Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority

Nick · Post by **Nick** » April 27, 2006, 12:50 am

Sorry, please explain your logic?

You didn't think you'd get away from answering for your vocal opinion by spewing out a single word did you?

Your logic, so far, appears to be based on an inherant belief, you haven't backed it up in a logical way other than to simply profess that it's your opinion, so please, by all means, elaborate.

Btw, sticking to your guns regarding your inbuilt assumption that anyone who isn't an athiest is "hedging their bets" is not a strong enough argument to persuade anybody that you have "logic" on your side, I think you may do well to really think about this one, if you are in any way serious about coming across as anything but a stubborn righteous fool.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 27, 2006, 1:14 am

Nick wrote:Sorry, please explain your logic?

You didn't think you'd get away from answering for your vocal opinion by spewing out a single word did you?

Your logic, so far, appears to be based on an inherant belief, you haven't backed it up in a logical way other than to simply profess that it's your opinion, so please, by all means, elaborate.

Btw, sticking to your guns regarding your inbuilt assumption that anyone who isn't an athiest is "hedging their bets" is not a strong enough argument to persuade anybody that you have "logic" on your side, I think you may do well to really think about this one, if you are in any way serious about coming across as anything but a stubborn righteous fool.

Holy shit dude. You are one arguementative little man. I answered logic to my assertion that there is no God. As to my opinion on why the majority of people who refer to themselves as Agnostic are truly scared of going to hell and won't commit either way...it is my opinion man. Why do we have to keep doing this? I try to have a nice level headed discussion and you insist on making a fight out of it.

It is my opinion....okay? I don't see any reason why a person cannot, if they took the time, can't figure out which side of the coin the want. There either is or is not an imaginary creature, God..Allah...Buddah...whateverthefuckyouwannacallhimorher, up responsible for all of this. So when a person says, "I tend to think I don't know"...to me is a cop-out. It's not a subjective thing like politics where you have lefties, righties, middles, etc. There either is or there isn't. But, one must be willing to make a decision and be ready to live with the consequences or even give a shit enough to pick a side.

In my opinion. Get it now?

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » April 27, 2006, 1:24 am

Being an agnostic, it comes down to a very simple thought process for me. I don't know personally if there is a God or not. From my experiences here on Earth, I haven't seen any proof there is. However, just because I don't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have never seen air, yet I know it to exist. But, because there is no proof of him existing that I can see, i can't say for sure that I know he exists either. So I just don't care or worry about it. I don't deny his existence, I don't agree with his existence. It just doesn't matter. Me saying he does or does not exist will not change the fact that he may or may not exist. If I say God exists, he may or may not. If I say God doesn't exist, he may or may not. My opinion and my input matter jack squat. So therefore, it's not worth worrying about. There are plenty of things to worry about on Earth than to bother myself with asking questions about a possible metaphysical being. Regardless of whether or not I believe in him, I can still step out into the street and get killed by a car. That's substance, and those are things I need to worry about, not whether or not a God exists.

That's my personal agnosticism.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 27, 2006, 1:27 am

Kaldaur wrote:Being an agnostic, it comes down to a very simple thought process for me. I don't know personally if there is a God or not. From my experiences here on Earth, I haven't seen any proof there is. However, just because I don't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have never seen air, yet I know it to exist. But, because there is no proof of him existing that I can see, i can't say for sure that I know he exists either. So I just don't care or worry about it. I don't deny his existence, I don't agree with his existence. It just doesn't matter. Me saying he does or does not exist will not change the fact that he may or may not exist. If I say God exists, he may or may not. If I say God doesn't exist, he may or may not. My opinion and my input matter jack squat. So therefore, it's not worth worrying about. There are plenty of things to worry about on Earth than to bother myself with asking questions about a possible metaphysical being. Regardless of whether or not I believe in him, I can still step out into the street and get killed by a car. That's substance, and those are things I need to worry about, not whether or not a God exists.

That's my personal agnosticism.

