POLL: Is there a god?

RIP A Nairn, heaven needed a...uh, devout Christian.

lets show this prehistoric bitch how we do things downtown

You forgot the I am Zod choice.

(atheist represente!)

Where is "I am well aware that there is no cosmic being/force/order that bears any relation to what is termed 'God' or the equivalent in any human society, but as a 20th/21st century human being, I am nevertheless able to conceive/accept that it is useful for me and others to construct just such a being/force/order, whether or not I 'believe' or have 'faith' in that construct"?

option 2

rong

that you, Santy Claus?

as a 20th/21st century human being, I am nevertheless able to conceive/accept that it is useful for me and others to construct just such a being/force/order, whether or not I 'believe' or have 'faith' in that construct

Do we really need this construct to be kind and responsible people? I certainly hope not. The invention of a supreme being is "useful" to those who would place themselves 'closer to God than thee' for a variety of reasons, the moist innocuous of which is 'heaven' (no, you are going into the ground or into a furnace, get over it) and the most insidious of which are probably Puritan predestination or the use of God as emotional blackmail/call to arms over large numbers of less literate/moneyed people.

All 'holy' books are myths to me; they attempt with varying degrees of success to understand and invent antecedents for most human behaviour.

option 6

Do we really need this construct to be kind and responsible people? I certainly hope not.

perhaps there are many who do. as constructs go, it's wildly popular.

The invention of a supreme being is "useful" to those who would place themselves 'closer to God than thee' for a variety of reasons

you believe this is true of everyone who believes in god/is religious/follows a spiritual practice? of the majority of them?

and being kind and responsible are not the sole purposes of religious/spiritual practice

http://scoopsnoodle.com/adam_schefter/adam_schefter15.jpg

option 1

perhaps you are very well adjusted and haven't considered the mindset of those who might be less well-adjusted? perhaps hoping that others would not need such a construct is another way of being 'holier than thou'?

Let me tell you, being happy to identify as an atheist doesn't do wonders for my adjustment, but I can think of a gazillion things I'd rather believe in than a supreme being.

jhoshea 8080

i voted "I am Isaac Asimov"

I can think of a gazillion things I'd rather believe in than a supreme being.

why is that?

cos it's idiocy?

sorry. harsh. but your previous comment was shit and pissed me off.

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/6503/churchsignmg4.jpg

belief, as I have mentioned before, is a redundant and pointless human emotion.

why? also, i'm not limiting things to a 'supreme being' as suzy is.

(xxpost)

srsly tho

"perhaps hoping that others would not need such a construct is another way of being 'holier than thou'?"

GRRRRRRR.

Yeah, I know Alan: perhaps monkeys will fly out Gabbneb's arse. The religious among you can pray for this - rest of you, get photoshopping!

it is in essence the same thing that suzy said about religious people (xp)

'realer than thou'

'there isn't a god' is still surely the right choice for people who think it helpful to maintain the pretence that there is one just to help keep sociah t azzahole in check.

I think many people on this thread are riding the high horses too much.

i'm sure she 'loves them just the same' tho

'there isn't a god' is still surely the right choice for people who think it helpful to maintain the pretence that there is one just to help keep sociah t azzahole in check.

as i said before this is not the only purpose of religion/spirituality, and these people are not 'maintaining a pretence,' nor do they necessarily believe in 'one' 'god'.

if i'm riding a high horse, it must be someone else's, as i'm not especially religious

I was not talking about you gabbneb.

i'm not limiting things to a 'supreme being' as suzy is.

option 5

"CREDULOUS FRAUDS, THE LOT OF YOU"

http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/4/44/446/446989/hitchensXart280.jpg

Dog is my co-pilot.

http://starling.rinet.ru/music/sleeves/zap_clapton.jpg

gabb - you should probably just list some reasons why people need the contruct, b/c everyone seems eager to finish your argument in a way that allows them to reject it.

I am well aware that there is no cosmic being/force/order that bears any relation to what is termed 'Elvis' or the equivalent in any human society, but as a 20th/21st century human being, I am nevertheless able to conceive/accept that it is useful for me and others to construct just such a being/force/order, whether or not I 'believe' or have 'faith' in that construct.

I am well aware that there is no cosmic being/force/order that bears any relation to what is termed 'Zimmerman' or the equivalent in any human society, but as a 20th/21st century human being, I am nevertheless able to conceive/accept that it is useful for me and others to construct just such a being/force/order, whether or not I 'believe' or have 'faith' in that construct.

I am well aware that there is no cosmic being/force/order that bears any relation to what is termed 'Beatles' or the equivalent in any human society, but as a 20th/21st century human being, I am nevertheless able to conceive/accept that it is useful for me and others to construct just such a being/force/order, whether or not I 'believe' or have 'faith' in that construct.

i just believe in schefter

juuuust meeeee aaaaand scheeeeefter !!!

God? I ain't got no god. I don't need no god. I don't have to show you any stinking god.

i voted not sure.

but i wish there was an option: "i dont believe in god but i wish i did"

http://scoopsnoodle.com/adam_schefter/yoko.jpg

!!!!!!!!!

I just believe in me. Yoko and me.

yeah yeah

wow wow wow guys that is v important

omg that is actually creeping me out

COSMIC SCHEFTER IS ALL

COSMIC SCHEFTER BROKE UP THE BEATLES

WHO INCIDENTALLY HE DOESNT BELIEVE IN

the first, third, and last options are all the same thing.

http://scoopsnoodle.com/adam_schefter/adam_schefter3.jpg
ALL OPTION ARE SAME MY CHILD

actually, you're kind of right, but without so much schef

BLASPHEMY!

UR DEITIES. LET ME SEE THEM.

when do we get tired of adam schefter? I am srsly starting to check my watch.

fourteen minutes and counting

of course ally will have to re-register, but she'll live.

we need a new god

Bob vs. The Schef

If our god does not make us richer and happier, than we need another one.

-James Baldwin paraphrased

(badly)

http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/family_cthulu.gif

OH FINE U JUST BUILD UP UR FALSE IDOLS OR WHATEVER

o hai i can haz heavens and earth

noes i haz formless empty earth :(

i iz over water upgradin mah darkness

GIMMEH LITE

i haz lite

i iz seprate dark and lite den mek day an nite

kthxbai

WOW FAMILY CIRCUS

I SUGGEST ONE OF THESE UPSTANDING YOUNG TEENAGERS FOR NU GOD

http://www.uri-geller.com/gallery/pics/f5.jpg

someone better than me at this needs to write and publish full lolbible if they haven't already

