endless sectarian squabbling over the minutia of interpretation.

However some words have meaning.

Theist: believes in a god or gods; from the greek Theos meaning "god"
Atheist: without belief in god or gods; from the greek atheos meaning "without god".

Gnostic: believes it is possible to know that god or gods exist; from the greek gnosis meaning "knowledge".
Agnostic: believes it is not possible to know that god or gods exist; from the greek agnosis meaning "without knowledge".

Those are what those words mean. That is the basic syntax of religious studies. If you are going to carry on a discussion about religion then use the correct terminology. If you just want to get drunk, stare at your belly button and philosophize with your buddies in the pub then use whatever words you can manage to slur out of your pint hole.

It's like supercharger and turbocharger. They both pretty much do the same thing but are completely different machines. If you're having a discussion about cars with a room full of mechanics and you start telling them a turbocharger is the exact same thing as a supercharger you're going to look like an idiot. If you're down at the pub talking cars with your buddies and you keep calling a supercharger a turbocharger nobody is going to really give a shiat you're using the wrong words.

Now dismissing the definition of the words because "words can mean whatever you want them to mean if you believe that's what they mean" makes it pointless to even begin a discussion. You're falling into the trap of the arrow that points at everything points at nothing.
 
2014-03-22 12:40:43 PM  

Dansker: Yes, but not "know" in the sense of being able to prove, which is one reason Blue Gargoyle's definitions are too loose to hold up.
If IDW wants to see the hands of people who would say that they are personally entirely convinced one way or the other, he'll get a different count than if he asks for those who think they can prove it.
So I'm suggesting that to get a clear answer, it would be wiser to spend a few more words to say exactly what he means, than insist on using labels, whose meaning drifts over time and depending on context, and which, even in that illustration, are ambiguously defined.


i just noticed this, but i believe we already covered it here:

I drunk what: the only part i would add to the gnostic/agnostic bits are that the possibility of knowledge also includes the claims of having (or not having) that knowledge, so then merely just acknowledging the 'possibility' is a bit too vague


and of course this bit:

I drunk what: either you are 51% sure you have sufficient knowledge of a god's existence (whether or not you can "prove" it) or you do not

and you are already confusing ideas about whether or not God is "knowable" vs. one can know OF God


so then, we good?

and just to clarify, IDW wants to see the hands of those who are greater than or equal to 51% convinced there is (or is not) a god, presuming that we're at least talking to a crowd that already assumes that one CAN, at least, know OF god (whether or not you can "prove" it, and certainly not "know" in the scientific sense...)

maybe I can get a hand count right before the thread closes...?  *rolls eyes*

tl;dr

IDW doesn't want to interrupt the usual mehtheist vs. apatheist clusterfark, paperclips are ATHEISTZ LELZ ROFL, it' teh defawlt pozishun

i liek bacon
 
2014-03-22 12:49:25 PM  

Ghastly: Aren't you IDW?


Like Bob Dole, IDW loves to refer to himself in the third person...
 
2014-03-22 12:53:30 PM  

scottydoesntknow: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrou g h-offer-proof-of-god/?hpt=hp_t4

religion.blogs.cnn.com

religion.blogs

religion

blogs


love u
 
2014-03-22 12:58:05 PM  

Dansker: Has any one ever replied "Yes, I'm one of those" to your question?


*ahem*

I drunk what: it's been a while, either most of them are gone (or banned) or i've forgotten who the others were, since i don't frequent these parts anymore


if i had to guess, i'd say RobSeace, Gilruiz1, Abb3w, ...? ???

i cannot recall

just curious

Ghastly: Aren't you IDW?


sometimes, who's asking? i vaguely remember you, and you're not labeled IB fwiw, actually after i took a sabbatical i've found it more efficient to label not-IB, which I'd say you qualify for.. congrats

Dansker: What is eleventysex plus potato?


two

Dansker: If you don't believe leprechauns are real, will he still give you his gold, when you catch one?


perhaps, in your dreams

on a side note, if you jump out of an airplane and you simply tell Gravity that you don't believe it exists, will you arrive safely on earth?

Dansker: If a rainbow is really a bridge to Asgård, and leprechauns have pots of gold at the end of rainbows, does that mean leprechauns store their gold in Asgård?


do you have any records kept by a leprechaun that can verify any of these things?  or at least some irish goat herder who kept accounts of his dealing with said leprechaun...?  (for starters)

[citation needed]

Dansker: Makes sense, I guess, as long as you can trust the Asir... wait, did I hear Odin say something about tiling Valhalla completely in gold?


*turns ear towards sky*

1. how would i know what you heard? 2. what does Odin sound like?
 
2014-03-22 01:02:30 PM  

RobSeace: Ghastly: Aren't you IDW?

Like Bob Dole, IDW loves to refer to himself in the third person...


IDW does not think thats funny!

IDW will not be mocked!!!1!

*spoken in a Norm MacDonald doing Bob Dole voice*
 
2014-03-22 01:04:03 PM  
Proof has nothing to do with gnosis. Gnostic Christians believe that gnosis comes directly through personal revelation. God himself personally enters you and makes his presence known thus you know for 100% fact that god exists. This is not something you can prove though because to gnostic Christians the only way god can be known is through personal, direct revelation. You can't prove it with math.

Gnosis itself is not necessary to being gnostic in your beliefs. There are gnostic Christians who believe 100% percent the reality of the revelation that other gnostic Christians have had even though they themselves have not experienced this revelation. They believe their revelation experience will happen exactly when it is part of god's plan for this revelation to happen. They are 100% convinced that personal revelation is a fact. This is exactly what the religion I grew up in was like. The Pentecostal faith is a gnostic religion.

Proof is not necessary for gnosis. For example, let's say some fantastical alien creatures came to earth and obliterated everything about George Takei and abducted him and took off. Every physical record of his existence is gone, no evidence he was ever on this planet exists, there is nothing but anecdotal evidence he was ever here and thus it is impossible to prove he existed.

I would know George Takei existed. I had a personal experience with George Takei. We sat together in a greenroom at a convention, at the same table, and had breakfast together. We talked about coffee, and beer, and Japanese culture and language, and chocolate and about tonnes of things that weren't Star Trek because I knew the moment I opened my mouth about Star Trek I'd go full on geek fanboi and ruin the moment. I would be gnostic in my belief in George Takei even though I could not prove that George Takei existed. Future generations might think I was a mad man for believing in George Takei when there is clearly no proof he exists but I would KNOW that George Takei was real and a very charming breakfast companion. I WOULD KNOW!

Now you can also be gnostic without having gnosis but being able to prove your belief. Given the example I gave earlier about π. I believe you can know the 10^26 digit of π but I don't know it. I am still gnostic in that belief and if I was so motivated I could do the math and find out what that digit is thus proving it. It's a pretty farking mundane thing to be gnostic about but it makes for a good example.
 
2014-03-22 01:16:38 PM  

I drunk what: Dansker: Has any one ever replied "Yes, I'm one of those" to your question?

*ahem*

I drunk what: it's been a while, either most of them are gone (or banned) or i've forgotten who the others were, since i don't frequent these parts anymore

if i had to guess, i'd say RobSeace, Gilruiz1, Abb3w, ...? ???


I'm one of what now? If I'm following the thread correctly, it was about someone claiming to be gnostic? That's definitely not me... I'm an agnostic atheist...
 
2014-03-22 01:22:22 PM  

Ghastly: However some words have meaning.

Theist: believes in a god or gods; from the greek Theos meaning "god"
Atheist: without belief in god or gods; from the greek atheos meaning "without god".

Gnostic: believes it is possible to know that god or gods exist; from the greek gnosis meaning "knowledge".
Agnostic: believes it is not possible to know that god or gods exist; from the greek agnosis meaning "without knowledge".

Those are what those words mean. That is the basic syntax of religious studies. If you are going to carry on a discussion about religion then use the correct terminology. If you just want to get drunk, stare at your belly button and philosophize with your buddies in the pub then use whatever words you can manage to slur out of your pint hole.

It's like supercharger and turbocharger. They both pretty much do the same thing but are completely different machines. If you're having a discussion about cars with a room full of mechanics and you start telling them a turbocharger is the exact same thing as a supercharger you're going to look like an idiot. If you're down at the pub talking cars with your buddies and you keep calling a supercharger a turbocharger nobody is going to really give a shiat you're using the wrong words.