And I respect that.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » April 27, 2006, 1:30 am

It also has nothing to do with hedging my bets. I can't know for certain, so I don't worry about it. The day someone can prove to me with certifiable evidence that heaven and hell exist or don't exist, then I can make up my mind. But until then, I don't worry about it. It's a leap of faith either way, Midnyte. That's where you have more in common with religion than agnosticism. Atheism claims to have an answer, and that answer is there is no God. Religion claims to have an answer, and that answer is there is a God. Both have no facts to back up their beliefs either way. The simple fact that you have never seen God act doesn't make him not exist; however, the simple fact that a person may believe in a God does not make him exist. Atheism and religion are two sides of the same coin; a belief based upon no fact but your own experience and decision making. Agnosticism says because I have no facts, I don't want to say for certain, one way or the other. This is the point Nick was trying to get at in saying your logic is flawed, or at least that's what I understood from him. I am not hedging bets. I just don't know, one way or the other, just like you don't know. The only difference is, I'm admitting my ignorance whereas you have taken a stand opposite of religious people.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » April 27, 2006, 1:35 am

Yes yes I get it perfectly, opinions however mean jack and shit unless they have any "logic" behind them.

Stating that people refusing to sit on one side of the fence or the other is a cop out on a matter infinitely more profound and relevant to our immediate existances is patently ridiculous.

It's illogical.

log·ic Audio pronunciation of "logic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ljk)
n.

1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
2.
1. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
2. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
3. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.

Political perception or supportiveness is infinitely less ambiguous than believing that "anyone who isn't an athiest is hedging their bets".

Mainly because, it's perfectly acceptable and logically fair to have differing opinions (however racist or unilateral) which you feel politically are beneficial, insofar as to express an idealism through which you support towards a better future for whatever country you live in.

However, in this particular instance you are making a massive generalisation that anyone who does or does not categorically believe in either one particular religious path or one particularly athiestic way of thinking is merely some sort of faux religious fraidy cat incapable of commiting to whichever specified religion YOU feel the need to label them with - this is a completely different argument and one you will be called on. (I may as well call you on something you decide to discuss instead of in other topics where you hide once your insidious workings are highlighted)

Comparing the two points you make (politics and religion) is in this case totally superfluous to the discussion and using a cop out such as "that's my opinion" when you are generalising (possibly) millions of people without actually using anything other than an ignorant assumption based on nothing but whatever fucking opinion you pulled out of your ass has done nothing but show you as an inconcievably ignorant person.

Got it?

I wasn't being the argumentatic little man here, you are the one who decided to come off with an outrageous claim you couldn't back up with other than with a near enough hands up admission that it's a retarded perception YOU hold.

Care to take it further?

Edit: The "fair and balanced" approach you are now trying to crouch into with the above poster may be great and a nice way of hiding from your ridiculous opinion, but let's get something straight, if your opinion is valid I will respect it, if it's based on stupid antiquated, ignorant and unfounded dynamics I have no legitimate cause to respect it, other than sympathy.

Do you want sympathy?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 27, 2006, 1:47 am

Nick,

I haven't asked for your respect of my opinion. I wouldn't be as so bold to ask anyone to respect my opinion.

You have no proof of a God. You have no proof why people refer to themselves as Agnostics. My opinion on why I think a large majority of Agnostics refer to themselves that way has clearly been stated. You don't like? Cool. I respect that. I heard your opinion, you heard mine. Neato huh? I'm not trying to convert you or anyone. Just having a conversation. I don't understand why you need to make this such an adversarial process.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » April 27, 2006, 2:02 am

Kaldaur wins

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 27, 2006, 2:05 am

Kaldaur wrote:It also has nothing to do with hedging my bets. I can't know for certain, so I don't worry about it. The day someone can prove to me with certifiable evidence that heaven and hell exist or don't exist, then I can make up my mind. But until then, I don't worry about it. It's a leap of faith either way, Midnyte. That's where you have more in common with religion than agnosticism. Atheism claims to have an answer, and that answer is there is no God. Religion claims to have an answer, and that answer is there is a God. Both have no facts to back up their beliefs either way. The simple fact that you have never seen God act doesn't make him not exist; however, the simple fact that a person may believe in a God does not make him exist. Atheism and religion are two sides of the same coin; a belief based upon no fact but your own experience and decision making. Agnosticism says because I have no facts, I don't want to say for certain, one way or the other. This is the point Nick was trying to get at in saying your logic is flawed, or at least that's what I understood from him. I am not hedging bets. I just don't know, one way or the other, just like you don't know. The only difference is, I'm admitting my ignorance whereas you have taken a stand opposite of religious people.