FIRST GOD MAED H3AEVN & AARTH 2 TEH 3ARTH WAS WITHOUT FORM AND VOID AND DARKN3S WAS UPON DA FAEC OF DA DEP AND DA SPIRIT OF GOD WAS MOVNG OVER TEH FAEC OF DA W8RS!!!!!!1 LOL 3 AND GOD SADE LAT THEIR B LIGHT AND THEIR WAS LIGHT!!!!!1!! WTF 4 AND GOD SAW TAHT TEH LIGHT WAS GOD AND GOD S3PARAETD DA LIGHT FROM TEH DARKNAS!1!11 WTF 5 GOD CALED TEH LIGHT DAY AND TEH DARKNAS HA CALED NIGHT!1!!!! WTF AND THEIR WAS 3V3NNG AND THEIR WAS MORNNG ONE DAY!11!1!1 WTF 6 AND GOD SADE L3T THEIR B A FIRMMENT IN TEH MIDST OF DA W8RS AND LAT IT SEPARAET DA W8RS FROM TEH W8RS!1!1! OMG 7 AND GOD MAED TEH FIRMMENT AND SAPARAETD DA W8RS WHICH WERE UND3R DA FIRMMENT FROM DA W8RS WHICH WARA ABOV3 DA FIRMMENT!11!! AND IT WAS SO!11!! OMG LOL 8 AND GOD CALED DA FIRMM3NT H3AEVN!1!!1!1!1 WTF AND THEYRE WAS EV3NNG AND THEYRE WAS MORNNG A SACOND DAY!!!1111!1 9 AND GOD SADE L3T TEH W8RS UNDER TEH H3AEVNS B GATH3R3D 2GETH3R IN2 ONE PLAEC AND L3T DA DRY LAND APEAR!!1111 AND IT WAS SO!!!11!1 OMG WTF 10 GOD CAL3D DA DRY LAND EARTH AND DA W8RS TAHT W3RE GATHERAD 2GETHER HE CALAD SEAS!!11! OMG LOL AND GOD SAW TAHT IT WAS GOD!11!!!1!! OMG 1 AND GOD SADE L3T TEH 3ARTH PUT FORTH VEG3TATION PLANTS YEILDNG SED AND FRUIT TRES BARNG FRUIT IN WHICH SI THEYRE SED EACH ACORDNG 2 ITS KIND UPON TEH 3ARTH!!1!! WTF LOL AND IT WAS SO!!1!1!!1 OMG WTF LOL 12 DA 3ARTH BROUGHT FORTH V3G3TATION PLANTS YEILDNG SED ACORDNG 2 THEYRE OWN KINDS AND TRES BARNG FRUIT IN WHICH SI THERE SED EACH ACORDNG 2 ITS KIND!!!11 WTF AND GOD SAW TAHT IT WAS GOD!!11!!!!1 OMG WTF LOL 13 AND THEIR WAS EVENNG AND THEIR WAS MORNNG A THIRD DAY!!111!!!! OMG LOL 14 AND GOD SADE LAT THEIR B LIGHTS IN DA FIRMMENT OF TEH HEAEVNS 2 SEPARAET TEH DAY FROM TEH NIGHT AND LET THEM B FOR SIGNS AND FOR S3ASONS AND FOR DAYS AND YAARS 15 AND LET TH3M B LIGHTS IN DA FIRMM3NT OF DA HAAEVNS 2 GIEV LIGHT UPON DA EARTH!1!!1!!1! AND IT WAS SO!1!!11 LOL 16 AND GOD MAED TEH TWO GR3AT LIGHTS DA GRA8R LIGHT 2 RUL3 DA DAY AND TEH L3SAR LIGHT 2 RULA DA NIGHT HE MAED DA STARS ALSO!!!!1111 WTF 17 AND GOD SET THAM IN DA FIRMM3NT OF DA HEAEVNS 2 GIEV LIGHT UPON TEH AARTH 18 2 RULE OVAR TEH DAY AND OVER TEH NIGHT AND 2 SEPARAET DA LIGHT FROM TEH DARKNAS!111!!1!! OMG WTF LOL AND GOD SAW TAHT IT WAS GOD!1!1!11 19 AND THEYRE WAS EVANNG AND THEIR WAS MORNNG A FOURTH DAY!1!11!!1! WTF 20 AND GOD SADE LET TEH W8RS BRNG FORTH SWARMS OF LIVNG CRAATURES AND LET BIRDS FLEY ABOVA TEH EARTH ACROS DA FIRMMENT OF TEH H3AEVNS!!11!1!1 OMG WTF 21 SO GOD CRAAETD TEH GREAT S3A MONSTERS AND 3VARY LIVNG CRAATUR3 TAHT MOVES WIT WHICH DA W8RS SWARM ACORDNG 2 THERE KINDS AND 3VERY WNGAD BIRD ACORDNG 2 ITS KIND!!1111!!1 WTF LOL AND GOD SAW TAHT IT WAS GOD!11!11!!! OMG 2 AND GOD BLASAD TH3M SAYNG B FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLEY AND FIL DA W8RS IN DA S3AS AND LAT BIRDS MULTIPLEY ON TEH AARTH!11!111 WTF LOL 23 AND THEYRE WAS EV3NNG AND THEIR WAS MORNNG A FIFTH DAY!1!!11! 24 AND GOD SADE LET TEH EARTH BRNG FORTH LIVNG CR3ATUR3S ACORDNG 2 THERE KINDS CATL3 AND CREPNG THNGS AND BASTS OF TEH 3ARTH ACORDNG 2 THERE KINDS!1!1!111 LOL AND IT WAS SO!!!!!!! OMG WTF LOL 25 AND GOD MAED DA BASTS OF TEH AARTH ACORDNG 2 THEYRE KINDS AND DA CATLE ACORDNG 2 THERE KINDS AND 3VERYTHNG TAHT CREPS UPON DA GROUND ACORDNG 2 ITS KIND!!11!! OMG WTF AND GOD SAW TAHT IT WAS GOD!11!!!! OMG WTF 26 THEN GOD SADE LAT US MAEK MAN IN OUR IMAEG AFT3R OUR LIEKNES AND LAT THAM HAEV DOMINION OVER TEH FISH OF TEH SEA AND OVAR TEH BIRDS OF TEH ARE AND OVAR TEH CATL3 AND OVAR AL TEH EARTH AND OVAR EVARY CREPNG THNG TAHT CREPS UPON TEH 3ARTH!1!!11! OMG WTF LOL 27 SO GOD CR3AETD MAN IN HIS OWN IMAEG IN TEH IMAEG OF GOD HE CRAAETD HIM MAEL AND FEMAEL HE CREAETD TH3M!!!11!!!1 WTF 28 AND GOD BLASED TH3M AND GOD SADE 2 THEM B FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLEY AND FIL TEH AARTH AND SUBDUE IT AND HAEV DOMINION OVER DA FISH OF DA SEA AND OV3R TEH BIRDS OF TEH ARE AND OV3R 3VARY LIVNG THNG TAHT MOV3S UPON TEH EARTH!1!!11 WTF 29 AND GOD SADE BHOLD I HAEV GIEVN U EV3RY PLANT YEILDNG SED WHICH SI UPON DA FAEC OF AL DA EARTH AND 3VERY TRE WIT SED IN ITS FRUIT U SHAL HAEV THEM FOR FOD!1!!! OMG WTF 30 AND 2 EVERY BAST OF DA EARTH AND 2 EV3RY BIRD OF TEH ARE AND 2 3VERYTHNG TAHT CREPS ON DA 3ARTH 3V3RYTHNG TAHT HAS TEH BRAATH OF LIEF I HAEV GIEVN 3V3RY GREN PLANT FOR FOD!11!!11! AND IT WAS SO!!1!11!!! OMG WTF LOL 31 AND GOD SAW 3VERYTHNG TAHT HE HAD MAED AND BHOLD IT WAS VERY GOD!!!!111! WTF AND THEIR WAS 3VANNG AND THEYRE WAS MORNNG A SIXTH DAY!11!1! WTF LOL

i don't think either me or jhosh really care if you guys are sick of adam schefter, it's your funeral, in hell.

Does this have something to do with sports?

http://www.businessimagegroup.com/images/BHImages/400/hueylewis_sports_cover_400.jpg

I do recall a time when a God answered mine - and other people's - emails on ILE on a fairly regular basis.

there is only one thing i know for sure about god, and that is that he has a dimple.

schefter does not have a dimple, so.

COSMIC SCHEFTER HAS LIKE WHATEVER HE WANTS UNDERSTAND

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2007/05/0530_winehouse_ramey.jpg
DOES NOT WANT

fyi

she's pretty, you are closed-minded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HURJNd0J4U

I SAY NO NO NO

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c30/explodingkinetoscope/hug_from_god.jpg

you would prefer, maybe, the snorg girl?

http://www.youtube.com/p.swf?video_id=epUk3T2Kfno&eurl=http%3A//www.google.com/search%3Fsource%3Dig%26hl%3Den%26q%3Dotters%2Bholding%2Bhands%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch&iurl=http%3A//img.youtube.com/vi/epUk3T2Kfno/2.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskJV1l33bK-OFEeQsOe3lQqK

http://www.thehypertexts.com/images/Boy%20and%20Dog%20Praying%20Together.jpg

the best part of that whole Glengarry clip is the last 2 seconds, when Lemmon walks in and offers commentary.

I went for the cosmic 'higher force' option because there's nothing here that caters to my exact belief, namely that there may well be something out there, but we'll never know, so bless those who have speculated and constructed complicated social systems out of these speculations, but you're almost certainly wrong. Those who preach their faith as gospel at the expense of every other possibility get on my wick like you wouldn't believe.

Plus, I kinda like the idea of a 'higher force'. It would validate so much of what happens in the universe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJyJIxiktPs

I'll vote for "higher force" as long as we're counting physics or math.

I would have voted for "higher force" if it wasn't so boring.

THE OTEHRS ARE BORINGER

You can say what you want, but pantheism is anything but boring.

How could you not side with the Allied Atheist Alliance?
http://www.mcn.org/1/rrparks/fortross/images/otter02.jpg

higher force - way to be so fucking vague guys

i vote no no no!

"It would validate so much of what happens in the universe"

please to list

How many foot-pounds are we talking here?

1. Peanut butter sandwiches.

namely that there may well be something out there, but we'll never know

aka I'm not sure whether or not there is a god.

2. http://www.funnypart.com/pictures/FunnyPart-com-kittens.jpg

funnypart.com aka god

3. chris squire's bass in 'sound chaser'

4. the goatse.cx pic

I BELIEVE WE ALL FIND GOD IN THE FUNNY PARTS

6. http://www.davidsanger.com/images/barbados/3-483-60.footprints.y.jpg

I would have voted for 'awesome mystery'. 'Higher force' is boringest.

a higher force doesn't validate the existence/occurrence of anything because there's nothing to validate the existence/occurrence of that higher force

"there may well be something out there"

there is - rocks, stars, molecules of water, all kinds of things.

Pantheism isn't boring, I'll concede. Ancient mythology is ace!

CURTIS U HAVE HURT MY BRANE, I've just come out of a Shakespeare exam, forgive me if I seem a little facile or vague...

its like i dont want to live w/mommy and daddy anymore but id still like them to check up on me from time to time

Oh, and I'm in all honesty an agnostic; the 'higher forces' thing was tongue-in-cheek. As far as I'm pragmatically concerned, what we know is what we have, and what we must live for.

http://images.villagevoice.com/issues/0721/millionaire-big.jpg

Walking thru a field, I saw a flower there
Dark winds are blowing, rain in the air

& then I realized, it's just like you & I
A disappearing vapor there in the sky

Then what is the reason?
We're living here today, tomorrow taken away
I stopped & I wondered, about eternity
& what does it mean to me
& then heaven told me
It's not the world you see, it's hope for eternity

(Chorus)
Flowers in the rain
But there's a heaven for everyone to gain
Flowers in the rain,
To everyone is a choice to hear His voice
He knows every name
Of the flowers in the rain

Nothing is done unknown, nothing is said unheard
Each step we take is leading to somewhere

Some say it isn't fair, some say they just don't care
But I say the answer waits in prayer.

(Chorus)

ur all gay

7. Louis Jagger in a dress.

http://www.filmtotaal.nl/images/wallpapers/full/tron/tron_1024.jpg

any1 who votes number 2 is going to hell i promise

option 6

GOING TO WORST HELL

suzy
alan
and what
ed

There was a time when there was nothing at al
Nothing at all, just a distant hum
There was a being and he lived on his own
He had no one to talk to, and nothing to do
He drew up the plans, learnt to work with his hands
A million years passed by and his work was done
And his words were these...

Hope you find it in everything, everything that you see
Hope you find it in everything, everything that you see
Hope you find it, hope you find it
Hope you find me in you

So she had built her elaborate home
With its ups and its downs, its rains and its sun
She decided that her work was done, time to have fun
And she found a game to play

Then as part of the game
She completely forgot where shed hidden herself
And she spent the rest of her time
Trying to find the parts

Hope you find it in everything, everything that you see
Hope you find it in everything, everything that you see
Hope you find it, hope you find it
Hope you find me in you

There was a time when there was nothing at all, nothing at all
Just a distant hum

worst hell has all the worst best music

(hmm, some of those don't look right, just from memory)

GOING TO LESS BAD HELL

everyone else

hey lj you soulless fuck i hope you enter the ninth circle (living or dead) before andi's gf calls an ambulance and the funny thing is i don't have to hope

-- strgn, Monday, 28 May 2007 12:10 (2 days ago) Bookmark Link

NOT GOING TO HELL

snorg girl
schefter

Seriously, none of us thought of sock-puppeting "GOD" until now? The shame.

u guys need to read the bible more

http://godmanhiperformance.com/images/template/godmanlogo.gif

:D

http://cyberpunk.net.pl/film/produkcje/gfx/kosiarz01.jpg

lol "godman"

why do we allow God's suffering?

http://www.fecundity.com/pmagnus/godman.html

http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/amg/pop_albums/9/3/6/e93377qro6c.jpg

but mostly:

suzy
alan
and what
ed

if u guys want i will smite someone right now

ok! smite my boss.

nickelback plz

yo GOD, kick me a Fresca

j/k i dont really do that n e more

what kind of punk ass god are you? i will go smite him myself then.

curt1s i will get you a fresca if you do something for me

xpost be careful the schef adam schefter ha ha or i will send you to hell with suzy and alan

oh GOD, look what you've done

whatchu need?

Nabisco is more OTM than this crappy God.

fuk u all

i call harvell

GOD I saw yr son knocking shit over in the temple, you need to watch out for that boy

lj if you dont watch it ill make you a virgin all over again

wait you are going to send me to hell for smiting my own boss? i don't think that's fair.

xp what was schefter doing in the temple??

WELL GUESS WHAT THE SCHEF ADAM SCHEFTER HA HA IM NOT A PARTICULARLY FAIR GOD

God = only 1 letter away from Mod

GOD I think your username is 100% lamer than 696

"TOMBOT" IS REAL COOL THO

compared to GOD

zung by god lol

http://static.fuse.tv/upload/ftpfiles/tattooinkstop/eric64manprayport.jpg

I INVENTED THE ZING

zung by god iii excellent swordfight

is god actually the fake tuomas or is he wrinklepaws

FAMOUS GOD ZINGS:

KICKING ADAM AND EVE OUT THE GARDEN
SODOM AND GOMORRAH
THE FLOOD
JESUS

I JUDGE 2PAC.... POORLY

god, i think clowning jesus, who is a goofy but generally alright dude & good sport overall, is much better than smugly conspiring with him to decide what ppl you're so much fucking better at life than

-- LUCIFER, Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:44 PM (23 hours ago) Bookmark Link

GHOST RIDER YOU MADE A PACT WITH THE DEVIL PLAYED BY PETER FONDA IF YOU THINK IM GOING TO HAVE ANY SYMPATHY FOR YOU JUST BECAUSE OF "CON AIR" THINK AGAIN

SO GOD ARE YOU ONE OF US AND WHAT IF YOU WERE

is it short for goderator

POLL: When did God lose it?

[ ] Prior to the fall
[ ] It was the fall done did it
[ ] The flood
[ ] When he blinded Ham
[ ] Abraham (shit was not cool)
[ ] Pre-resurrection Jesus
[ ] Post-resurrection Jesus
[ ] Crusades
[ ] Aided and abetted by Martin Luther
[ ] Nietzsche

he still got it

fuck a nietzsche

xpost

Along with god and heaven, hell is something that was invented by *people*.

all of you are lord custos

OMG Tom no, we are not writing bons mots in Courier font, please don't go there.

WELL SUZY GOOD LUCK GETTING TORTURED BY DEMONS IN YOUR "PEOPLE-INVENTED" HELL

Hell is other people inventing breakfast

hang on that sounds awesome

I think god's caps lock is on

god is the type of dude who always writes in all caps, like mr. que, or the amazing randy.

GOD is ddb

God's a dirty dronerock boy?!

GOD IF YOU CHILL OUT MAYBE WE CAN HANG DUDE.

DUDE I DONT EVEN TYPE THIS LITERALLY I JUST THINK IT AND IT APPEARS

if you are really God what number am i thinking of right now?

everyone knows the answer to that already

69, dudes

cutty horse is metatron

neigh, verily.

GOD, earlier:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/146/354111117_1d2127ab94.jpg?v=0

miles davis wears khakis, god has a mac.

GOD can summon old ILX at will

xpost

And is probably angrily peeing on my mother's shower curtain as I write.

http://kscakes.com.nyud.net:8080/LolCats/Uploads/Saved/jesus-for-sunbeam-do-not-want.jpg

Shisl lolo alalooopashn izit saeeeloha wazl naza sisl ooompa oompa lalaoaool moog farfar wazl noz shasta oog mabasor farinewert

http://kscakes.com.nyud.net:8080/LolCats/Uploads/Saved/praise-him-lol-i-can-has-sacrament.jpg

Rahtzee!

jiasdfj idfeofj djeio dfo jefoifjo eifj jdsklafjoeijfrjf djfodjf ejfioasfj lkdfnmkghgioefj oanf dfjoefij s
http://www.remsbergphoto.com/Riders/Images/riders3.jpg

JESUS CHRIST DIED FOR BIKERS TOO!

http://kscakes.com.nyud.net:8080/LolCats/Uploads/Saved/jazz-hands-1.jpg

im not a dog

BUT THAT IS MY NAME BACKWARDS

ALSO WHO ARE THE 7 PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD WHO ARE LYING

ACTUALLY I TAKE THAT BACK I KNOW THE ANSWER I AM OMNIPOTENT

WATCH IT YOU SEVEN IVE GOT MY EYE ON YOU

wow well now I know why atheists on ILE are more sanctimonious and offensive here than most religious people

BECAUSE WE'RE RIGHT AND THE REST OF YOU ARE IDIOTS.

it kinda bums me out that such a large proportion of posters have had such overwhelmingly negative experiences with religion that they've never come across a conception of higher consciousness that was acceptable to them.

You know, that isn't the only way for someone to come to an atheist perspective.

Hey, those of you who don't believe in a god, do you think there's an afterlife?

sancti mo collious

I think there's an after eight mint.

You know, that isn't the only way for someone to come to an atheist perspective.

Really? How else do you arrive at what is essentially a reactionary stance, for which there is just as little evidence as there is for that of your ostensible religious opponents? Avowals of certainty and dogmatism are as unattractive on one side as they are on the other, and neither side is operating from a position of absolute knowledge.

You know, that isn't the only way for someone to come to an atheist perspective

yeah, there's also like birth and stuff

Wow, ILX is awesome. I assumed we had a higher proportion of atheists than the US/etc., but damn.

I've not had a negative experience with religion. Just no experience at all. My parents never told be about God, the Bible or anything else as a youth (for reasons unknown) and by the time I was able to think about those things for myself, Christianity/God seemed no more real or necessary than any other piece of myth.

most atheists I've come across seem to want a medal for standing up to organized religion, or have axes to grind against specific conceptions of "God" (when the real question, even the one behind this poll, is what IS God, and what do you mean when you say there is or isn't one)

When you say there isn't one you're saying that you don't one exists.

if you're prone to spirituality, then the question might be 'what is God.'

But if you're not, it ain't.

Or what milo said.

And put a think in there somewhere.

I read the Simo Napier Bell book, where he says "there are three things I never criticise anyone about: Their choice of partner, religion, (forget the third)"

I have lots of friends that are religious. I have never debated the existence of an omnipotent being with them. What would be the point? They like believing, I like not.

Christianity/God seemed no more real or necessary than any other piece of myth.

why should they be? You could say all these different religious cultures are just using different terms for the same thing (a notion which is common to practically every school of mysticism) - why does that mean none of them exist or are relevant or valid?

My experience is the same as milo's, but that leaves me in the "not sure/don't care" camp, not the "definitely not" camp.

if you're prone to spirituality, then the question might be 'what is God.'

But if you're not, it ain't.

so you're sure that something you can't define and have no interest in defining DOES NOT EXIST.

very scientific.

But I do believe that Tuomas is real.

What if you are raised religous, go to church weekly, read the scripture etc. and then decide you don't believe in it. Are you allowed then?

I'm not a scientific person, Shakey.

Atheism is, quite clearly, a reaction to organized religion (or bullshit/hippie spirituality as you seem to be trying to point us toward - something so vague it can't be criticized). What doesn't exist is what Christianity says exists or Islam says exists or Judaism or Wiccans or...

I actually have a very hard time getting inside the mind of a mainstream Christian, understanding how someone can believe the dogma and supernatural aspects at all.

More structured religions (Islam, strict Catholicism) make some kind of sense, insofar as they're explicitly forms of social control and believers seem to understand this. Sunday Protestants, however, boggle the mind.

I have faith (yes, FAITH) that a traditional organized-religion-style god does not exist.

As for higher beings/forces/consciousnesses... I guess it's just not something I care too much about. This is probably why I got sick of physics and took up engineering.

Shakey, have you talked to any atheists since high school? It seems to me that your characterization is mostly applicable to 16 year old rebellious angst.

My experience is very similar to what Milo is talking about, and I could frankly care less whether or not people have religious underpinnings, unless they're dicks about it (and yes, the sorts of atheists you are talking about generally fit into that category.)

Oh, wait, so do you. It all becomes clear now.

You think our lord would recognise a good smiting when he gets one. And we give him the free lolcats.

It's not like I come to this knowing very little about religion because belief systems fascinate me, to the point where I did church and temple tourism with my friends in grade school; not every atheist 'falls' after a response to family's religion that basically sums as 'fuck this charade'.

Religious eternal query: why is it *us* that got to be the 'intelligent' beings, and what does that signify? Where else could it lead? I actually think what differentiates the human animal is its need to make sense of the world and where it came from and where it is going; we've always required structure, narrative, ritual, common touchstones and archetypes as aids to communication and living. We also use every single one of these things to intellectually justify the packs we run in, and why we do not run with others. Religion is only as good or as bad as its adherents are at any given time, and despite the occasional run-in with a few unpleasant godbotherers, I remain a critic, not a hater.

Theists = Optimists
Atheists = Pessimists
Agnostics = Realists

Oversimplifications? Priceless.

Tape Store = poignant

For everything else?

http://hobbylink1.com/covers/fdc/mastercard.jpg

Heaven doesn't take American Express.

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Sorry, I should have explained myself...I was referring to their thoughts on religion...not their general life attitudes.

(Agnostics are the only realists when it comes to religion beecause...well, we don't know shit!)

Yeah, when I was 17 I thought "If Christianity is pessimistic as to man, it is optimistic as to human destiny. Well, I can say that, pessimistic as to human destiny, I am optimistic as to man." was some deep shit too.

http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/deep_water.jpg

As usual, thx for making me hate myself, internet.

This is cocaine speaking. I can make you do anything for me.

(Agnostics are the only realists when it comes to religion beecause...well, we don't know shit!)

Yeah, science has proved pretty woeful at explaining everything that "God" used to stand in as an explanation for.

FUCK YOU COCAINE

Tape Store, don't be ashamed AT ALL; your posts are by far much more insightful and much less embarrassing than my posts at your age.

How else do you arrive at what is essentially a reactionary stance

I just want you to know that I do not speak through Shakey Mo Collier. He is an ass.

Also: blargl fubartopas anlerfosterhasenfargle woot woot hallelujah.

if only GZeus were here

Shakey vs. GZeus

t/s, s/d, c/d

1. Religion
2. Politics

so you're sure that something you can't define and have no interest in defining DOES NOT EXIST.

very scientific.

Well, the scientific method is pretty limited in its ability to suggest whether or not God exists, simply because science builds up evidence slowly based on limited discoveries. Science is working on the question as to what happened at the beginning of time and space and why time and space would be created out of 'nothing.'

So in the absense of scientific evidence, one should turn to logic, which is a modelling exercise through which one can come up with what is most likely.

Does logic suggest to you that God does or does not exist?

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

reactionary

I don't know who GZeus is. I am probably guilty of subscribing to what milo characterizes as "bullshit/hippie spirituality" - I'm interested in syntheses of various disciplines, in the mystic traditions of the more prominent organized religions (sufism/kabbalah/gnostics/zen etc), in overlapping systems, stuff like that. I'm sorry if somehow I come off as holier than thou or oppressing people with my beliefs or whatever but I would think it goes without saying that everyone has a right to believe whatever they like. I'm just interested in these concepts and the different ways people approach them. And yes I've talked with many atheists since high school - a lot of them here on ILM even (see the many A. Nairn threads, whatever happened to that troll) - and I don't live in a bubble.

x-post

Does logic suggest to you that God does or does not exist?

what do you mean by "God"? Logic would suggest to me that there is no literal bearded old man in the sky watching over the earth - this is self-evident.

On the other hand, logic also suggests that the range of possibilities implied by an infinite universe are too vast for the human mind to grasp, and that it is therefore entirely possible that there are forms of consciousness superior to our own in the universe.

Because there are things we don't know, it is possible that there are superior forms of consciousness. Agreed.

Let me take the common athiest argument though. Because we aren't entirely sure, it is possible that the tooth fairy exists. Agreed?

It's possible but empirical studies tend to show that parents carry out Its will more than It does Itself.

And do empirical studies tend to show any involvement of God in human affairs?

As someone who was in a Chassidic yeshiva for 3 years where I basically spent all my time studying chassidis/kabbalah, I gotta admit that I have no idea why it gets lumped into other "pseudo popular religion" lists. There's very little immediately applicable about it to your personal life, and what it says about God wouldn't seem particularly exciting to any searcher. (The fundamental tenant of understanding God in Kabbalah is that you can understand everything except for God. It's called negative knowledge - you can know what God isn't, but not what he is.)

That's Xpost to you, Shakey. I'm curious what you get out of it.

tenant?

And do empirical studies tend to show any involvement of God in human affairs?

if you mean by sending plagues of locusts I would probably say no. If you mean by "creating" the law of gravity or the phenomenon of light or the structure of time, I would probably say yes.

I don't think that's right. No empirical study that I know of has suggested that God created gravity.

even god is a concept is useless information, even moreso than string theory - string theory is a model that can predict things about the universe for us, even if we can't find a good falsifiable hyopthesis to test in repeatable experiments for it, the idea of god in the agnostic sense is a tautological model that predicts nothing but itself and is completely unfalsifiable either way - so in that case atheism doesn't have to be denial so much as a lack of concern for totally useless wastes of time that just bring us back to doe doe doe doe.

god AS a concept

I am inclined to think that we have evolved with a tendency to believe in a higher power or order and that this is an evolutionary way of coping with the seemingly arbitrary nature of the universe, somewhat like a sense of humor. It doesn't necessarily follow that such a power or order exists, independently of the believer, however.

That's Xpost to you, Shakey. I'm curious what you get out of it.

well as a Jew I have my own axe to grind against Hassids but setting that aside for the moment I would say that up to now its been largely academic on my part - reading Gershom Scholem, some fairly bastardized stuff like M. Mathers and Gareth Knight, etc. On a spiritual level I appreciate its appeal to negative knowledge - its very similar to sufism, zen, gnosticism - this seems like a fundamental truth that resonates with me. And on a cruder level I appreciate the artful design of its cosmology, the "map of reality" that the Tree of Life represents, the metaphorical system it lays out. I am not a serious student by any means, although I do practice a form of meditation and sometimes I find these ideas are helpful reference points for that.

haha yeah god is a model that predicts that individual humans are unable to create a satisfactory discrete narrative for everything that happens to them

I don't think that's right. No empirical study that I know of has suggested that God created gravity.

well, no empirical study has ever provided an explanation for the existence of gravity.

TOMBOT totally 8080

many xposts

even god is a concept is useless information, even moreso than string theory - string theory is a model that can predict things about the universe for us, even if we can't find a good falsifiable hyopthesis to test in repeatable experiments for it, the idea of god in the agnostic sense is a tautological model that predicts nothing but itself and is completely unfalsifiable either way - so in that case atheism doesn't have to be denial so much as a lack of concern for totally useless wastes of time that just bring us back to doe doe doe doe.

I don't deny any of this - apart from the characterization of "useless", which is a qualitative judgment that obviously varies from person to person. Certainly thinking about all this stuff has affected and informed the way I live my life.

well, no empirical study has ever provided an explanation for the existence of gravity.

scientist physicist

once you have an explanation for the existence of gravity, you'll need an explanation for whatever caused gravity to exist, etc. etc. I know that's a tired argument.

well, no empirical study has ever provided an explanation for the existence of gravity.

And we've completed the loop. Back to my post about the scientific method versus logical reasoning?

apart from the characterization of "useless", But they are saying "useless" in the sense of not providing anything useful toward scientific or logical inquiry.

xx

People have a shit-ton of trouble grasping the infinite, the infinitely small, the infinitely large, infinite time, infinite causation, etc. which is what God ends up filling in a lot of the time.

yeah gravity is pretty well explained? in terms of understanding the basic particle or wave functions at the quantum level that give rise to gravity and control its force, we're working on it. but we have satellites in the sky that measure gravity fluctuations on the earth to better understand the distribution of mantle mass beneath the surface, among tons of other types of shit, so perhaps you should clarify what you mean by "explanation"

People have a shit-ton of trouble grasping the infinite, the infinitely small, the infinitely large, infinite time, infinite causation, etc. which is what God ends up filling in a lot of the time.

Agreed. But here's the common argument I don't get. People say nothing can exist without a creator, so there must be a God. And then you say, well, by that logic something must have created God. And then they say, no, God is outside the bounds of logic. Well, then there is no way to say anything about the existence or non-existence of God, because now thinking about God is proscribed by 'his' being outside the bounds of logic.

He is asking essentially, who or what scribbled down the laws that dictate our universe? Which is silly, because it assumes there must be an "uncaused cause" (as it were, I hate to use that phrase) that is outside of the universe. Can't the universe itself be uncaused?

xpost, yeah humansuit got it

yeah gravity is pretty well explained? in terms of understanding the basic particle or wave functions at the quantum level that give rise to gravity and control its force, we're working on it. but we have satellites in the sky that measure gravity fluctuations on the earth to better understand the distribution of mantle mass beneath the surface, among tons of other types of shit, so perhaps you should clarify what you mean by "explanation"

that explains HOW it works (and yes we're developing better and better models all the time), but it doesn't explain WHY it's there at all. I assume from your posts that you're familiar with the current problem of resolving the laws of gravity with the theory of relativity - ie, explaining how it is that quantum particles on the one hand and stellar bodies on the other don't seem to follow the same laws.

because now thinking about God is proscribed by 'his' being outside the bounds of logic.

which is what kabbalism - and pretty much every other mystic discipline in the world - says, as referenced upthread by Mordecai.

Christianity and Judaism and other major religions, assuming you aren't classifying them under "mystic disciplines," also rely on that principle.

"why are bosons there?!?" "why are we here?!?" etc. depending on your concept of how a why question should be answered the second question either leads eventually to the first or they're both independent of one another- if you think they're independent then you're likely to find that all your answers are tautologies and essentially explain nothing - just like god

Can't the universe itself be uncaused?

does positing that the universe has always existed in its current state sound any more logical than positing a causal force? Logic breaks down at these questions - I guess what fascinates me about a lot of mystic orders is that they reached these conclusions in many cases centuries before science filled in the details.

(x-post to Curtis - yeh I would include certain strands of Judaism and Xtianity in that)

does positing that the universe has always existed in its current state sound any more logical than positing a causal force? Logic breaks down at these questions - I guess what fascinates me about a lot of mystic orders is that they reached these conclusions in many cases centuries before science filled in the details.

if you consider Plato and Aristotle members of "mystic orders"

"why are bosons there?!?" "why are we here?!?" etc. depending on your concept of how a why question should be answered the second question either leads eventually to the first or they're both independent of one another- if you think they're independent then you're likely to find that all your answers are tautologies and essentially explain nothing - just like god

I'm not denying that result, I guess I am just fascinated that the most basic questions of existence inevitably lead to that result, and I'm curious about the various paths people have taken to get there.

(when the real question, even the one behind this poll, is what IS God, and what do you mean when you say there is or isn't one)

this is the most OTM thing on the thread

I'm pretty sure Plato and Aristotle didn't formulate quantum physics. Or even have accurate maps of our solar system for that matter.

x-post

logic does not break down at these questions! when science encounters a singularity we don't go "ok so a big bang? alright well that's it then!" and wait around to find out what happens at the other end. we investigate to see if we can find out what happened before, and will it happen again, etc.

you're talking about the limits of rationality itself, which we haven't found yet, because they're defined by our instrumentation and technology, not by some hidden paradox of the scientific method itself which doesn't already have a caveat. you can attack the caveats of empiricism all you want but guess what BEEN THERE DONE THAT THX GBYE

You said "causal force," not "quantum physics." I'm just saying Plato and Aristotle pondered questions of ultimate causation without any mystic/religious influence. I suppose I misinterpreted what you were trying to say.

I'm one of the people who ticked "I'm not sure" fwiw

I would imagine that one's tolerance for concepts of God is probably correlated one's tolerance for or interest in questions such as:

Why is there something rather than nothing?
Has the universe always existed?
Is time infinite in both directions?

Sorry for the mangled grammar: should have said "correlated with one's tolerance".

which is what kabbalism - and pretty much every other mystic discipline in the world - says, as referenced upthread by Mordecai.

Right, but here's the logical problem.

Assumption: I have stated that God exists.
Conclusion: Therefore I believe in God.

This assumption does not flow from anything rational.

Shakey I think I get your point a little better now, like you're getting at a more eastern-trad concept of the journey is the destination kind of thing, where denying the question of god is a sort of self-denial in a sense? like even if the result is "useless"/tautological, the concept should not necessarily be discarded because it's a paradigm we can utilize in thought to better understand other questions?

you're talking about the limits of rationality itself, which we haven't found yet, because they're defined by our instrumentation and technology,

I'm not sure what you mean by this

Well, I don't really think that the end can be assessed as of itself as being the end because what does the end feel like? It's like saying when you try to extrapolate the end of the universe, you say, if the universe is indeed infinite, then how - what does that mean? How far is all the way, and then if it stops, what's stopping it, and what's behind what's stopping it? So, what's the end, you know, is my question to you.

It's not wise to presume that atheists just shut their eyes and ears to questions about the universe, existence, causation, etc. and say "I DON'T WANT TO THINK ABOUT IT"; most atheists I've known have been open-minded and willing to study religion even if they don't believe in god.

like even if the result is "useless"/tautological, the concept should not necessarily be discarded because it's a paradigm we can utilize in thought to better understand other questions?

yes, the journey is definitely the point, the excercise appears to be a fundamental part of being a conscious human, its something that's been a part of every culture since the dawn of recorded history and probably before. Which is why my reaction is one of surprise (and admittedly disappointment) when people say they don't care, that it doesn't matter, that there is no God how can you be so stupid to even think about it, etc., like all these millenium of people trying to understand the universe and their place in it has been a waste of time that hasn't produced anything of value or affected them in any way.

Indeed, being an athiest about God is the same thing as being an athiest about Big Foot. Or an athiest about the fact that I own a Ferrari. I'm telling you I don't. You don't know, but you can use logic to surmise it's true. You would change your opinion with further evidence - however, that evidence would have to fit within some kind of logical framework, and not simply be "faith."

X

haha the wit and wisdom of David St. Hubbins

well once again then semantics has made us all into assholes

its something that's been a part of every culture since the dawn of recorded history and probably before.

you know, like rape, or cannibalism

there was a parody comic marvel did, in What If? or What The?!? where the silver surfer was granted one request by galactus, whatever he wanted could be his, and he asked for nova, you know the girl on fire that succeeded the surfer as galactus' herald, and galactus stuck him on earth in a chevy nova, the silver surfer was pissed

yes ethan we know you hate fundie Xtians

I think the problem some God-believers have with atheism is that it demands that belief in God be subjected to logical discourse and rational belief. Now, obviously this isn't the case for the vast majority of God-believers, but at least some don't use God to explain the physical world or to dictate action. They just believe that there is a primary mover. As a correlation, they might believe that "holy" documents have something useful to say about morality, but I don't think that's necessarily linked to belief in God.

(Personally, I ascribe to Heschel's "Torah from the Heavens" where he writes that the Torah that we have in this world is a poor translation of the heavenly Torah. As such, not everything we say is divine in the Bible is actually so. He also says that the Torah we have is the closest thing to the heavenly Torah, so we have to make do with what we've got, and our own communally developed understandings of morality/religion. It's a handy way to both believe and not believe at the same time.)

I can't wait until they turn the Infinity Gauntlet into a summer movie trilogy

Dennis Hopper as Thanos

Also: xxxxxxpost. tenet* typo.

I think the problem some God-believers have with atheism is that it demands that belief in God be subjected to logical discourse and rational belief.

Pretty much. What other kind of discourse and belief should it be subject to? Irrational discourse and irrational belief?

The Iraq war was a good idea. Because I say so. Because I believe the bible infers it. Done.

He also says that the Torah we have is the closest thing to the heavenly Torah, so we have to make do with what we've got, and our own communally developed understandings of morality/religion. It's a handy way to both believe and not believe at the same time.

But since there is no logical way to conclude that the Torah is or is not 'from the heavens,' or which parts are actually from the heavens, you are free to believe whatever the hell you want, based on what your faith tells you. Isn't that so?

It's not wise to presume that atheists just shut their eyes and ears to questions about the universe, existence, causation, etc. and say "I DON'T WANT TO THINK ABOUT IT"; most atheists I've known have been open-minded and willing to study religion even if they don't believe in god.

I agree- I don't think that most self-described atheists are as dogmatic as some of the more vocal ones, such as Dawkins. I think that in unbelief as in belief a certain amount of doubt or uncertainty is healthy. Someone who is 100% sure that God does not exist is about as odd to my way of thinking as someone who is 100% sure of the opposite - perhaps even more odd, since at least the latter is psychologically explainable from the phenomena of mystical experiences of God's presence - is it possible to have a mystical experience of God's absence?

Btw, Wikipedia covers the long history, pro and con, of the argument from "first cause":

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

They just believe that there is a primary mover. As a correlation, they might believe that "holy" documents have something useful to say about morality, but I don't think that's necessarily linked to belief in God.

thx for posting this Mordecai, this is totally where I'm at.

Someone who is 100% sure that God does not exist is about as odd to my way of thinking as someone who is 100% sure of the opposite

In point of fact Dawkins isn't like this. He's said that if there was a logical explanation for the existence of God and any evidence of said existence, he would change his mind.

Unfortunately Dawkins is kind of skewed into the one-dimensional characterization that many believers would like to have of 'hard-core' pieces of shit doomed to hellfire.

I mean athiests.

I genuinely believe that Philip K. Dick's VALIS / Tetragrammaton / Logos is a pretty good model of god.
In thumbnail, I think that 'god' as face of the universe we inhabit, God both upper and lower case as ombudsman for all of the actions and ideas that are suprahuman, beyond the structures of our brains to interpret, 'god' as being the good face we put on things we don't know yet ... is pretty powerful. And still I hate calling god god because I don't believe in an overall cognizent superbeing. Intolerant rational-empiricist asshole types with their 'you believe in god which is illogical so you're dumb' turn me off of atheism, because I think they're extremely limited in their conception of the universe, and at the same time the dogmatically religious turn me off for very similar reasons. But I know I'm not agnostic, either. I know very precisely what I believe, and it falls evenly between atheism and some sort of catholic faith.

is it possible to have a mystical experience of God's absence?

reading Nietzsche is like this

suck on this o ye of little faith

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/31/britain.lochness.ap/index.html

where are the doubters now?

Woah. Humansuit. I just explained why believers have a problem being in conversation atheists. Not why either one is correct. And your answer is flabbergasting. I said that atheists demand logical proof and believers don't and you answered: SO WHAT SHOULD BELIEF BE SUBJECTED TO? That's the point. A believer doesn't believe faith should /be/ subjected to anything. They have faith because they have faith. Not because it can be proved.

the concept of God needs to be cleaned up a little. for now it's seemingly an empty placeholder.

God, for me, stands for the way things exceed our grasp. science, i think, will never be finished because science will continue to construct objects for its observation--or to put it another way, it will continue to create the situation in which the observation of particular objects or events is possible in the first place. this quality of something extra, or beyond (even if it's as simple as the case that one moment to the next we don't know for certain what is gonna happen--the fundamental fallacy of induction always holds) can't be conceptualized or defined in any determinate way.

God, in all the ways we think this concept, is actually a very useful way for thinking about this because God is the object which is NOT an object, not a thing like a table or chair. it works like a master concept that helps to organize how we think about all the others.

someday a backpacker will film god and the true believers will be laughing at YOU

u guys I got sexxxy photos of god wanna see

Has there been Immaculate Conception pr0n yet?

Why can't we just admit that most atheists are as stupid and narrow-minded as most God-believers? You're not more progressive or intelligent because you don't believe in some theological precept, you're not more rational – you're not even more thoughtful.

Curtis, there's a lot of middle english passion poetry that basically amounts to holy smut.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB_c2RwpbXU

Loch Ness monster. I believe it's that evil black soul Richard Dawkins out for a swim. Or Bill O'Reilly. I'm going to go into some deep scientific investigation and logical reasoning about it.

Curtis, there's a lot of middle english passion poetry that basically amounts to holy smut.

BUT WHERE ARE THE PICTURES

Why would you presume that atheists or God-believers are necessarily narrow-minded? You can have beliefs and still be open to new ideas.

Dawkins in particular does strike me as willfully ignorant about a lot of theology and history, at least from what I read of "The God Delusion" in the bookstore a few weeks ago. This came up on some other thread.

x-post

Proof: I believe in God. I'm in the middle of the new Hitchens' book.

x-post

And your answer is flabbergasting. I said that atheists demand logical proof and believers don't and you answered: SO WHAT SHOULD BELIEF BE SUBJECTED TO? That's the point. A believer doesn't believe faith should /be/ subjected to anything. They have faith because they have faith. Not because it can be proved.

Yeah, I don't think it should 'flabbergast' you to any extent. I was just discussing something you wrote. But, OK ...

At any rate, yes, I know that believers think faith shouldn't be subject to anything. I believe that was the point of what I'd written above. X

I think the problem some God-believers have with atheism is that it demands that belief in God be subjected to logical discourse and rational belief. Now, obviously this isn't the case for the vast majority of God-believers, but at least some don't use God to explain the physical world or to dictate action.

I think it is the case for the majority, perhaps even the vast majority, of God-believers (unless by God-believers you're only referring to, like, hasids), which I define as people who, when asked by a telephone poll if they believe in God, would say yes. If asked whether God explains the physical world, many or most who don't have any better explanation might say yes, but outside of the question, is this the role 'God' plays in their lives? In very large part, no, I don't think.

Why can't we just admit that most atheists are as stupid and narrow-minded as most God-believers? You're not more progressive or intelligent because you don't believe in some theological precept, you're not more rational – you're not even more thoughtful.

We can't admit it because it's not true. Athiests who have arrived at a disbelief in God through a rational thought process are inherently more logical than believers who have arrived at a belief in God through faith (which is inherently illogical).

Curtis: I think that most people are narrow-minded in their faith. Based on my experience, most God-believers are really threatened by the idea of atheism and will shut down before considering it. Or considering it in a non-bracketed way. And visa versa. Of course you can have beliefs and be open to new ideas, but I think that most people are pretty incurious about matters spiritual and philosophical.

Shakey, as I understand it, you believe the following things about atheists/atheism:

1) That atheism is reactionary
2) That atheists aren't interested in, or are shut off to, the mysteries of existence

I am curious to know why you believe this and if you believe these are universal, inherent conditions, because I know that they are not.

Are theists threatened by the idea of atheism because they believe it will bring punishment from God? If that's so, wouldn't more atheists be open-minded to theism than theists to atheism because there is no cosmic retribution for atheists? (obv it depends on the type of theism)

didn't we already do 20 rounds with shakey over whether atheism is reactionary? fuck searching a thread.

"there is no reason for reason"

atheists and fundamentalists are locked in an infinitely pointless dance of their own making.

on the other hand, anyone who claims a faith that is 100% other-worldly or extraneous to worldly experiences is making things a lot more simple than they should be. the way these things interlock strike me as incredibly complex, almost moment to moment.

(and there are many reasons I know why God-believers dislike atheists, the main reason being that atheists are constantly demonized and inaccurately portrayed in our culture)

"belief, as I have mentioned before, is a redundant and pointless human emotion.

-- Ed, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 13:57 (Yesterday"

Belief is an *emotion" now?

Also, is it "redundant and pointless" that ordinary people believe that man-made global warming is a reality even though they haven't studied/can't understand the science, and even the climate scientists themselves aren't 100% sure of the veracity of the projected events?

I don't think theists are threatened by atheism. At least, I don't feel any more threatened by atheism than I do by any religious belief that doesn't conform to my own personal belief. (And I don't. Feel threatened.) I've also never felt particularly compelled to convert an atheist to theism. I'm more interested in understanding why some people are atheists and some believe in God. That seems like the better question.

atheists and fundamentalists are locked in an infinitely pointless dance of their own making.

So there should be some kind of reconciliation? Like, OK, I'll believe in God if you'll just admit that my being athiest was pretty fucking progressive.

Done. Throw in, say, $20, and I'm there.

atheists are constantly demonized and inaccurately portrayed in our culture

not gonna deny that this is the case (it is) but I daresay the level of vitriol and visible hatred detectable in the public personas of Dawkins and Hitchens don't help the cause any. Neither did Madaleine Murray O'Hair for that matter.

so many x-posts this thread is moving too fast

anyway Mordechai OTM and no Fluffybear I'm not gonna make a universal generalization about atheists (cuz of course it wouldn't be accurate).

How about this for reconciliation: I'll admit that believing in god makes no sense, places me out of step with modernity, and is an indefensible position. And atheists can stop going on and on about how illogical I am and let me believe what I want.

hahahaha

can we just agree that agnostics are a bunch of fence-sitting Swiss chumps who just like acting like they're better than everybody else because they "keep an open mind?" (e.g. are closer to God than one camp and closer to Science than the other, the best of all possible worlds, the supermen of our times)

I haven't really read this thread but I demand to know why there isn't an "I honestly don't care either way" option.

that'd make it 50 then

I find it more troubling that 8 people believe they are god. Shouldn't we be discussing that instead?

<i>I'm more interested in understanding why some people are atheists and some believe in God.</i>

I think the vast majority of people are born into these particular ways of seeing, and don't deviate greatly from them. I grew up in an entirely secular family, and it never once occurred to me independently that there would be gods. I am an atheist because I don't really have a belief in meaningful existence in the first place, and I think that is directly born of a lack of exposure to these faith-based notions early in life.

The interesting question might be how and why a handful of people find faith or lose faith they once had.

x-post this thread is moving too fast for me to keep up

those wishy-washy agnostics. I'd like to smack their mewling faces.

Mordechai: is the problem really how athiests won't let religious people believe what the hell they want, or is it ... the other way around? Post your address. I've got some pamplets I'd like to swing by and read to you.

How about this. To get rid of our aggression we put soap bars in pillow sacks, and in the dead of night we threaten to beat the agnostics until they pick a side.

can we just agree that agnostics are a bunch of fence-sitting Swiss chumps

http://www.snarksmith.com/images/050606/stephen_colbert.jpg

"Sir pick a side, rational or non-rational. We're at war. No more fence-sitting."

I never realized there was such vitriol aimed towards people who just don't give a shit (e.g. me)

Can we talk about people like Church of Satan members, who are dedicated atheists but believe in MAGIC? wtf is that?

straight up dumb

I am an atheist because I don't really have a belief in meaningful existence in the first place

then why do you even bother staying alive?

Can we talk about people like Church of Satan members, who are dedicated atheists but believe in MAGIC? wtf is that?

Satanists are not atheists, they're reactionary Catholics.

those are just hardcore Wizards Of The Coast fans

xxposts

I don't believe in God but I do agree that there were definitely dragons.

otm

Well, the translation from Latin is 'I don't know'. What bugs me on an intellectual level is 'I'm not willing to examine belief and belief systems with the rigour I might otherwise apply to any other thinking'.

what about elves

Srsly dudes, Satanic Bible reads like "How 2 Be a Non-Religious-Right Republican" and then they get into MAGIC.

wasn't anton la vey jewish?

Elves like with the ears and the ornaldo bloomps or elves like an alternate term for little people? 'Cause I believe in Ornaldo Bloomps but I don't believe in little people.

TOMBOT OTM re tautology and agnosticism. I called myself an agnostic for some time before I came to the conclusion that this unknowable proposition that I did not subscribe to was no longer a reference point for my exploration of the mysteries of life and meaning and morality, so why not embrace atheism and stop operating in reaction to theism.

http://studentpages.scad.edu/~csimmo23/myspace/myspace%20sidebar/little%20people%20big%20world.jpg

^ noize family photo

you know what option was missing from the poll was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Shammgod

then why do you even bother staying alive?

The same self-preserving forces that keep cats and dogs from not constantly offing themselves. Also coffee, oysters, sex, and other things I can't get if I'm dead.

humansuit: As someone who has flirted with atheist beliefs (while I was still living in ultra-right-wing communities), I have to say that my experience of the oppression against atheists is VERY overstated. I think there's probably an equal amount of derision from atheists to theists (if not more) than vice-versa. After all, I think I understand and respect your opinion. I'm positive you neither understand nor respect mine.

I believe in Jesus Christ Allin.

That wasn't phrased eloquently... "based on my experience, I think the case for oppression against atheists if very overstated" is what I meant to say.

Wow! Shakey played "well why don't you just kill yourself then" trump card.

If you like meaningless existence so much then why don't you marry it???

no no I have a card that beats that it says Why Don't You Just Kill Yrself HITLER

"Why don't you just kill yourself" card = Godwin's Law of Religion Debates?

Do LaVeyan Satanists actually believe in the magick stuff? I always got the impression that was just for kicks, something they picked up from Crowley, etc.

WHY DON'T YOU MARRY HITLER, ATHEIST

I tend to lean towards the term agnostic because I don't personally believe in god(s) but I also don't think anyone can actually KNOW if god exists. Mostly though I like to tell myself that I wouldn't act differently if I thought there was some old guy in the sky who will punish me if I'm bad, so it doesn't really matter either way. I really hate atheists who act like there is absolutely nothing positive about religion, though.

anton oy vey

nothing will ever beat roger adultery's "you're just arguing because you've never been in a gang bang" trump!

Wikipedia says they do, xpost to milo. I kind of would like to meet someone who honestly believed in magic I grew up in a church that had "healing ceremonies" nevermind.

i believe in sex & drugs & rock 'n' roll

Fluffy re: yr "conversion" from agnosticism to atheism - what convinced you that there is no God, or even that ascertaining the possibility of the existence of a supra-human consciousness was within your capacity. My main problem is that atheism implies a certainty which I'm convinced is simply not possible (or even logical) given the limits of human perception.

Wow! Shakey played "well why don't you just kill yourself then" trump card.

no no no sorry I didn't mean to imply he SHOULD kill himself, I just don't see why anyone would want to go on living if they really and truly believed there was no point or meaning to their existence. Subsequent post indicates however that the instincts towards pleasure and avoidanace of pain "mean" something to him.

so many x-posts arggh

this thread is a lot more fun than the ones about race!

xposts to JM...that's roughly my position, although I'm slightly more tolerant towards the more intolerant atheists. ;-)

those are good points about agnosticism. but i usually say im an agnostic as a little silent protest against materialism or rationalism, in either its religious or scientific forms...it's not fence sitting so much as having a definite desire for a third way. i dont want to play by the rules either religion or science/rationalism wants to play by. and it seems really important to me to resist those rules for any number of reasons.

humansuit: As someone who has flirted with atheist logical examination

Fixed this part.

I'm positive you neither understand nor respect mine.

Actually, I understand your position, otherwise I couldn't respond to it. I respect your free will to believe whatever you want. You may want to differentiate 'respect' from 'agree'. This is, afterall, a thread in which we are all discussing this issue. I'm not going to walk into your church and tell you I disagree with what you are doing on this fine Sunday, but on a thread? About the belief in God? I think it's fair to debate, don't you?

I just don't see why anyone would want to go on living if they really and truly believed there was no point or meaning to their existence.

I identified as an agnostic for the longest time - in part because it seemed to express my distinct lack of caring about god and it was easier than just flat out calling myself an atheist. But at some point I realized I was being dishonest - there was no way I could conceive of a higher power even possibly existing.

TS: who's being more condescending, shakey mo or humansuit?

I cannot take sides, I'm agnostic on the question

There's a difference between the broad sense of meaning that you get from anything that you interact with and the narrower but more fulfilling sense of meaning that people with faith seem to get on top of all the regular stuff. The latter is what I took you to mean, but if you're willing to accept my somewhat limited sense of meaning as okay and human, I'm cool with that.

I really hate atheists who act like there is absolutely nothing positive about religion, though.

I believe in the positive aspects of religion to the degree I believe in positive qualities of human beings. I don't think it takes any of the things we normally ascribe to "religion" to make a person behave in an admirable way. To the degree that religion markets itself as one of the only if not THE only way to encourage people to be charitable and stand for something, I prefer to tell religion to go fuck itself in the eye.

I didn't say you don't respect my free will to believe what I want. I said you don't respect my opinion. I believe respecting an opinion requires you to see the possible merit in that opinion. Though you may not hold that opinion yourself, you can understand why someone would hold it. Btw: Understanding that someone is immature/stupid/illogical is not understanding why someone would hold that opinion.

But, taking you at face value: Assuming I'm a mature, intelligent, logical human being, can you honestly say you understand my opinion? Or must I not be those things?

Also - of course you can debate God on this thread.

remy you rather neatly removed yourself from that TS!

hahaha

:(

Why can't we just admit that most atheists are as stupid and narrow-minded as most God-believers? You're not more progressive or intelligent because you don't believe in some theological precept, you're not more rational – you're not even more thoughtful.