Now dismissing the definition of the words because "words can mean whatever you want them to mean if you believe that's what they mean" makes it pointless to even begin a discussion. You're falling into the trap of the arrow that points at everything points at nothing.


well said, and yet:

Ghastly: 1.  Defining god, yeah that's not simple because there is no consensus on what that means. 2.To a Christian, they hold up the bible and say "this is the definition of god", to a Muslim it's in the Koran. But even amongst the believers there is still endless sectarian squabbling over the minutia of interpretation.

no cigar

it seems you are good at some stuff and not so good at other stuff...

1. you don't need to have a consensus in order to discuss something 2. Christians/Muslims believe God is a book? 3.  Just because people are unable to agree on what message(s) are conveyed within texts, therefore people cannot agree on who-what God is?

Is not the God of the Bible and the God of the Quran (and the "Jewish God" btw) not essentially the same being...?  Not to be confused with each religions preferred spokesperson-representative-prophet (i.e. Jesus vs. Muhammed)

not 3 gods, but One

3 Interpretations of God perhaps, but NOT 3 gods

now contrast that to Roman-Greek mythology (<-- actual correct usage of that word btw)

Are God and Zeus two different gods? Yes.

are aphrodite and venus two different gods? No.  The same but at best, two different "interpretations".

i haz a sad that i have to explain this stuff to you, seeing how you are not-IB...

*waits patiently*
 
2014-03-22 01:24:02 PM  

Ghastly: grumpfuff:

The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

What the hell? How do you actively not believe? How do you actively not anything?

Right now I am actively not ramming my cock down your throat and farking some sense into your head.


I actively neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of aliens.
 
2014-03-22 01:25:35 PM  

RobSeace: I'm one of what now? If I'm following the thread correctly, it was about someone claiming to be gnostic? That's definitely not me... I'm an agnostic atheist...


dangit it seems like i get that wrong every single time, are you sure you're using the terms we agreed on?

honestly i don't remember, and don't bother pretending to keep up anymore..

i coulda swore you told me at some point that you were more than 51% sure about that...? watevs
 
2014-03-22 01:29:05 PM  
And if we're going to start throwing throwing around proof as it pertains to knowledge then the terminology you are looking for is apodeictic which means provable.

So you can say "I am an apodeictic gnostic theist" which means I believe it is possible to know that god exists, I believe in god, and I can prove god exists.

You can also say "I am a nonapodeictic gnostic theist" which means I believe it is possible to know that god exists, I believe in god, but I can't prove that god exists.

You can say "I am an apodeictic gnostic atheist" which means I believe it is possible to know that god does not exist, I do not believe in god, and I can prove that god does not exist.

You can say "I am a nonapodeictic gnostic atheist" which means I believe you can know god exists, I don't believe in a god, but I can't prove god does not exist.

You could also say "I am an apodeictic agnostic atheist" which would mean I don't know if god does or does exist, I don't believe in a god, I believe in the theoreticial possibility that proof of gods existence could be produced.

You could say "I am a nonapodeictic agnostic atheist" which means I don't know if god does or does not exist, I don't believe in a god, I don't believe it is possible to prove god does or does not exist.

You can say "I am an apodeictic agnostic theist" which means I don't know if god exists, I believe in a god, I believe in the theoretical possibility that proof of god is possible.

Or you can say "I am a Capital-Letter-A Agnostic" which means, I am a contrarian who finds gnostic atheists and theists annoying and does not want to acknowledge the existence of agnostic theists and atheists but I really really really want to feel like I'm superior to everyone else.

The key to being understood is to use language effectively, not to dilute the words we have to mean whatever the hell you want them to mean at the moment.
You can say "I am a nonapodeictic agnostic theist" which means I don't know if god exists, I believe in a god, I don't believe it is possible to prove god exists.
 
2014-03-22 01:32:49 PM  

Egoy3k: grumpfuff: So you just go straight to ad hominems? Nice.

Anyway, my Philosophy degree is from Rutgers. Comparing one of the top philosophy programs in the world to See Spot Run is kind of silly.

Maybe you should write one of your English professors from Rutgers and ask him or her to explain the use of 'a' as a prefix in the English language then.


I have no beliefs concerning (random native tribe in the world). By your definitions, that's the same as saying I don't believe they exist.
 
2014-03-22 01:34:50 PM  

grumpfuff: Ghastly: grumpfuff:

The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

What the hell? How do you actively not believe? How do you actively not anything?

Right now I am actively not ramming my cock down your throat and farking some sense into your head.

I actively neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of aliens.


