Volunteer as much or as little information as you'd like. Despite my various joking about burning heretics and such, there are no consequences for revealing what you believe and why.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
As for me, I tell people "I was raised Catholic, but I'm feeling much better now."
Pvednes fucked around with this message on 09-10-2007 at 03:33 PM.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
If you've ever read Calculating God by Robert Sawyer the belief set of the main character is pretty much how I feel about the existence of God.
I mean, I really don't believe there is some higher consciousness, and I live my life in that mindset, but, well, it's hard to say definites.
If you think God is extremely unlikely, then you don't really have any faith.
quote:
From the book of Maradon!, chapter 3, verse 16:
If you have no faith at all, then you're an atheist.If you think God is extremely unlikely, then you don't really have any faith.
If you lack faith but do not deny the existence of god(s)/goddess(es)/greater entity(-ies), then you are agnostic. If you lack faith deny etc. etc., you are atheist.
That said, I'm not really sure where I'd fall. To my way of thinking, some greater entity or entities is possibly, mayhap even likely, but beyond my ken. I don't think any one religion/belief system really has it right, that includes science. Damnati fucked around with this message on 09-10-2007 at 06:12 PM.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java the thoughts aquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
I actually have more hope that there is a god than I do have faith that he really exists. Mr. Gainsborough fucked around with this message on 09-10-2007 at 07:17 PM.
Parcelan, I see little point of religion being a defining factor of someones online personality. Myself, Karnaj, Maradon and Mightion are all vastly different people who align only on 2 things for sure, stated atheism and an assumed love of electronic games from virtue of being here.
Honestly though, on the Athiest or Agnostic bit, I liked the 7 point scale between god belief and atheism that Dawkins made, shameless cut and paste for your pleasure.
quote:
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6.Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7.Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'
Gee would be between 5 and 6 on that scale, while Willias or Lechium would be 4's. Parce is #1. YAY!
Also, I agree with ECP. I really doubt there is much connection between religious views and posting personality.
EC certainly isn't representative of the world when it comes to religious views though. Zair fucked around with this message on 09-10-2007 at 08:02 PM.
Neither does the strength or consistency of your conviction have anything to do with what your opinion on the matter really is.
God either exists, or not. You either have faith that he exists and lead your life by his rules, or you don't. Taking the stance that God might exist is admitting that he might not, which isn't faith, it's an intellectual estimation of probability. What you do with your lack of faith determines what you are: If you live your life as if there is no God, then you're an atheist that simply doesn't take an absolute stance on God's non-existence, which isn't required to be an atheist.
This notion that there's any meaningful difference between active and passive disbelief in a supreme deity is almost as silly as going out of your way to reclassify yourself to avoid the word "atheist" simply because you don't like the way it sounds. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 09-10-2007 at 08:03 PM.
quote:
Zair has the right stuff
Well, yeah, I guess 6 then.Also, I agree with ECP. I really doubt there is much connection between religious views and posting personality.
EC certainly isn't representative of the world when it comes to religious views though.
But it is a good representation of the internet, which is an entirely different world. The theory I'm testing will likely have a lot to do with what ECP is saying, but not what his words are.
*sobs silently*
Anyway if you want to figure out if there are more atheist/agnostics/pagan freaks on the internet than in real life, you can take my (correct) knowledge that there are. Stalwart Steve fucked around with this message on 09-10-2007 at 08:31 PM.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
I've met christians who are completely sure of god, and I have known ones that are not completely driven by faith, or ones that really internalize pascals wage. There are people who are agnostic, but who are going throug 2 very seperate processes, an emotional one where they get their faith rebuilt in something or they finish being an agnostic and eventually become an atheist. Being an agnostic forever shouldn't be possible. There is information available in plenty of books and the internet about god belief and atheism. Still, plenty of people dont want to say that something is completely impossible or whatnot. Just part of human nature I suppose, which is why the 7 point scale was made, because people dont want to stick to the hard "100% or bust" after the 50% point. Being raised religious, like I was, it was hard to classify myself as an Atheist. I used agnostic for along time, up until I actually got to the fleet.
For the "active or passive" bit, do you mean the different between points 6 and 7? People choosing to be 6 is, I dont imagine, because they don't like the word Atheist, but more that they don't to unfairly exclude the possiblity of something. I would say, 6 and 7 are very close to what your 3rd block of text is talking about rather than people actively and passively disbelieving in god. I had a big problem actually using the big scary A-word for awhile because I didn't want to exclude some nebulous concept I had of what a deity might be. I imagine it can't be that dissimiliar to anyone whose belief N=>100% with respect atheism, but believe that unless its 100% its not really atheism. I think I butchered the 2nd half of this paragraph. I sometimes find it difficult to express concepts like this in detail without making an error.
