Recommended Posts
jakee 1,595
QuoteSo how is existence not the origin of life?
The origin of existence is not the same thing as the origin of life. Abiogenesis on this planet occured around 10 billion years after the big bang. They are not the same thing.
If you have an interesting painting or sculpture in your house and someone asks "where did that come from?" you don't recite the entire history of the universe.
QuoteOr do you suggest the life came before existence?
Don't be stupid.
QuoteWe are carbon life forms, we are made of existence. Once we die that carbon is recyled into something else.
we are one with existence and life is nothing without it.
Point being?
QuoteDo you beleive that human beings were created before all other flora and fauna by the hands of god?
Don't be stupid.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
jakee 1,595
Quote
Yeah, exactly - your content free soundbite.
(And that's not a rephrasing - it's a fundamentally different statement)
OK, I guess you are spent. That is all you got.
No, it's all I need.
Say something with with any content or structure and I might engage. If you continue to present nothing but an assertion based on your own smug sense of superiority then all you get is 'Yawn'.
Because it is very, very boring.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
winsor 236
QuoteGod doesn't play dice with the universe
-Albert Einstein-
Life is a stochastic process - God is dice.
GeorgiaDon 380
True enough. The questions can be viewed as a sort of "trivial pursuit", but at least they relate to objectively verifiable facts. What sort of questions could possibly be asked about the religious experience that have correct/incorrect answers that could be verified by an objective referee? You could ask "Do you consult God's Word before making important decisions?", and some would answer yes and some no, and both would be correct from their perspective.QuoteThe questionnaire lacks any relevance concerning the reality of God.
I think you may be missing the point of the survey, which was not about an understanding of "reality" in a universal sense. I do think it interesting that so many people who self-identify as being very religious seem to be so lacking in understanding of the basic tenants of any religion apart from the one they follow, and even there they seem ignorant of basic facts and tenants of their own religious tradition. How can that be? Doesn't that suggest that their "faith", however deeply held, is superficial and has never been subjected to serious inspection? Of course that would be a personal matter, except for the part where their ignorance extends to the US constitution and the law. As a result they read things into the law that are not there, which on the one hand feeds their sense that there is a "war on Christianity", and on the other hand bolsters their feeling that laws should be passed to "protect" Christianity and society by restricting other religions.QuoteIf atheists or agnostics use it to bolster their beliefs in a superior understanding of reality...
Are you over your ear infection yet? Hope so.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
rehmwa 2
QuoteI don't like the term God, but I truly belive in a spiritual existance over and above carbon structures. We are one with nature, just the religous bigots refuse to acknowledge that.
meh - semantics - this statement is pretty much exactly what the "religious bigots" do believe in - they just have a lot more tapestry to it - and they want your money
clearly this statement shows you have a religious bent and don't like the concept of "Religion", so you rename it (IMO) to something you can handle. I don't differentiate between one person's set of fantasies and another's - regardless if one is very formal and his god has a name and they have rituals; and the other one just simply likes to stare into crystals, commune with nature, and throws out terms like "karma" like it's real.
it's all the same stuff to me. pretty much a comfy blanket
Edit: I pretty much agree with your views on the subject. Difference is, you like to muse upon it and are happy to hear what people think on it. I don't think it matters one way or the other and am annoyed by those that really take it so seriously one way or the other.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
rehmwa 2
QuoteReligious person becomes Agnostic then becomes Atheist.
restated correctly
Religious person eventually grows up and admits he can never know for sure, then overshoots and decides he definitely knows something undefinable, and picks the opposite religion
"Religious person becomes Agnostic then becomes Religious again"
why not stop at agnostic - it's the only truly honest position - don't know, doesn't matter (unless you want to use your belief to judge other's beliefs) - I guess the "doesn't matter" portion isn't universal to agnostics, just that subset like minded to me.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Quotehttp://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/
I got 13/15. Grew up Christian, became an atheist as an adult..
meh,
got 15/15 ... and could have answered most of those questions when I was 15.steveOrino
Meso 38
I loath the term agnostic, I'm fairly certain everyone that calls themselves one is either A) Doing it so as not to step on religious peoples toes completely or B) Because they are just fence sitters.
Look, both Atheists and Agnostics are going to hell according to religious text, so I see no need to fence sit.
But more importantly... Why would anyone want to call themselves agnostic?
Maybe Agnostics don't get the whole Atheism thing. Atheism isn't about knowing 100% that no God exists, it's about being highly sure that no God exists.
I'm going to use that analogy I've used to very many times, since it seems people didn't get it or missed it completely:
I tell you that there are unicorns and faeries that live inside rainbows. And naturally if you aren't a complete retard you will disagree with me and state that there is no such thing.
Now in this situation you would (I hope) be willing to state that logically you can conclude that there is no such thing, and because of your high certainty of it, you will state that it therefore, does not exist.