TS: who's being more condescending, shakey mo or humansuit?

Um, you. Shakey is trying to have a discussion. You're just taking shots at people.

What positive aspects of religion there are exist outside of religion as well - you don't need God to have your faith in humanity affirmed or to greet each dawning morning as blah blah blah (and traditional religious belief often directly contradicts those positive impulses).

On the other hand, there is no atheist analogue for the vast amounts of horror and evil that religion has contributed to humanity. No body kills a man because a god they don't believe in tells them it's ok.

There's a difference between the broad sense of meaning that you get from anything that you interact with and the narrower but more fulfilling sense of meaning that people with faith seem to get on top of all the regular stuff. The latter is what I took you to mean, but if you're willing to accept my somewhat limited sense of meaning as okay and human, I'm cool with that.

gotcha - for some reason this exchange seems reminiscent of Steve Martin discovering his "purpose" in "The Jerk"

even more x-posts

My main problem is that atheism implies a certainty which I'm convinced is simply not possible (or even logical) given the limits of human perception.

I have no reason for believing in god.

For example, while I could not have known whether there were WMD in Iraq, I recognized that the WMDist argument was a sham. Now I could have been agnostic about WMDism, but I didn't want to be complicit in one of the greatest fuck-ups of my lifetime.

I had no reason to believe in WMD.

fair point, humansuit. i didn't mean to come off that dicky. all i was trying to say is that i think atheism is sometimes a mask for religious intolerance.

On the other hand, there is no atheist analogue for the vast amounts of horror and evil that religion has contributed to humanity. No body kills a man because a god they don't believe in tells them it's ok.

mmm, I dunno about this, yr venturing into treacherous waters on that one. I hesitate to invoke Godwin's Law and the Nazis and all (or Stalin, or Pol Pot)

Understanding that someone is immature/stupid/illogical is not understanding why someone would hold that opinion.

I simply said that the belief in God is not logical. It is about faith. I never even got close to saying it was immature or stupid. So I don't know where you're coming from. I'd rather discuss this then get into this pretend thing where I'm pretend disrespecting you based on stuff I never said.

But, taking you at face value: Assuming I'm a mature, intelligent, logical human being, can you honestly say you understand my opinion? Or must I not be those things?

Where is this coming from? If I came off as implying you weren't any of these, I apologize. I find that often happens on message boards without clues about voice tone, facial expression etc.

um Fluffy Bear there needed to be POSITIVE EVIDENCE of WMD in Iraq for the invasion to be justified.

(and it wasn't religion that created the atomic bomb or mustard gas or agent orange...)

x-post

I really don't see what point you're trying to make. Are you saying that agnostics MUST BELIEVE that positive evidence isn't required to justify things like invading other countries?

um Curt1s no shit read my post that is my point

Stalin, Pol Pot and the Nazis killed for power (or in the latter case, pseudo-religious reasons). Not because a non-existent god told them to invade Jerusalem and flood the streets with the blood of heathen Muslims/Christians.

(that was an xpost) xpost

My apologies if that's not what you meant. I guess I read tone into your initial post asking whether faith should be based on illogical reasoning (it sounded like a fairly sarcastic, nasty response). (Since that post has passed into the 'more messages' event horizon, I can't quote it.)

No body kills a man because a god they don't believe in tells them it's ok.

no one rationalizes murder or any other wrong by reference to any non-religious justification?

Milo, thanks for saying that. I was about to say that I think the case for anti-religion based on religious violence is really overstated. Don't politics/power/economies/social conditions have as much to do with these conflicts?

No. Simply a comment on logic vs. faith. Not a nasty put down. XX

oh sorry I did misread sorry

I was getting distracted by all the agnostic-hatin' Kool-aid getting passed around this thread

we cool

Milo, thanks for saying that. I was about to say that I think the case for anti-religion based on religious violence is really overstated. Don't politics/power/economies/social conditions have as much to do with these conflicts?

I agree with this. In the absence of religion conflict / cleansing would still take place - human beings would simply use different markers to justify it - race, region, language, etc. Like Sudan for instance.

I believe in the positive aspects of religion to the degree I believe in positive qualities of human beings. I don't think it takes any of the things we normally ascribe to "religion" to make a person behave in an admirable way. To the degree that religion markets itself as one of the only if not THE only way to encourage people to be charitable and stand for something, I prefer to tell religion to go fuck itself in the eye.

-- TOMBOT, Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:34 PM (Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:34 PM) Bookmark Link

I pretty much agree with your perspective, but after growing up in the Bible Belt and around the militant atheists it produces, I really think that attitude of "all/this religion is bad and evil and stupid" is just as hateful and closeminded as the fundies it rails against.

I was getting distracted by all the agnostic-hatin' Kool-aid getting passed around this thread

I still hate agnostics though.

I was about to say that I think the case for anti-religion based on religious violence is really overstated. Don't politics/power/economies/social conditions have as much to do with these conflicts?

OTM - Dawkins makes this argument and its totally unconvincing. Separating out religion from all the other contexts and causes of human violence is really disingenuous and inaccurate.

Curt1s, my point was that taking an agnostic position doesn't make sense. Atheism is actually much more positive and less reactionary than agnosticism.

how can you 'hate agnostics', such absolutist talk bespeaks bigotry

Waht? Then I didn't misread your post at all, I guess.

xposts

Doesn't agnosticism have a range of meanings? It could be someone who is of yet undecided, but is working on figuring it out. It could be someone who is completely apathetic to the question. Or it could be someone who says that it's impossible to know if God does or doesn't exist.

I mean I don't even know what your "being agnostic about WMD's" is supposed to imply. That has nothing to do with agnosticism.

Milo, thanks for saying that. I was about to say that I think the case for anti-religion based on religious violence is really overstated. Don't politics/power/economies/social conditions have as much to do with these conflicts?

There are always other reasons (and I never meant to imply that religion was a sole cause) - but is there any enticement quite so convincing as 'god told me to'? Could the Spanish Inquisition exist without God?

If we argue that religious violence is just another link in the chain of eternal political or economic violence, then I think that puts the atheist in a rather strong position as it punctures the air of spirituality and holiness that gives religion its power and defensibility. God exists only to keep you in line and convince you to do someone's bidding, etc..

good, that's settled then. who has the phone number for the vatican?

I was kidding about hating agnostics. Come on. Does this help?

I hate agnostics. :)

Doesn't agnosticism have a range of meanings?

I think the breadth of the term is similar to that of 'atheist' or 'believer'

I mean I don't even know what your "being agnostic about WMD's" is supposed to imply. That has nothing to do with agnosticism.

But since he had never seen the WMDs for himself, and had never been given persuasive evidence of their existence, he was atheistic about them.

um Fluffy Bear there needed to be POSITIVE EVIDENCE of WMD in Iraq for the invasion to be justified

Yes, that is my point.

There needs to be positive evidence of god for me to do something based on the justification of his existence.

Are you saying that agnostics MUST BELIEVE that positive evidence isn't required to justify things like invading other countries?

no

If we argue that religious violence is just another link in the chain of eternal political or economic violence, then I think that puts the atheist in a rather strong position as it punctures the air of spirituality and holiness that gives religion its power and defensibility. God exists only to keep you in line and convince you to do someone's bidding, etc..

Why the conflation of religious organizations and people who believe in God? I can (and do) agree that religious organizations exist to consolidate power, organize politically, etc. I don't think believing in God implies the same, though.

If we argue that religious violence is just another link in the chain of eternal political or economic violence, then I think that puts the atheist in a rather strong position as it punctures the air of spirituality and holiness that gives religion its power and defensibility.

I don't understand this reasoning that just because humans do typically human things in the name of God somehow invalidates the possibility of a higher power existing in the universe. People do shitty thing, they always have - the existence of a God seems like a totally separate question to me.

Hating agnostics; Eminem Style:
I hate you agnostics.
Just kidding. I love you.
But I'm going to kill you.
Just kidding.
(No, I'm not. I hate you.)
Haha.

"Being agnostic about WMD's" = "I don't know whether or not there are WMD's; I will believe there are WMD's when there is proof that there are WMD's, and I will believe there are not WMD's when there is proof that there are not WMD's." By analogy, being "atheistic" about WMD's, I suppose, would be "I believe there are not WMD's," and being "theistic" about WMD's would be "I believe there are WMD's."

There was no evidence of WMD's. The Iraq invasion = justifiable only if someone could prove there were WMD's. Out of the stances listed above, which of them would be pro-Iraq invasion? (Hint: there is only one, and it is not the agnostic)

xposts

This is going so fast but 'agnostic' means 'one who does not know' in Latin.

Yes. But people doing shitty things supposedly in the name of a loving God give the lie to that idea of God, or at least their sincerity of belief. xp to Shakey.

Mordechai: Exactly. I'm agnostic about hating agnostics.

There needs to be positive evidence of god for me to do something based on the justification of his existence.

Agnostics don't do anything based on the justification of God's existence. So what's your point?

altho okay I can see how positing the Catholic Church, for example, as just another bloodthirsty, greedy organization similar to other human organizations would tend to divorce someone of their "faith" in that particular Church... but so what? that doesn't really have anything to do with cosmology or theology or causal forces of existence.

x-post

never mind don't bother answering me

By analogy, being "atheistic" about WMD's, I suppose, would be "I believe there are not WMD's," and being "theistic" about WMD's would be "I believe there are WMD's."

This is the basic problem with the term agnostic. Dawkins is agnostic based on some definitions, since he's willing to change his mind based on evidence. However, he is athiest in the sense that based on the logic and scientific evidence he already has, he tentatively concludes that he does not believe in God. xxx

But people doing shitty things supposedly in the name of a loving God give the lie to that idea of God, or at least their sincerity of belief.

right right, no argument from me there.

yeah I guess a more accurate description would be "I believe there is not a God by default until someone gives me irrefutable evidence that there is" (and the antithesis for theists, obv)

Whenever I see those multiple aligned x's, humansuit, I keep thinking you're doing a little kiss-kiss-kiss thing at the end of the post. Like: "XOXOXX." Then I realize it's an xpost indication.

hugpost

many many xposts - Only if you believe the existence of God is completely separate from the legitimacy of those groups/priests that have mediated his existence since time immemorial, Shakey.

Deifying Caesar kind of put the lie to the sanctity and reality of Roman religion, didn't it?