So in other words "I lack the cognitive ability to conceptualize abstract dialectics"

How do you actively not believe something? What actions need to be taken to not believe something?
How do you simultaneously and actively not not believe something? What actions need to be taken to ensure that while you not not believe something at the same time that you perform the actions needed to bot believe something?
 
2014-03-22 01:37:16 PM  

Ghastly: Biblical Jesus? Yes.


o noes IB-like typing detected

Ghastly: Was there a prophet called Yeshua Bin Yoseph who preached that god offers salvation to those who ask for it and that the greatest commandment is love god with all your heart and love your neighbour as your self and this Yeshua Bin Yoseph was executed for whatever reason? Probably.


hmm, not sure if this is considered a reasonable "save" or not... meh

and where do you obtain knowledge about this Yeshua lad? hmmm?

*cue cognitive dissonance*

may i suggest some IB quality cherry picking...?

btw are-were you a jew? just curious

Ghastly: The middle east was lousy with self professed prophets at that time. It could be that an amalgamation of several of them coalesced into what we know know as the biblical Jesus but that biblical Jesus would still simply be a legend and myth.


greatest hoax EVA

Ghastly: Then there's the Jesus of Paul and Marcion of Sinope which are quite clearly mythical gods cobbled together from the assimilated believes and cultural fragments of other older gods.

So yeah, basically more retconned ancient superhero comics.


greatest conspiracy (with a comic book plot twist) OF ALL TIME

...

0.0

thanks for saving me a bunch of typing

just for the record, though i really really wanted to farky you not-IB, i'm going to have to go with

Historical Jesus = Myth, (aka IB for short) "

sorry i wasted your time, good luck
 
2014-03-22 01:45:48 PM  

Ghastly: And if we're going to start throwing throwing around proof as it pertains to knowledge then the terminology you are looking for is apodeictic which means provable.

So you can say "I am an apodeictic gnostic theist" which means I believe it is possible to know that god exists, I believe in god, and I can prove god exists.

You can also say "I am a nonapodeictic gnostic theist" which means I believe it is possible to know that god exists, I believe in god, but I can't prove that god exists.

You can say "I am an apodeictic gnostic atheist" which means I believe it is possible to know that god does not exist, I do not believe in god, and I can prove that god does not exist.

You can say "I am a nonapodeictic gnostic atheist" which means I believe you can know god exists, I don't believe in a god, but I can't prove god does not exist.

You could also say "I am an apodeictic agnostic atheist" which would mean I don't know if god does or does exist, I don't believe in a god, I believe in the theoreticial possibility that proof of gods existence could be produced.

You could say "I am a nonapodeictic agnostic atheist" which means I don't know if god does or does not exist, I don't believe in a god, I don't believe it is possible to prove god does or does not exist.

You can say "I am an apodeictic agnostic theist" which means I don't know if god exists, I believe in a god, I believe in the theoretical possibility that proof of god is possible.

Or you can say "I am a Capital-Letter-A Agnostic" which means, I am a contrarian who finds gnostic atheists and theists annoying and does not want to acknowledge the existence of agnostic theists and atheists but I really really really want to feel like I'm superior to everyone else.

The key to being understood is to use language effectively, not to dilute the words we have to mean whatever the hell you want them to mean at the moment.
You can say "I am a nonapodeictic agnostic theist" which means I don't know if god exists, I bel ...


while i do not object to any of this, it is quite possible that this isn't helping

once again, as a friendly reminder, consider your audience (before you speak)

markelt.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-22 01:53:21 PM  

I drunk what: it seems you are good at some stuff and not so good at other stuff...

1. you don't need to have a consensus in order to discuss something 2. Christians/Muslims believe God is a book? 3. Just because people are unable to agree on what message(s) are conveyed within texts, therefore people cannot agree on who-what God is?

Is not the God of the Bible and the God of the Quran (and the "Jewish God" btw) not essentially the same being...? Not to be confused with each religions preferred spokesperson-representative-prophet (i.e. Jesus vs. Muhammed)

not 3 gods, but One

3 Interpretations of God perhaps, but NOT 3 gods

now contrast that to Roman-Greek mythology (<-- actual correct usage of that word btw)

Are God and Zeus two different gods? Yes.

are aphrodite and venus two different gods? No. The same but at best, two different "interpretations".

i haz a sad that i have to explain this stuff to you, seeing how you are not-IB...

*waits patiently*


What I'm saying is each religion and each sect of each religion has their own definition for what god or gods are.

