Religion — Page 22

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

Bingowings said:

Papa don't preach.

?

I believe she's in trouble deep.

huh?

They're quoting old Madona lyrics.

Was Captain Lou Albano in that video?

You're thinking of Cyndi Lauper.

Aha! Don't know why I couldn't link to it before. Here is the Taylor Kessinger piece that got him in a bit of trouble:

http://www.wildcat.arizona.edu/article/2008/09/a_rational_response_to_atheists

Too bad the comments posted in the paper weren't tacked on to the electronic article, as it was satisfying to read the responses. I swear, as reasonable as this bum sounds towards Christians in this article, he wrote several insulting comments about them during my time at the UA, including one targeting Mormons (satire, but in bad taste).

So I hear ya on that topic. Yes, atheist is broader term than I was/am giving credit. But at least know this very article was in the back of my mind as I composed my earlier message, and I simply chose to focus more on the scientific atheists without careful phrasing.

So perhaps you are correct that the whole topic could be defined as a matter of semantics. But...forget it, I just decided to delete my silly paragraph showing that you can use scientific evidence to 'know' with reasonable certainty that the TMNT aren't real. I won't bore you, since I'm sure you know that such testing can be shown. Let's just cut to the chase. I suppose that in a philosophical sense, Leo can claim to 'know' that God is not real. But I am curious as to his source of knowledge. I can claim to know that 9/11 was an inside job and have far more evidence than he (I don't accept the Truther philosophy at all, incidentally). To what can he point in order to claim this knowledge? Frankly, I don't care if he or anyone says he knows God is false, except that I feel those who really claim to 'know' such things are usually the very offended. But as you said, atheist ~ agnostic for those who really take the time to think it through. The difference in labels is only slight in most cases. TV's Frink is, after all, only a weak atheist ;)

And I disagree that I am an Atheist.  Beliving there is no God is not the same as suspecting there isn't one.  I believe it is possible God exists, though if so I doubt it is a form that we can understand.

Warbler said:

Bingowings said:

Surely the whole point of having an open thread on the subject is to talk openly about it.

you don't want to openly to talk about it, you want to disrespect the
Christian beliefs.  You want to mock us and make us seem silly.  

Bingowings said:

Highlight my condescending tone.

Bingowings said:

A) FACT so.

B) So what if he is real that doesn't make him automatically worthy of worship.

C) If your next door neighbour did this thing you'd phone the police, Killing someone in a horrid torturous fashion for something that someone who hasn't been born yet will inevitably do is not nice. It's sick! 

 

 

That's not mockery.

Believe me.

Mrebo said:

ender expresses much of my sentiment on this topic. And it goes to Leonardo's response about his view of the world versus others. But I think it's a cop-out to complain about generalization.

The word arrogant has been bandied about. I think the real problem is ignorance (the pure definition of the word: lacking in knowledge), whether that ignorance of God is based on allegedly rational scientific thought or just accepted for some other reason.

The scientific process is not a brick wall; it's an open-ended expanse. I think that is ender's point. When those claiming to adhere to the scientific process declare God non-existent, they are the ones using it as a brick wall. The great faith in the scientific method is another issue. I see the scientific method as nothing more than a very limited set of tools. In order to scientifically demonstrate that God doesn't exist, one must define God in some narrow way and not just come up empty-handed, but as Leonardo suggests, show that God cannot possibly inhabit the same space as other demonstrable elements. I don't see how science can possibly do so.

A cop-out? Seriously?

This whole discussion is getting so very silly.

Science doesn't need to disprove the existence of gods or god-like creatures. No evidence exists for them, there is no reason to assume they exist or to feel the need to disprove they don't.

There are all sorts of things that don't exist, and thankfully, we don't waste a lot of time on proving they don't. If someday we discover mermaids or unicorns, I for one, think that would be super cool, and I'd be very excited about it. Until then, I am content to assume they are mythological (which I am sure you assume the same about them).

So now we have those who through faith believe in a deity (which I am perfectly cool with, if it brings you comfort, if it makes you happy, please, have at it), waving the burden of disproof in our faces for something we haven't the slightest good reason to suspect any possibility of. If you are going to make a claim, then the burden of proof is on your shoulders. "Period. End of sentence." As Warb would say.

If I make the claim I am a super awesome vigilante that makes Batman look extremely lame by comparison, whose job is it to verify this? Yours of course! No! Obviously it is mine. You have no way to prove I am not an amazingly awesome vigilante who fights crime every evening, but I am the one making the fantastic claim.

I cannot disprove your god. Me admitting this is no more of a victory in the name of theism than me admitting that we cannot prove or disprove the existence of centaurs. But ultimately, all evidence points away from their existence, we only know about centaurs thanks to ancient writings of fantastical tales that they are included in.

So...to get more directly to your point CP3S, there is a difference in not believing in a particular formulation and 'knowing' that no deity exists. At best, us monotheists are partial weak atheists ;) I am of the view that (a mere belief without a claim of knowledge) many/most views of god(s) are the imperfect human perceptions of the true God. Looking at it from a more pseudo-scientific perspective, a belief in one particular formulation may preclude the existence of some other god(s).

I know centaurs and Santa do not exist. If you can prove to me either one exists, then I will drop my defense of Leonardo's statement that, according to his belief system and world view, he knows god does not exist.

Barring proof of centaurs or Santa, I'm not going to reply to another word on Leo's claim, and my defense of his use of wording. It has just gotten absurd, and driven what was an interesting discussion into a pithy debate over semantics.

Leo feels he knows God does not exist. Many religious people are at least as certain that God does exist.

Why should either of these concern us to the point of discussing it with nearly as many words as we already have?

C3 for president.

CP3S said:

I'd maintain that the vast majority of atheists are also agnostics (Leo, clearly, not being of this group), and that the vast majority of agnostics are also atheists. Fink doesn't believe in a god, though he'd call himself agnostic, he is technically an atheist. In the same way, most atheists will admit that they cannot disprove god or know 100% for sure that a god or god like being doesn't exist, which effectively makes them agnostic on the situation. Ultimately, agnostic is kind of a redundant term. You either believe or you don't believe. If you say, "I don't know for sure, but I don't think so." Then you don't believe. If you say, "I don't know for sure, but I think so." Then you believe. I suppose agnosticism could be reserved for those who just don't care enough to even bother thinking about it in the first place.

Wut.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Personally, I wouldn't want to be labelled an atheist - or an agnostic atheist, for that matter - even though I suppose I do meet your criteria, for the simple reason being that I don't like atheism - in fact, I hate it* - and don't want to be associated with it.

 

You meet the status quo on that one, Dur. Atheism has quite a bit of a stigma attached to it, and you'd be one of many atheists I have encountered who refuse to call themselves atheists because of their ill feelings toward them. There is a rather surprising societal bias against atheists. People like the word agnostic because it feels less extreme.

I think this is going along with the idea that atheism is some kind of a doctrine. A year or so ago, I walked into a bookstore and purchased a copy of Hitch-22. The woman at the checkout looked amused and said, "That's funny, you don't look like an atheist to me, and I know atheists." I tend to find checkout line conversation irksome enough even when the clerk is not saying ridiculous things. I wanted to ask, "And what should an atheist look like?" but decided just to make a bemused grunt instead. The woman was assuming only atheists would read Hitchens, and that they all somehow look to be a certain way.

Atheism isn't a doctrine, a religion, a set of beliefs, or even a subculture (though you do have subcultures that are atheist). It is merely a lack of belief in a deity, nothing more or less. When you say you hate atheism, you are essentially saying that you hate disbelief in gods.

TV's Frink said:

C3 for president.

Impeach C3!    I also demand to see both the short and long forms of his birth certificate!