I've heard of some people who describe themselves as, say, brights or secular humanists because they are atheists who have chosen a secular belief setting. I don't myself know of anyone who wants a new name for Atheist because it sounds bad. There was a post on www.iidb.org about someone who wanted to change the same to secularists. He got shot down quite quickly though for it being a bad idea
Was typing this immediatly after Maras post, so will answer some stuff without editings.
Parce, with what I am saying and not what I write? Is this something I already posted or from the above text in reply to Mara. Pocket theory about religion hmm? Why does my viewpoint matter? Any of the 3 atheists I listed prior have me beat as being qualified to talk about much of anything. I'm sure I can beg Karnaj to translate for me again. 
Heh, Faz, did you see the Larry King poll that got up to like 71-73% Atheist. Hilarity.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
My answers to questions usually end up bigger than the questions.
Alos, tl;dr ???
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
Also, thanks.
I believe in what I can see and feel for myself. Science falls into a lot of that, as does mathmatics (Hooray math!). That said, I've seen, experienced and felt some very un-scientifically explainable things.
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Elvish Crack Piper who doth quote:
I had a big problem actually using the big scary A-word for awhile because I didn't want to exclude some nebulous concept I had of what a deity might be. I imagine it can't be that dissimiliar to anyone whose belief N=>100% with respect atheism, but believe that unless its 100% its not really atheism.
My entire point was that you don't need to take a firm stance against the existence of a God in order to be an atheist. You only need to lack faith and live your life as if there is no God (wonderful things both). The classification of agnostics as people who believe that there is a chance that a supreme deity exists but otherwise behave as if one does not is redundant and pointless.
To say that only people who actively deny the existence of God are atheists and to portray agnosticism as an indifferent midground is to make the belief that god could possibly exist the default stance from which atheists are taking an affirmative departure, which logically is not the case.
This is the source of the fallacy that atheism is just another religion, or that atheism requires faith that God does not exist. Because of the wonders of scientific probability - Occam's Razor, The Anthropic Principle, and so on - we know that atheism is in fact the default position, scientifically the most likely scenario from which deists are taking an affirmative departure.
The distinction is important, because the burden of proof lies with the affirmative. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 09-10-2007 at 09:34 PM.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
Karnaj fucked around with this message on 09-10-2007 at 10:05 PM.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
In a concept I can't explain, I beleive there has to be an afterlife - I don't see how we can ever be self-aware if our awareness ends at some point. Like I said, I can't explain it.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
quote:
x--KarnajO-('-'Q) :
And Maradon finally experiences for himself the joys of arguing about atheism on EC. Like me four years ago, he'll run his dick through the meatgrinder for a bit, realize that he's stated his point extremely well and covered all relevant issues, and still made no headway. Then he'll probably have a beer. And so will I.
Ironically I am having a beer right now.
Even more ironically, I argued on the other side of this issue with you last time you argued about it and afterwards realized you were right. So you did make headway!
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
x--Mightion DefensorO-('-'Q) :
As Oliver Wendell Jones once said, "The universe is a little too darned orderly to be a big accident."
Oliver Wendell Jones was correct, but his implication that the only alternative to an accident is God was not, which is the crux of the watchmaker fallacy.
The anthropic principle explains why we live in a universe with physical laws conducive to our existence (ie. because we're here to think about it in the first place). It's not an accident, it's just the only way it could have ever worked out. There could have been infinite universes before ours and there may be infinite universes after where humans don't come about, but they'll never know because they can't have been there.
Likewise random chance did not cause a heart and skin and bones to fly together and form a person, but rather millions and millions of failed attempts over the course of thousands of years. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 09-10-2007 at 10:45 PM.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
It's kinda like Roy Batty... "All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in the rain."
The idea that the sum total of a humans existence simply vanishes at the end of life is too abominable a concept for me to willingly accept. Angels and clouds may be a bromide and horrible in their own right, but they're better than amounting to oblivion.
quote:
Maradon!'s account was hax0red to write:
And yeah, I have to admit, the idea of an afterlife is one that I have a lot of trouble letting go of, too.It's kinda like Roy Batty... "All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in the rain."
The idea that the sum total of a humans existence simply vanishes at the end of life is too abominable a concept for me to willingly accept. Angels and clouds may be a bromide and horrible in their own right, but they're better than amounting to oblivion.
Except for the influences you impart on those around you. While you may not get to witness it yourself, a meaningful life never goes unappreciated.