To the Aryans Dyaus Pater (which literally translates as Sky Father, and become Zues for the Greeks and Zu Pater (Jupiter) to the Romans) was the king of all gods. The biggest of the big. The most powerful of the powerful. The god the gods worshipped.  That was their definition of god.

Jews, Christians, Muslims they all have their definitions of god and which have as many differences as they have similarities. The roots of their religions have common ancestry and even extend back to the proto Aryan religions. But they've got their own dogmatic definitions of what God is.

But those are all mythological gods. You can trace their stories and legends through time and see how one god evolved to become another and how bits of this god and bits of that god combined to create this god.

Now delete the mythology and what are you left with? What is god then? Get rid of the legends, and stories, and morality plays and what is god?

When it comes to religion there's simply no way I can believe in any of them. I've studied them and I see how religions are born, evolve, and even die. They're all just stories.

Strip away religion though and you're left with the big question what is god?

Is god simply the most powerful of all beings? The biggest kid on the block? The alien that can beat up any other alien?

Is god simply the collective consciousness of the universe made aware of itself?

Is god something that sits completely outside the universe, apart from it but in control of it?

Is god something that sits completely outside the universe, apart from it and unaware of it?

These are the questions that transcend mere man made myths.

I have no definitive answers for them. I can think of no way to prove any hypothesis I might be able to come up with to answer them. Since I have no proof of a god and frankly the universe would seem to run just as well if a god doesn't exist I am an atheist. I am a nonapodeictic agnostic atheist. That could change some day, but it would require some pretty impressive evidence or profound psychosis to change.
 
2014-03-22 02:00:10 PM  

grumpfuff: Ghastly: grumpfuff:

The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

What the hell? How do you actively not believe? How do you actively not anything?

Right now I am actively not ramming my cock down your throat and farking some sense into your head.

I actively neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of aliens.


Awesome, but what we REALLY want to know is ...

Are you or are you not in fact, a paperclip?

itz teh defawlt pozishun!!1!! LELZ

~Fin

/thread
//site

i'm out
 
2014-03-22 02:01:37 PM  

I drunk what: RobSeace: I'm one of what now? If I'm following the thread correctly, it was about someone claiming to be gnostic? That's definitely not me... I'm an agnostic atheist...

dangit it seems like i get that wrong every single time, are you sure you're using the terms we agreed on?

honestly i don't remember, and don't bother pretending to keep up anymore..

i coulda swore you told me at some point that you were more than 51% sure about that...? watevs


Oh, yeah, I forgot you are (mis)using terms that way...

It's really kind of silly to talk in terms of percentage sure at all, anyway... I mean, how does one measure such a thing? I think I probably said I was around 99% "sure" there are no gods... But, what does really mean? It's basically just a number pulled straight out of my ass! I'm just saying that all evidence (or lack thereof) seen so far leads me to feel fairly confident in my position... But, and this is the key part: I'm not closing my mind off to the possibility that I'm wrong... If things change, and I see evidence to convince me otherwise, I'll change my belief... It's just that for right now, I'm going to continue on with my life with the assumption that deities do not exist, because that has served me pretty well so far, and I've yet to be proven wrong...

To me, a gnostic atheist would be one who is absolutely certain in their belief, and wouldn't even consider evidence to the contrary... Ie: they're 100% sure on your scale... I'm not sure such people even exist, but maybe... I know gnostic theists exist, certainly...
 
2014-03-22 02:17:03 PM  

Ghastly: When it comes to religion there's simply no way I can believe in any of them.


the key to religion is being able to filter out the mythology, and find the history

being extra careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater

good luck

Ghastly: Strip away religion though and you're left with the big question what is Nature  god?


Naturedidit (physically speaking)  b-b-b-but Nature == Physical so then i repeated myself?! lulz

/FOR SCIENCE!1!!!!

Ghastly: Is god simply the most powerful of all beings? The biggest kid on the block? The alien that can beat up any other alien?

Is god simply the collective consciousness of the universe made aware of itself?

Is god something that sits completely outside the universe, apart from it but in control of it?

Is god something that sits completely outside the universe, apart from it and unaware of it?


Is god a burrito that was nuked so hot that the alien couldn't eated it?

*mind blown*

Ghastly: These are the questions that transcend mere man made myths.


oh well, it's just too bad that we have no historical evidence to ponder, to find the answers to such questions, since everything written down before today (and does not have an accompanying youtube video) didn't happen... and is a myth

*whatcha gunna do?! stupid look on face*

as for any claims about religious topics:

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

and don't listen to any of those crazy religious people and their sneaky sneaky hoax conspiracies

cuz us enlightened folks gotta stick together

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

www.godlessgirl.com
 
2014-03-22 02:21:03 PM  

RobSeace: I drunk what: RobSeace: I'm one of what now? If I'm following the thread correctly, it was about someone claiming to be gnostic? That's definitely not me... I'm an agnostic atheist...

dangit it seems like i get that wrong every single time, are you sure you're using the terms we agreed on?

honestly i don't remember, and don't bother pretending to keep up anymore..

i coulda swore you told me at some point that you were more than 51% sure about that...? watevs

Oh, yeah, I forgot you are (mis)using terms that way...

It's really kind of silly to talk in terms of percentage sure at all, anyway... I mean, how does one measure such a thing? I think I probably said I was around 99% "sure" there are no gods... But, what does really mean? It's basically just a number pulled straight out of my ass! I'm just saying that all evidence (or lack thereof) seen so far leads me to feel fairly confident in my position... But, and this is the key part: I'm not closing my mind off to the possibility that I'm wrong... If things change, and I see evidence to convince me otherwise, I'll change my belief... It's just that for right now, I'm going to continue on with my life with the assumption that deities do not exist, because that has served me pretty well so far, and I've yet to be proven wrong...

To me, a gnostic atheist would be one who is absolutely certain in their belief, and wouldn't even consider evidence to the contrary... Ie: they're 100% sure on your scale... I'm not sure such people even exist, but maybe... I know gnostic theists exist, certainly...


1-media-cdn.foolz.us

dude, 1. read the thread 2. may ghastly have mercy on your soul

i liek bacon
 
2014-03-22 02:22:31 PM  

Ghastly: grumpfuff: Ghastly: grumpfuff:

The funny part is, up until a funny years ago, atheist meant "actively disbelieves in god(s)." Then suddenly it changed to "lacks a belief in god(s)."

What the hell? How do you actively not believe? How do you actively not anything?

Right now I am actively not ramming my cock down your throat and farking some sense into your head.

I actively neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of aliens.

So in other words "I lack the cognitive ability to conceptualize abstract dialectics"

How do you actively not believe something? What actions need to be taken to not believe something?
How do you simultaneously and actively not not believe something? What actions need to be taken to ensure that while you not not believe something at the same time that you perform the actions needed to bot believe something?


No, in other words I accept the validity of the answer "I don't know."
 
2014-03-22 02:25:55 PM  

Ghastly: Aren't you IDW?


Nope, i'm Dizz.

you should click my profile, IDW doesn't live here no more
 
2014-03-22 02:26:16 PM  
I drunk what:
o noes IB-like typing detected

I know you're trying to be "I'm all kawaii motherfarker" but I seriously don't know who or what this IB you are talking about is.

and where do you obtain knowledge about this Yeshua lad? hmmm?

Because Yeshua and Yoseph were common as all fark names back then. It would be like saying Dave, son of John. There are probably a few hundred people in my city named Dave who had a dad named John. Street corner prophets were a dime a dozen back then as well. So it is completely not beyond the realm of the possible that there was a street corner prophet named Yeshua bin Yoseph and that he had a following, got executed, and his followers created a death cult based around him.

*cue cognitive dissonance*

I fail to see what two opposing beliefs I am holding as true at the same time. I think you are making assumptions.


btw are-were you a jew? just curious

No, I was a Pentecostal when I was young. I am now an atheist. As stated earlier in the thread I majored in Anthropology with a minor in Religious Studies. The two studies were complimentary since religion plays a very important part in culture and to understand a culture it is important to understand its myths and legends and beliefs.


greatest hoax EVA

I wouldn't go so far as to say Christianity was a hoax, that would imply malice. I believe it evolved out of the stories people told to try to answer questions they couldn't otherwise answer, just like every other religion.


greatest conspiracy (with a comic book plot twist) OF ALL TIME

Once again, conspiracy implies malice. I don't think early Christianity was born out of malice. It was just people trying to make sense of the world. The example I gave of Marcion of Sinope (who has a cool name because it's pronounced the same as the little green men). He the leader of an early gnostic Christian sect. His Christ  was an attempt to reconcile the psycopathic JHWH of the Old Testament with the all loving and merciful god of the New Testament. It confused him that the two could possibly be the same god. So through revelation he came to see that the Creator God of the old Testament was the cruel and insane god Yaltabaoth. Jesus was not the Jewish messiah but an emissary from Moned, the benevolent God of all gods. Jesus was sent to teach the truth about creation and to offer salvation from the torture of the cruel creator god Yaltabaoth.

This is straight up applied mythology. You can trace the heritage of its thought you can see what older mythologies left their fingerprints on it.

This is the same with every religion why have on earth, and to the believers every other religion with the exception of their religion is mythology and theirs is true. They see this because they're looking at it from inside the bubble. If they were outside the bubble they'd see their religion the way other people outside the religion see it. Made up stories and legends that have their roots in older made up stories and legends.

 "  Historical Jesus = Myth, (aka IB for short) "


Technically legend might be more accurate a term. Christianity as a religion is mythology, it's just mythology that people inside its bubble still believe is true, same as it was for every other religion before it that mankind eventually stopped believing in.

1000 years from now people might think of Jesus in the same way we think of Dyaus Pater now, but be fighting wars over whether or not you accept that Boba Fett died for your sins.
 
2014-03-22 02:31:27 PM  

Ghastly: Once again, conspiracy implies malice.


Ghastly: I wouldn't go so far as to say Christianity was a hoax, that would imply malice.


how politically correct  kind of you, thank you

Ghastly:1000 years from now people might think of Jesus in the same way we think of Dyaus Pater now, but be fighting wars over whether or not you accept that Boba Fett died for your sins.

good luck dude, and may the force be with you
 
2014-03-22 02:32:39 PM  
grumpfuff:

No, in other words I accept the validity of the answer "I don't know."

Who doesn't?

I don't know that leprechauns exist. I don't. I can't prove they exist either.
I don't believe in leprechauns.

It requires no action on my part to not believe in leprechauns. There are no rituals or words that need to be said to not believe in leprechauns. To do actively do something by its very definition requires an act. I require no act to not do something.
 
2014-03-22 02:47:27 PM  

Ghastly: It requires no action on my part to not believe in leprechauns. There are no rituals or words that need to be said to not believe in leprechauns. To do actively do something by its very definition requires an act. I require no act to not do something.


img.fark.net

What we say to paperclips
 
2014-03-22 03:22:27 PM  
Today I learned that my handle is actually a thing.
 
2014-03-22 03:26:01 PM  

Apatheist: Today I learned that my handle is actually a thing.


It is. Basically boils down to, don't know, don't care, not even important enough to consider.
 
2014-03-22 06:29:18 PM  
Yeah, "god is unknowable" is clearly a simple, straightforward concept. Good thing I stopped kludging that up.
 
2014-03-22 06:56:21 PM  

Dansker: Yeah, "god is unknowable" is clearly a simple, straightforward concept. Good thing I stopped kludging that up.


What about it do you find confusing?
 
2014-03-22 07:08:06 PM  

Ghastly: Apatheist: Today I learned that my handle is actually a thing.

It is. Basically boils down to, don't know, don't care, not even important enough to consider.


vs. mehtheist

sorta know, sorta seems important, don't care enough to.. meh

Dansker: Yeah, "god is unknowable" is clearly a simple, straightforward concept. Good thing I stopped kludging that up.


even gnostic theists understand that God is unknowable

let it go lad, move on
 
2014-03-22 07:13:32 PM  

Ghastly: Dansker: Yeah, "god is unknowable" is clearly a simple, straightforward concept. Good thing I stopped kludging that up.

What about it do you find confusing?


What I find complex and contributing to lack of clarity, is that, as you pointed out upthread, "god" is not defined, and depends on who you talk to, and that "unknowable" can both mean "incomprehensible", "imperceptible" and "undetectable", among other things. It is also a possible synonym for "nonexistent". Also, the fact that it is possible to be agnostic about one definition of "god" and not about another makes it less than straightforward.
 
2014-03-22 07:15:56 PM  

I drunk what:
even gnostic theists understand that God is unknowable


Clear as muck, that.
 
2014-03-22 07:23:11 PM  
I used to drag a unicorn around with me everywhere, just in case I saw a virgin. Now I suspect they're not even real.
 
Displayed 50 of 350 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report