Okay. In my opinion, people who believe who think Santa Claus may or may not exist are no different to you. They chose not to presume they are smarter than those who do or do not believe in him because they are truly the smart ones who profess their ignorance proudly knowing they are incapable of truly knowing his existence or non existence.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 27, 2006, 3:00 am

Spang wrote:Kaldaur wins

Wins what? The wishy washy award? I voted for God before I voted against him? With a response like that, he should be in politics!

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » April 27, 2006, 3:15 am

and some of you people call the religious people fanatics...

Spang · Post by **Spang** » April 27, 2006, 3:31 am

of all the responses to this thread, his was the best.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 27, 2006, 3:55 am

Spang wrote:of all the responses to this thread, his was the best.

IYO!

Spang · Post by **Spang** » April 27, 2006, 4:20 am

yes, mine!

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » April 27, 2006, 9:27 am

“There are no atheists in foxholes" isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes” -- James Morrow

“If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color” -- Mark Schnitzius

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” -- Stephen Roberts

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 27, 2006, 9:39 am

Fairweather Pure wrote:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” -- Stephen Roberts

I absolutely love this one.

laneela · Post by **laneela** » April 27, 2006, 9:40 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:You have no proof of a God.

And where's your proof that a god *does not* exist? Atheists ("in my opinion") are as much of an extremist as the religious nutcases. A theist chooses to believe though there is no proof and an atheist chooses not to because there isn't - both being people who need to know and therefore adamantly believe in something that there is no proof of. Plain and simple, there is no*concrete* proof either way. An agnostic is humble enough to acknowledge their own ignorance on the subject and feels secure enough to admit that they don't have the answers and may never.

In this instance (like in many others), there is no fence - without proof, there is no black and white, right or wrong. Religion is basically a belief and since there is no conclusive argument, I'm abstaining from believing.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » April 27, 2006, 9:49 am

And where's your proof that a god *does not* exist?

Burden of proof lies on the theist.

laneela · Post by **laneela** » April 27, 2006, 9:57 am

Fairweather Pure wrote:
And where's your proof that a god *does not* exist?
Burden of proof lies on the theist.

Gotcha! "If it isn't black, it therefore must be white."

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 27, 2006, 10:00 am

laneela wrote:
Fairweather Pure wrote:
And where's your proof that a god *does not* exist?
Burden of proof lies on the theist.
Gotcha! "If it isn't black, it therefore must be white."

I hope you are just kidding.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » April 27, 2006, 10:01 am

I think it's more a problem of attempting to prove a negative.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » April 27, 2006, 10:10 am

Its practically impossible to prove the non-existance of God. You tell them you cant see or hear God and they come back and say they feel him inside, see his actions every day, and, that just because you cant see Him doesnt mean He doesnt exist.

You tell them to prove there is no tooth fairy and they say its not the same thing.

How do you argue with that logic? Its a battle not worth fighting.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 27, 2006, 10:11 am

Lynks wrote:Its practically impossible to prove the non-existance of God. You tell them you cant see or hear God and they come back and say they feel him inside, see his actions every day, and, that just because you cant see Him doesnt mean He doesnt exist.

How do you argue with that logic?

rofl....true, true

Cotto · Post by **Cotto** » April 27, 2006, 10:28 am

If there is in fact, a God, who says he has to care about us? I for one am quite happy to paddle along my wee life, being blissfully unaware of a devine presence. If God ever wants my attention, he can start by not using people as his medium, cause I dont believe a single fucking one of them.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » April 27, 2006, 10:41 am

Cotto wrote:If there is in fact, a God, who says he has to care about us? I for one am quite happy to paddle along my wee life, being blissfully unaware of a devine presence. If God ever wants my attention, he can start by not using people as his medium, cause I dont believe a single fucking one of them.

Yeah, what gives? God was happy to talk to people directly all the time in the bible; did he forget to pay his phone bill, or were they all just hearing voices? Hrmmm.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » April 27, 2006, 10:43 am

I just got a 40$ long distance phone bill so I can just imagine what his should be.

laneela · Post by **laneela** » April 27, 2006, 11:10 am

Lynks wrote:Its practically impossible to prove the non-existance of God.

My point exactly. So why believe so adamantly in something you have no proof of. Why not just be ok with admitting that you just don't know?

The Santa Claus and toothfairy comparisons *aren't* valid. As we grow up, we learn that what we thought was santa claus and the toothfairy (and fuck it, let's throw in the easter bunny for shits and giggles) leaving us presents and money was actually our parents. We have proof of that.

I'm not trying to say that there is a god - just that I can't know one way or another. The fact that you can, either makes you extremely trusting of your gut feelings or omniscient.

Wait a.. what the... Is that you, GOD?!! =P

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 27, 2006, 11:23 am

laneela wrote:
Lynks wrote:
The Santa Claus and toothfairy comparisons *aren't* valid. As we grow up, we learn that what we thought was santa claus and the toothfairy (and fuck it, let's throw in the easter bunny for shits and giggles) leaving us presents and money was actually our parents.

Yes. You're parents told you the truth. Well, the creators of the religion story are long gone. So now it's a myth with no parent around to tell you the truth when you get bigger. Religion is based off of stories that people told back when they no technology, no communication system. How could you believe in that? Remember back when you were a kid and thought magic tricks were amazing? They were amazing because you didn't know any better. As you become more experienced, educated, etc. you learn there is no such thing as magic. Society is growing up. There is no such thing as magic. There is no such thing as God.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » April 27, 2006, 12:16 pm

FSM FTW!

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » April 27, 2006, 12:25 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
laneela wrote:
Lynks wrote:
The Santa Claus and toothfairy comparisons *aren't* valid. As we grow up, we learn that what we thought was santa claus and the toothfairy (and fuck it, let's throw in the easter bunny for shits and giggles) leaving us presents and money was actually our parents.
Yes. You're parents told you the truth. Well, the creators of the religion story are long gone. So now it's a myth with no parent around to tell you the truth when you get bigger. Religion is based off of stories that people told back when they no technology, no communication system. How could you believe in that? Remember back when you were a kid and thought magic tricks were amazing? They were amazing because you didn't know any better. As you become more experienced, educated, etc. you learn there is no such thing as magic. Society is growing up. There is no such thing as magic. There is no such thing as God.

There you go, confusing faith with religion again. repeat after me me....faith does NOT equal religion. Having faith in a higher power does NOT mean you have to believe in a book that is composed of a bunch of stories told by people who lived along time ago.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » April 27, 2006, 12:29 pm

The sad part is that people who profess as much tend to be labeled as "false" Christians because they insist belief in God goes hand in hand with the bible.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » April 27, 2006, 1:31 pm

My point exactly. So why believe so adamantly in something you have no proof of. Why not just be ok with admitting that you just don't know?

The Santa Claus and toothfairy comparisons *aren't* valid. As we grow up, we learn that what we thought was santa claus and the toothfairy (and fuck it, let's throw in the easter bunny for shits and giggles) leaving us presents and money was actually our parents. We have proof of that.

Well here's the thing. There is no proof for the non-existence of God because such a proof would be impossible, as previously mentioned. Can you conceive of what such proof would even look like? What experience that you could have would constitute such proof?

And so it's based on evidence. Is there any evidence for the existence of God? None whatever. Is there any evidence for the accuracy of secular explanations and for the inadequacy of our current conception of the divine? Quite a bit.

Based on the weight of the evidence, the chance of God existing IS somewhere around the chance of the Tooth Fairy existing. Just because our parents don't believe in her doesn't mean she doesn't exist. I've seen exactly zero teeth spirited away by a generous fairy during my lifetime. Of course, I've also seen zero divine miracles. On what grounds ought I to feel that the one is more likely to be true than the other?

There are certainly many agnostics who don't feel that they've thought about the issue enough to make a decision. There are also many agnostics who have thought it through, concluded that the existence of a God is extremely unlikely, but, because they could not disprove his existence, threw themselves into the agnostic camp instead of the atheist camp. There is very little difference between this latter type of agnostic and an atheist like Midnyte. Midnyte chooses to believe in the side where the absolute preponderance of the evidence is, while this sort of agnostic simply acknowledges the overwhelming likelihood that Midnyte is correct. To claim that not believing in something (Christian God) which sounds totally irrational, has no evidence to support it whatever, and has a shit-ton of sound philosophical, rational, and scientific argument lined up against it makes one 'dogmatic' along the same lines as a religious fundamentalist is simply absurd.

laneela · Post by **laneela** » April 27, 2006, 2:04 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
laneela wrote:
Lynks wrote:
The Santa Claus and toothfairy comparisons *aren't* valid. As we grow up, we learn that what we thought was santa claus and the toothfairy (and fuck it, let's throw in the easter bunny for shits and giggles) leaving us presents and money was actually our parents.
Yes. You're parents told you the truth. Well, the creators of the religion story are long gone. So now it's a myth with no parent around to tell you the truth when you get bigger. Religion is based off of stories that people told back when they no technology, no communication system. How could you believe in that? Remember back when you were a kid and thought magic tricks were amazing? They were amazing because you didn't know any better. As you become more experienced, educated, etc. you learn there is no such thing as magic. Society is growing up. There is no such thing as magic. There is no such thing as God.

I don't know who you're arguing with but it isn't me.

First off, you're making my point. They (santa claus & god) aren't comparable. As you said yourself - ones non-existence is provable while the other's isn't.

Secondly, I'm not claiming that there is a god. What I'm claiming is that neither you nor I can know one way or another. The difference between you and I (on this subject) is that you have faith (in your belief that there is no god), while I'm choosing to not believe in anything that I have no proof of.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » April 27, 2006, 2:24 pm

Of all the posts on this thread, Kaldaur Laneela have summed up my stance about the best. I believe in most of the scientific explanations as being the most probable (i.e. evolution vs creationism) but in the end nothing really gets to the root question: what was there in the beginning and how did it get there? Where did the energy/matter for the big bang come from? Until science can answer those questions, its impossible for me to come on-side with the atheists, and as others have said if a higher power exists I don't think he/she/it/they really give(s) a shit about what goes on here.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 27, 2006, 2:29 pm

laneela wrote:. The difference between you and I (on this subject) is that you have faith (in your belief that there is no god), while I'm choosing to not believe in anything that I have no proof of.

Not really. It's not faith when you don't believe in something that doesn't exist. It's just the recognition it doesn't exist. I don't have faith that teleporters don't exist from Earth to Mars, they just DON'T.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 27, 2006, 2:56 pm

laneela wrote: The Santa Claus and toothfairy comparisons *aren't* valid. As we grow up, we learn that what we thought was santa claus and the toothfairy (and fuck it, let's throw in the easter bunny for shits and giggles) leaving us presents and money was actually our parents. We have proof of that.

Some of us keep growing up and figure out that God is just another character that comes after the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.

As for this burden of proof...that's such a lame, lame argument. You could say the same thing about anything...Lord of the Rings...prove it's not actually non fiction...Hell, people fell for L Ron Hubbard's stuff. Lame, lame, last ditch effort of a religious person to stymie a debate.

Man, wish I could just give up on life and become religious...so easy...ah God...whew, I'm safe...

Fairweather posted one of the best quotes ever:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts

Take some time to digest that one. It's amazing how people cling to their individual gods like security blankets.

laneela · Post by **laneela** » April 27, 2006, 3:07 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
laneela wrote:. The difference between you and I (on this subject) is that you have faith (in your belief that there is no god), while I'm choosing to not believe in anything that I have no proof of.
Not really. It's not faith when you don't believe in something that doesn't exist. It's just the recognition it doesn't exist. I don't have faith that teleporters don't exist from Earth to Mars, they just DON'T.

Since you do not know for a fact that there is no god (because there isn't and probably never will be any concrete evidence for or against), what you are doing is "believing". There's no shame in that. People believe what makes most sense to them, and that's great. *I* choose to not believe in something that there is no black and white proof of, be it because of my non-need to have all the answers or because I'm not ashamed to admit that there are things I will, with most probability, never know.

I honestly think that's the key difference. In their blind faith of what theists and atheists are choosing to believe, no one wants to admit that there's a clear distinction between belief and knowledge.

laneela · Post by **laneela** » April 27, 2006, 3:09 pm

Winnow wrote:It's amazing how people cling to their individual gods like security blankets.

Kinda like your clinging to your non-god? =P

It takes more courage to admit that you haven't a fucking clue.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 27, 2006, 3:19 pm

laneela wrote:
Winnow wrote:It's amazing how people cling to their individual gods like security blankets.
Kinda like your clinging to your non-god? =P
.

No, it's actually not at all like that. lol

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » April 27, 2006, 3:47 pm

laneela wrote: Secondly, I'm not claiming that there is a god. What I'm claiming is that neither you nor I can know one way or another. The difference between you and I (on this subject) is that you have faith (in your belief that there is no god), while I'm choosing to not believe in anything that I have no proof of.

To clarify, a lot of atheists don't necessarily stress that there is no "god" (or whatever might qualify as one) so much as there is no God as is defined by most Abrahamic religions due to numerous logical absurdities and flat out fictional accounts within accompanied texts. There is no "faith" involved in disbelieving shit that was made up.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » April 27, 2006, 3:49 pm

It takes more courage to admit that you haven't a fucking clue.

He does have a clue. A very good clue, in fact.

I can say, with 99% certainty, that it will not rain today where I live. I can say this based on weather reports, sunny skies, lack of inclement weather in neighboring regions, and so on. However, it is always possible that I could be wrong. Does that mean that it would make sense for you to come to me and say "you don't have a fucking clue whether it's going to rain today or not?" Of course not. That would be ludicrous and anyone who overheard you would look at you like you're stupid. At the very least, what you mean when you say "no fucking clue" in this case is vastly different than what other people mean by the phrase "no fucking clue," which usually denotes near-total uncertainty.

Similarly, for you to tell Midnyte that he doesn't have a "fucking clue" is simply wrong. You're making a mistake common to many who argue for religion: Behaving as though all probabilities are identical. If I say it's not going to rain, and I have a 99.99% chance of being right, and you say it is going to rain, and you have a 0.01% chance of being right, would you say that neither of us have a "fucking clue" about the weather? No. In fact, I could probably fairly say that you have no fucking clue about the weather.

Also Kelgar is right.

redeemed · Post by **redeemed** » April 27, 2006, 4:00 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
laneela wrote:
Winnow wrote:It's amazing how people cling to their individual gods like security blankets.
Kinda like your clinging to your non-god? =P
.
No, it's actually not at all like that. lol

it's kind of like that, but only if you deal with the concept of sin or morality.. if there is no God then there are no consequences for your negative actions in the "afterlife," therefore giving you a sense of security by *not* believing
but I'm pretty much staying out of this thread

laneela · Post by **laneela** » April 27, 2006, 4:06 pm

Sueven wrote:
It takes more courage to admit that you haven't a fucking clue.
He does have a clue. A very good clue, in fact.

I can say, with 99% certainty, that it will not rain today where I live. I can say this based on weather reports, sunny skies, lack of inclement weather in neighboring regions, and so on. However, it is always possible that I could be wrong. Does that mean that it would make sense for you to come to me and say "you don't have a fucking clue whether it's going to rain today or not?" Of course not. That would be ludicrous and anyone who overheard you would look at you like you're stupid. At the very least, what you mean when you say "no fucking clue" in this case is vastly different than what other people mean by the phrase "no fucking clue," which usually denotes near-total uncertainty.

Similarly, for you to tell Midnyte that he doesn't have a "fucking clue" is simply wrong. You're making a mistake common to many who argue for religion: Behaving as though all probabilities are identical. If I say it's not going to rain, and I have a 99.99% chance of being right, and you say it is going to rain, and you have a 0.01% chance of being right, would you say that neither of us have a "fucking clue" about the weather? No. In fact, I could probably fairly say that you have no fucking clue about the weather.

Also Kelgar is right.

Semantics are fun, aren't they?

Again, another non-credible comparison but let's go with it. The fact remains that you don't *know* that it isn't going to rain where you live today. You believe it.

You (the general atheist 'you', as you seem to be a little touchy) offer no argument other than "this is what makes sense to me and you're stupid if you don't believe it", which is fairly similar to the religious argument you (again, general) seem to have such a problem with.

My sole point has been that there is a clear distinction between belief and knowledge. My only problem is people claiming to know something they are not privy to.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » April 27, 2006, 4:18 pm

You are still stuck on the fallacy of trying to prove a negative.

For example:

Prove to me that the invisible, intangible spirit of John Ritter isn't in your closet jerking off right now and spunking invisible, intangible jizz all over the place while thinking about how why the hell he didn't try to tap Suzanne Summers' booty when he was still alive.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 27, 2006, 4:28 pm

Kelgar wrote:You are still stuck on the fallacy of trying to prove a negative.

For example:

Prove to me that the invisible, intangible spirit of John Ritter isn't in your closet jerking off right now and spunking invisible, intangible jizz all over the place while thinking about how why the hell he didn't try to tap Suzanne Summers' booty when he was still alive.

HAHAHA

That is the first ever actually laughing out loud in real life. Holy shit. HAHAHA

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 27, 2006, 4:45 pm

laneela wrote:
Winnow wrote:It's amazing how people cling to their individual gods like security blankets.
Kinda like your clinging to your non-god? =P

It takes more courage to admit that you haven't a fucking clue.

Does anyone else find that comment funny?

Admitting you don't have a fucking clue would be to not select a God just "in case". I can't begin to have a clue what exists out there in the universe but I'm not going to make someting up or just pick some random god to comfort my psyche simply because I don't know yet. You speak of courage? The couragous individual won't cave in to a belief, just to believe something...rather it takes more courage to not pick one of the random religions of the world and follow it.

Redeemed,

You falsely asume that an atheist has no morals or concept of right and wrong. What you fail to understand is that everyone in the world has their own set of morals based on something. There is no need for religion to acquire a set of morals to live by although they play a part unfortunately. By and large, laws, set by the society you live in, determine your morals. You don't steal because god says it's bad...you don't steal because you'll be punished according to the laws setup by the social group you choose to live in (and a lot of times have no choice). Beyond that, it's actually possible for an individual to determine their own set or morals, tweaked from society's set and not depend exclusively on a fairytale or L.Ron Hubbard.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » April 27, 2006, 4:51 pm

A funny way to look at it is that having people believe in a god is more of a good thing than bad in the sense that many spefically state that there's no excuse not to steal, rape, murder, etc "since there would be no morals without God."

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 27, 2006, 5:13 pm

Kelgar wrote:A funny way to look at it is that having people believe in a god is more of a good thing than bad in the sense that many spefically state that there's no excuse not to steal, rape, murder, etc "since there would be no morals without God."

And that's the whole joke about religion. It's main purpose was to control the masses. Rulers of any kind, needed something to keep their people in line. Special interests over the years have made religions even worse when it comes to creating havok with our morals and conflicts.

Religion's second purpose, to maintain sanity for those fearful of the unknown and death, works ok for the most part...it's better to say "see you in heaven" than "turn out the lights, the party's over!". I understand the need for "loved ones" to feel better about someone dying...just like seeing the happy face of a kid talking about santa claus...it's nice to see a dying old geezer smile when talking about God instead of have a bummed look on their face because they know their light bulb's about to go out for good...both are just psychological tools though.

It still works today. I'm sure kyoukan will confirm this about the neocons and winning elections in the U.S. based off of scaring the crispies into voting for them.

Drolgin Steingrinder · Post by **Drolgin Steingrinder** » April 27, 2006, 7:09 pm

Winnow wrote:
Skogen wrote: As far as Athiests go...I really, REALLY wonder how many people on this earth have actually been in a foxhole with artillery falling all around them have actually held onto the idea that there is no god during this time. I'm not say they has not been one...but very, very few.
That really is a sad sad reason to promote belief. It takes fear to believe? Ah yes, well fuck, as an Atheist, when I'm in a situation where I may be close to death, my feeling is that it's lights out and that's it. You can't take someone in a state of panic an fear and say, "Aha! You believe!" That's just lame. Atheists get scared just like the religious bozos in this world. They aren't immune to fear, they're immune to believing in fairytails "just in case". Now, if some fucking reject religious person isn't going to drag me to the medic if I don't say I believe in God...you're god gamned right I believe! I'm not going to die to save my non belief, I'm going to appease the stupid religious nut until I get some medical attention and then bitch slap his ass after I recover and settle back into the realm of common sense.

The religious whackos always have the same response, "Well you should believe just in case there is a God!" Grow some balls people! Don't be such pussies that you need to cling on to crap that is really no better than Scientology, it just was faked up so long ago that it's more mysterious. Religious people would be a crack up if they weren't responsible for 99% of the death and destruction on the planet.

But it's a basic human condition. It's not to promote belief, it's just a fact: why do people turn to religion in the first place? For comfort. In order to take some responsibility off of their own shoulders and putting it in someone elses hands. In the hope that someone, somewhere, will do the impossible and fix things, whether 'things' equal stopping the shelling of your foxholes, curing your daughters cancer or helping you pick the winning lottery numbers so the bank won't repossess your house. When the shit hits the fan, that's when we need religion the most. Now, I'm not saying all religious people are religious just to get their comfort fix - although I do believe Marx was right on that one - but conversions to a religion rarely happen to well-rounded, non-traumatized individuals.

Turgenev said, 'Every prayer reduces itself to this - Great God, grant that twice two be not four.' We want the miracle. We all do. Some of us believe it will happen. We call them naive. Some of us don't. They call us cynical. But at the end of the day, it's a basic difference of viewpoints that does not subtract from our abilities to be tolerant, loving individuals. That decision has nothing to do with faith and belief or the lack thereof; it has everything to do with what sort of people we decide we wish to be. Not trusting someone because they proclaim not to believe in (a) God is one of the scariest examples of the non-inclusive fundamentalism that is current American Christianity.

To those of you who bash agnostics for being 'pussies' - what the fuck? Read up on your Emerson. I consider myself a agnostic. I do not have faith in a god or in gods, I believe that the universe was created by the Big Bang and that the world we know is a result of a series of random events over billions of years. I believe that when we die, we die. Am I absolutely, one-hundred percent sure that there is nothing more than what we know, than what we can see? No. There's a romantic part of me that wants there to be. There's a part of me that has a shred of belief every now and then. And thus, I am not an atheist. Atheism requires an absolute belief, just as theism does. I don't have that.

In the words of Dave Gorman,
"People can believe in any old poppycock they wish as long as they're nice to each other."

Drolgin Steingrinder · Post by **Drolgin Steingrinder** » April 27, 2006, 7:14 pm

Winnow wrote:
laneela wrote:
Winnow wrote:It's amazing how people cling to their individual gods like security blankets.
Kinda like your clinging to your non-god? =P

It takes more courage to admit that you haven't a fucking clue.

Does anyone else find that comment funny?

Admitting you don't have a fucking clue would be to not select a God just "in case". I can't begin to have a clue what exists out there in the universe but I'm not going to make someting up or just pick some random god to comfort my psyche simply because I don't know yet. You speak of courage? The couragous individual won't cave in to a belief, just to believe something...rather it takes more courage to not pick one of the random religions of the world and follow it.

So why the attitude towards agnostics? I'm happy to discuss religion with anyone. If they can convince me that they're right, cool! I'll find out I was wrong all along. But you seem to disregard agnostics as pussied fence-sitters - an attitude that's just as revolting and fanatical as that of the people you like to point fingers at.