LOL

Actually it's an indication of whether I am posting horny or not. xx

His existence? An agnostic should not assign gender to this thing they don't know for sure exists. Yippee 5000 years of cultural programming.

Curtis do you not think that the burden of proof is on the theists?

the fact that there isnt a god isnt a conclusion from religious violence but religious violence is an argument for strong atheism

sorry if I've been doing that (I don't know if I have) - I've been typing shit fast and I'm defaulting to whatever our base cultural assumptions are

TOO BUSY BEIN' AGNOSTIC ABOUT A DING DONG

STOP TYPING SENSELESS SHIT YOU NIHILIST SON OF SATAN.

it seems to me that the major problem that agnostics have with atheism, with its certainty, is the latent authoritarianism in it. trading one form of dogmatic certainty for another strikes agnostics as a waste of time, and in pragmatic terms will lead to trouble down the line....i choose agnosticism because i think it's better than either option. it's like fixing a position of indeterminacy or uncertainty--yes this is paradoxical, but because of that paradox it's unstable and allows for the best decision making free of cant or dogma.

atheisism is a weapon to use against religion. it is nothing more to me. it doesnt even make sense with out religion, as noted above, it's caught in the same (bad) logic.

to this end i guess it's useful, but as an agnostic im just not interested in that fight anymore, and im likely to take either side under different circumstances. atheism and theism have a predetermined set of responses to any circumstances--agnosticism fixes uncertainty in the HOPES that this can be avoided. maybe it can, maybe it cant. but it still strikes me as teh best choice for now.

Is it a dogmatic certainty to say that there isn't alien life on Mercury?

Agnostics don't do anything based on the justification of God's existence. So what's your point?

What's the point of being agnostic?

Technically, I am agnostic in the sense that I understand that I cannot know. I reject the idea of god, because as a literal agnostic, the idea of god does not do anything for me.

ledge I do believe that, because theistic religions make more specific/obscure/outrageous arguments ("There is a man in the sky who makes laws and made the universe this way" requires more proof than the more general "There is no higher power"), though it really depends on how you define "theist," "atheist," "God," "existence," etc. I lean way more towards atheism than theism but mostly I just don't give much of a fuck because existence is completely absurd and beyond our logical comprehension no matter how you look at it, so I ticked the "I'm not sure" option in this poll and moved on with life.

its not authoritarian to be certain of things just because some religious nut says theyre uncertifiable by definition

it seems to me that the major problem that agnostics have with atheism, with its certainty, is the latent authoritarianism in it. trading one form of dogmatic certainty for another strikes agnostics as a waste of time

Again I think this is just a definition problem. Do you really think that if God came to earth, explained to all the 'athiests' how the earth was created, why it is logical to believe in HER, and gave concrete proof that there is a God, that athiests would shut there ears and say "no, no, I BELIEVE in No God?" I've never heard an athiest express their worldview in that way.

I think a lot of atheists and agnostics think the exact same way and just keep attacking each other for no reason because semantics is a bitch

I think a lot of atheists and agnostics think the exact same way and just keep attacking each other for no reason because semantics is a bitch

Yeah.

that's why I get furious when people say "I hate atheists" or "I hate agnostics" when they share those exact beliefs

Again I think this is just a definition problem. Do you really think that if God came to earth, explained to all the 'athiests' how the earth was created, why it is logical to believe in HER, and gave concrete proof that there is a God, that athiests would shut there ears and say "no, no, I BELIEVE in No God?" I've never heard an athiest express their worldview in that way.

Yeah, but then what if a bigger god came to earth and ate her up in one gulp and then the bigger god said, ok listen people, I am the ultimate god my word is the truth, not the tasty snack god.

I mean that's one of the tests of a mature religion--the ability to deal with the allowableness of god.

that was supposed to be "unknowableness".

I would still worship the tasty snack god. I generally worship anything tasty.

that's why I get furious when people say "I hate atheists" or "I hate agnostics" when they share those exact beliefs

I agree with this. In the absence of religion conflict / cleansing would still take place - human beings would simply use different markers to justify it - race, region, language, etc. Like Sudan for instance.

Like the Crips and the Bloods.

Do you really think that if God came to earth, explained to all the 'athiests' how the earth was created, why it is logical to believe in HER, and gave concrete proof that there is a God, that athiests would shut there ears and say "no, no, I BELIEVE in No God?"

this is a theist's wet dream

jackchick.jpg

And I say unto you, "Yay, I am the tasty snack God. Eat of me at snack time."

I bet the tasty snack God is made of graham crackers or Goldfish.

GIS result for tasty snack god

http://www.thechippie.com/images/chips/sun_chips_halloween.jpg

my tasty snack god would definitely be a donut or some other form of pastry

my tasty snack god would definitely be a donut or some other form of pastry

Looks like you and me are gonna have some religious conflict.

clearly fried dough is the way of the light, your salted snacks are a byproduct of your delusions.

I have just eaten your god, I am your new god

I bet your god smells like doritos, dorito breath.

Is it a dogmatic certainty to say that there isn't alien life on Mercury?

God doesnt live on mercury. God is not of the same category of existence as alien life on mercury. god is NOT A THING TO WHICH YOU CAN ASSIGN A DEFINITE ONTOLOGICAL PROPERTY. that is the whole point of the idea of god.

two people arguing over the existence of god is not of the same category of argument which argues over what does or does not exist in the way we normally take the verb "to exist".

the common atheistic response to the proposition "god is not a THING" is to say then that the idea of god is then meaningless. agnostics do not think that this concept of god is meaningless. in fact we think it is productive, and even pragmatically useful, and it's good (better) philosophy and ontology. this may be "negative theology" but nothing is still a something...

i feel like the atheist is forced to DENY CONCLUSIVELY the mere possibility that something may exist outside of his field of vision. does not the possibility itself exist tho? surely it's evident even to an atheist and his certainty that "i could be wrong"--and that mere admission is all I, as an agnostic, am asking for. that little sliver of doubt there is the whole universe of possibility, and when it gets its foot in the door it busts wide open.

Yeah I could be wrong. Still an athiest though.

agnostics do not think that this concept of god is meaningless. in fact we think it is productive, and even pragmatically useful, and it's good (better) philosophy and ontology.

er well I wouldn't go that far.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y176/edwardiii/i_like_gods_style.jpg

Yeah, I could be wrong. Still, LOL at agnostics and theists.

and also: certainty is necessarily authoritarian i fear. beliefs lead to actions, and certain beliefs lead to authoritarian actions...

and admitting uncertainty, the bare possibility of fallibilism, does not mean we can start jumping off buildings to see if we fly, but it's just an admission that our existence and our life in this world is a provisional affair, partially lit up and partially obscured, and we're just feeling our way along.

haha ok fair enough at the "i could wrong posters"--i could be wrong too.

agnosticism really IS a wishy washy bullshitty stance. it's just the only way i know of to conceptualize uncertainty. it only comes into hard focus when paired against atheism, but put between atheism and theism it seems silly.

Listen, can one be a theist and still be a skeptic and a doubter? Yes. Can someone please tell me where this idea comes from that as an atheist I must be sure in all things and never consider the possibility that things exist beyond my understanding?

well it comes from this thread. but i would put myself in that camp--the uncertain atheist.

viewing agnosticism as "on the fence" between atheism and theism is silly anyway!

If no one had ever conceived of god, you would not be an agnostic. However, under the same conditions, while the word "atheist" wouldn't exist in such a universe, an outside observer from a universe wherein theism exists would identify the inhabitants of the atheistic universe as atheists.

Dear thread,

Let me know when we get this pesky "Epistemology" thing solved. THX in advance.

-j.

lol @ this week's This Modern World

Ha, I didn't realize I was trying to solve for X. I'm just saying that atheism is more naturalistic and honest than agnosticism, which only makes sense as a reactionary position towards theism.

If you have no way of knowing whether god exists and if you aren't making a leap of faith, why not just say "I don't believe in god"?

I'm just saying that atheism is more naturalistic and honest than agnosticism, which only makes sense as a reactionary position towards theism.

I've usually heard this the other way around!

If you have no way of knowing whether god exists and if you aren't making a leap of faith, why not just say "I don't believe in god"?

Well I, for one, don't believe in god, but I could be an agnostic or an atheist depending on your definition of either. I ticked "I'm not sure whether or not there is a god" on this thread, but I really don't care that much about which -ism I fall under. You can call me whatever the fuck you want because I think the semantics are stupid in the atheism vs. agnosticism snafu. And I think a lot of agnostics/atheists are this way.

you're right. but i think a lot of god-believers are also actually kind of agnostic, they just fall on the side of practicing the traditions they were raised in.

If no one had ever conceived of god, you would not be an agnostic. However, under the same conditions, while the word "atheist" wouldn't exist in such a universe, an outside observer from a universe wherein theism exists would identify the inhabitants of the atheistic universe as atheists.

Surely that should be 'the universe where no one had ever conceived of God' rather than 'the atheist univers'? Unless the observer from the theist universe was observing a third (and previously unmentioned) universe which was populated by people who strongly disbelieved beliefs which no one in their universe had ever had.

Ha. But we are labeling it as an atheistic universe, because we are making an argument from within a universe in which exists theism and atheism.

as, exists

You know the thing I love about you is that even though you don't believe in God YOU DO BELIEVE IN RAINBOWS!!!!!!

http://www.toyarchive.com/CareBears/PillowRainbowBear1a.jpg

God doesnt live on mercury. God is not of the same category of existence as alien life on mercury. god is NOT A THING TO WHICH YOU CAN ASSIGN A DEFINITE ONTOLOGICAL PROPERTY. that is the whole point of the idea of god.

If you don't like aliens on Mercury, how about banshees? Ghosts? The Loch Ness Monster?

two people arguing over the existence of god is not of the same category of argument which argues over what does or does not exist in the way we normally take the verb "to exist".

But there are roughly as many Shakeys in the US (where most posters to this one hail from) as there are atheists and agnostics. The dominant theology is organized Christianity along with Islam and Judaism.

I don't know about that - polls consistently show that there are a lot more Americans who believe in God than Americans who go to church regularly.

MANY OF YOU ARE V V BAD AT MAKING TEH THINKING PARTS OF YOU GO.

who is humansuit if not rip

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/the_holy_bible_autographed_by_jesus_on_ebay

would definitely buy a manics album that had been autographed by jesus