Now there is no way you can tell me for sure, positively that there is no magical faeries and unicorns inside every rainbow since you are unable to try walk into the rainbow. You can't disprove my theory if I claim faith, since faith over-rules physics.
Now that is an Atheist approach, you see something that makes no sense and is highly unlikely so you deduct that it therefore doesn't exist. You don't say to me "Well you know, you could be right... In fact I don't think I'll take a stand on any side since it can't be proved or disproved", or if you did- you would be an idiot.
Now it's exactly the same thing for religion. I know I don't know all the answers to everything, and I know there is no way of disproving a faith since they can always bend science around it. But I've come to the conclusion that there is reason enough for me to deduct that there is no God.
So sorry to bust your bubble, but if you're like 99% sure there is no God, you're an Atheist (Nobody can be sure). As my analogy above points out, you don't need 100% proof to conclude that something doesn't exist.
As for 'where did everything come from if there isn't a God'. That's a silly pattern of thought, there are countless theories, and most of them make more sense than a magical being in the sky. Whom should I remind you, if you want to have the idea that everything needs an origin- wouldn't exist either. You can't believe God has always existed while matter is incapable of always existing.
Look, both Atheists and Agnostics are going to hell according to religious text, so I see no need to fence sit.
But more importantly... Why would anyone want to call themselves agnostic?
Maybe Agnostics don't get the whole Atheism thing. Atheism isn't about knowing 100% that no God exists, it's about being highly sure that no God exists.
I'm going to use that analogy I've used to very many times, since it seems people didn't get it or missed it completely:
I tell you that there are unicorns and faeries that live inside rainbows. And naturally if you aren't a complete retard you will disagree with me and state that there is no such thing.
Now in this situation you would (I hope) be willing to state that logically you can conclude that there is no such thing, and because of your high certainty of it, you will state that it therefore, does not exist.
Now there is no way you can tell me for sure, positively that there is no magical faeries and unicorns inside every rainbow since you are unable to try walk into the rainbow. You can't disprove my theory if I claim faith, since faith over-rules physics.
Now that is an Atheist approach, you see something that makes no sense and is highly unlikely so you deduct that it therefore doesn't exist. You don't say to me "Well you know, you could be right... In fact I don't think I'll take a stand on any side since it can't be proved or disproved", or if you did- you would be an idiot.
Now it's exactly the same thing for religion. I know I don't know all the answers to everything, and I know there is no way of disproving a faith since they can always bend science around it. But I've come to the conclusion that there is reason enough for me to deduct that there is no God.
So sorry to bust your bubble, but if you're like 99% sure there is no God, you're an Atheist (Nobody can be sure). As my analogy above points out, you don't need 100% proof to conclude that something doesn't exist.
As for 'where did everything come from if there isn't a God'. That's a silly pattern of thought, there are countless theories, and most of them make more sense than a magical being in the sky. Whom should I remind you, if you want to have the idea that everything needs an origin- wouldn't exist either. You can't believe God has always existed while matter is incapable of always existing.
jakee 1,595
Quotewhy not stop at agnostic - it's the only truly honest position - don't know,
You don't know that there isn't an invisible unicorn outside your window, a family of gnomes living at the bottom of the garden, a goblin under the floorboards or a fairy sitting on your shoulder. But if someone asked you if you if any of those things were there you probably wouldn't say "I don't know", you'd probably just say "no".
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
Andy9o8 2
QuoteQuotewhy not stop at agnostic - it's the only truly honest position - don't know,
You don't know that there isn't an invisible unicorn outside your window, a family of gnomes living at the bottom of the garden, a goblin under the floorboards or a fairy sitting on your shoulder. But if someone asked you if you if any of those things were there you probably wouldn't say "I don't know", you'd probably just say "no".
Agreed; and I agree with Meso's post #85. I, too, dislike the word agnostic. I think the vast majority of people who call themselves that (esp. in the US, where "atheist" is a dirty word, like "Communist") do so because, despite the fact that they are essentially atheists, they wish to avoid social stigma associated with the word "atheist". Socially, it's a path of lesser resistance.
wmw999 2,588
I think there are a decent number of agnostics who doubt the veracity of all the specific religion stories, but who don't doubt that there is some sort of spiritual force that we don't have insight into.
The concept of "God" is one way of reminding ourselves that each of us might not be on the right path to understanding, and to keep our minds open.
And church isn't a bad way to have to sit somewhere once a week for the specific purpose of thinking about what it means to be a good person.
But to me, theology is one of the most arrogant things out there -- here you have God, the un-knowable who is immensely more complicated and outside our bounds, and you propose to tell me how he thinks? It's one thing to quote the Bible (which has too many internal contradictions to be an exact account of anything), but it's another entirely to "interpret" it.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. 