CP3S said:

I cannot disprove your god.

then you can not claim to know he doesn't exist.

CP3S said:

This whole discussion is getting so very silly.

Science doesn't need to disprove the existence of gods or god-like creatures. No evidence exists for them, there is no reason to assume they exist or to feel the need to disprove they don't.

There are all sorts of things that don't exist, and thankfully, we don't waste a lot of time on proving they don't. If someday we discover mermaids or unicorns, I for one, think that would be super cool, and I'd be very excited about it. Until then, I am content to assume they are mythological (which I am sure you assume the same about them).

So now we have those who through faith believe in a deity (which I am perfectly cool with, if it brings you comfort, if it makes you happy, please, have at it), waving the burden of disproof in our faces for something we haven't the slightest good reason to suspect any possibility of. If you are going to make a claim, then the burden of proof is on your shoulders. "Period. End of sentence." As Warb would say.

If I make the claim I am a super awesome vigilante that makes Batman look extremely lame by comparison, whose job is it to verify this? Yours of course! No! Obviously it is mine. You have no way to prove I am not an amazingly awesome vigilante who fights crime every evening, but I am the one making the fantastic claim.

I cannot disprove your god. Me admitting this is no more of a victory in the name of theism than me admitting that we cannot prove or disprove the existence of centaurs. But ultimately, all evidence points away from their existence, we only know about centaurs thanks to ancient writings of fantastical tales that they are included in.

I know centaurs and Santa do not exist. If you can prove to me either one exists, then I will drop my defense of Leonardo's statement that, according to his belief system and world view, he knows god does not exist.

Barring proof of centaurs or Santa, I'm not going to reply to another word on Leo's claim, and my defense of his use of wording. It has just gotten absurd, and driven what was an interesting discussion into a pithy debate over semantics.

Leo feels he knows God does not exist. Many religious people are at least as certain that God does exist.

Why should either of these concern us to the point of discussing it with nearly as many words as we already have?

Oh, CP3S, don't be a party pooper ;)  Quite honestly I've enjoyed this discussion and have found it very interesting.  I'm saddens me you haven't gotten the same pleasure.  If I may try to wrap things up on one thing: you and every other atheist of any brand may make any claim you like and I will not like you less for it.  I just felt that the reasoning was inconsistent, and I simply wanted to make what I thought was an interesting point.  I understand that the burden of proof would be on me to demonstrate that God exists, if that were my intent.  But I too know that it is not a falsifiable experiment, and that the nature of the experiments which I have performed are only evidence to myself of his existence.  It was not my purpose to prove anything, just to point out the different standards.  And considering the extensive criticism the prominent scientific atheists level at believers for not using our brains enough and having no evidence of our point of view, I see nothing wrong with turning their logic back on them a bit.  I certaintly respect your perspective and am not trying to persuade you to believe anything else.

I think Bingo did that.

Oh, so because Bingo did that, he now thinks he's all powerful?  I hear it took him at least a week and a half!  Pffffft!

The first one took a week and a half but that's because there weren't enough bugs in it.

I'm not convinced any of you exist.

Including Bingo.

darth_ender said:

Oh, CP3S, don't be a party pooper ;)  Quite honestly I've enjoyed this discussion and have found it very interesting.  I'm saddens me you haven't gotten the same pleasure.  

Don't get me wrong, I got pleasure from it too. But I feel like Leo made a claim, and I defended his use of the word "know", and it has kind of got us stuck in that rut ever since. There is really nothing else to say on that subject. Leo made his point, I made mine. I'm perfectly happy to go on with the discussion, I'll just wait until we move past the "know" thing and jump back in.

I'm honestly curious to hear more of your thoughts that you only were able to respond to in brief the other night.  I know you were tired, but I'm curious about how you feel on my dualistic perspective of the world.

You can never have too many bugs.

Especially flies.

They are always trying to tell you something.