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
billvon 3,116
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>You don't know that there isn't an invisible unicorn outside your window, a
>family of gnomes living at the bottom of the garden, a goblin under the
>floorboards or a fairy sitting on your shoulder.
Right. But if the question was "is something living outside your window that you don't know about?" the most accurate answer in most cases is "I don't know."
>family of gnomes living at the bottom of the garden, a goblin under the
>floorboards or a fairy sitting on your shoulder.
Right. But if the question was "is something living outside your window that you don't know about?" the most accurate answer in most cases is "I don't know."
Andy9o8 2
QuoteI think there are a decent number of agnostics who doubt the veracity of all the specific religion stories, but who don't doubt that there is some sort of spiritual force that we don't have insight into.
If they believe in some manner of non-corporial, non-physical "spiritual force", then they're not agnostics.
I'm not concerned with the semantics of what that are - but they are not agnostics.
jakee 1,595
Quote>You don't know that there isn't an invisible unicorn outside your window, a
>family of gnomes living at the bottom of the garden, a goblin under the
>floorboards or a fairy sitting on your shoulder.
Right. But if the question was "is something living outside your window that you don't know about?" the most accurate answer in most cases is "I don't know."
No, the most accurate answer to that question would be 'yes'. We all know that there is an incredible amount of living things everywhere you look, and it's impossible to know about every single animal, plant, or single celled organism living in the vicinity of any of the windows in your house.
But my question was obviously in the context of the supernatural, and if your question was "is something supernatural outside your window that you don't know about?" then your question and mine are functionally identical. If you don't know about it you don't know that it's not an invisible unicorn.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
jakee 1,595
QuoteQuoteI think there are a decent number of agnostics who doubt the veracity of all the specific religion stories, but who don't doubt that there is some sort of spiritual force that we don't have insight into.
If they believe in some manner of non-corporial, non-physical "spiritual force", then they're not agnostics.
I'm not concerned with the semantics of what that are - but they are not agnostics.
Yep.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
billvon 3,116
>No, the most accurate answer to that question would be 'yes' . . .
OK. So even though you don't know what it is, you'd say "yes" - because you figure there is likely _something_ out there.
OK. So even though you don't know what it is, you'd say "yes" - because you figure there is likely _something_ out there.
jakee 1,595
Quote>No, the most accurate answer to that question would be 'yes' . . .
OK. So even though you don't know what it is, you'd say "yes" - because you figure there is likely _something_ out there.
Don't pretend you don't understand the distinction.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
Andy9o8 2
Quote>No, the most accurate answer to that question would be 'yes' . . .
OK. So even though you don't know what it is, you'd say "yes" - because you figure there is likely _something_ out there.
Obfuscation, Bill. I can't say for sure there isn't a python outside my window; but (outside the purely metaphysical sense) I can say for sure there isn't a gremlin.
nigel99 616
QuoteI think there are a decent number of agnostics who doubt the veracity of all the specific religion stories, but who don't doubt that there is some sort of spiritual force that we don't have insight into.
thanks Wendy I think that sums it up nicely. I seem to share Rhys view (on this topic
).
I certainly don't believe the religious mumbo-jumbo but I am not satisfied that science has answered all the questions unequivocally either.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.
wmw999 2,588
I'm not even saying that science can't answer all the questions; but it's not looking in that direction right now.
Wendy P.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
Andy9o8 2
QuoteQuoteI think there are a decent number of agnostics who doubt the veracity of all the specific religion stories, but who don't doubt that there is some sort of spiritual force that we don't have insight into.
thanks Wendy I think that sums it up nicely. I seem to share Rhys view (on this topic).
I certainly don't believe the religious mumbo-jumbo but I am not satisfied that science has answered all the questions unequivocally either.
That doesn't mean that they're incapable of ultimately being answered by a complete understanding of science, just that our species hasn't come to that complete understanding yet, given our species' current level of development.
champu 1
QuoteI think there are a decent number of agnostics who doubt the veracity of all the specific religion stories, but who don't doubt that there is some sort of spiritual force that we don't have insight into.
Insofar as they consider the existance of this spiritual force and let the possibility influence any of their actions, I think the term agnostic is probably appropriate.
If you simply say, "who knows" and then live your entire life under the "working hypothesis" that there are no gods or spiritual forces at work then you've entered atheist country.
Andy9o8 2
QuoteQuoteI think there are a decent number of agnostics who doubt the veracity of all the specific religion stories, but who don't doubt that there is some sort of spiritual force that we don't have insight into.
Insofar as they consider the existance of this spiritual force and let the possibility influence any of their actions, I think the term agnostic is probably appropriate.
If you simply say, "who knows" and then live your entire life under the "working hypothesis" that there are no gods or spiritual forces at work then you've entered atheist country.
Exactly. An agnostic is an atheist who doesn't want to acknowledge that he's an atheist.
I'm pretty sure I'm allergic to Schrodinger's cat. Maybe I'm not.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites