--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Tarquinn booooze lime pole over bench lick:
I am baptized as a protestant, but I am agnostic. Not because I want to believe, but cannot, but because I cannot prove that no god exists and I have to admit that there is a tiny, weeny chance that all the religious people are right. It's highly unlikely, but before I can eliminate that chance, I am agnostic.
Actually, if that's the case then you are atheist.
Agnosticism (according to dawkins) is the belief that a supreme deity has as much a chance to exist as not. A 50/50 shot. People who feel that the existance of a deity is not a question that science is able to even contemplate, ie supernaturalists, fall into this category.
Atheism is the belief that the existance of a supreme deity is unfathomably unlikely (as unlikely as, say, spontaniously turning bodily into granola, or the entire universe winking out of existance on a whim) or impossible - there is no need for distinction really.
Deism is the belief in no formal religion, but in a god that is either non-interventionary or "impersonal", aka not recognizable as a conscious, self-aware entity. (nothing that would listen to or answer prayers, for example) Maradon! fucked around with this message on 03-08-2007 at 09:26 AM.
quote:
Maradon! stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
Actually, if that's the case then you are atheist.Agnosticism (according to dawkins) is the belief that a supreme deity has as much a chance to exist as not. A 50/50 shot. People who feel that the existance of a deity is not a question that science is able to even contemplate, ie supernaturalists, fall into this category.
Actually, and that's the case, I am not.
I am going with Huxley's (the guy who invented it) definition.
Encyclopædia Britannica Online Link Tarquinn fucked around with this message on 03-08-2007 at 09:35 AM.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan had this to say about Captain Planet:
I'm a Roman Catholic and have been since the day I was born.
Didn't Huxley make that phrase for the sole purpose of seperating himself from other people in politics who were atheists of a poor reputation? I'd hope we could let the word evolve in 150 years of use as well.
These days it basically goes from, "There is a god, I'm just not sure about the colour of his/her underwear, halleluja!" to "There's no god, and you religious faggots are just lucky that I have no proof!". Tarquinn fucked around with this message on 03-08-2007 at 11:58 AM.
quote:
Tarquinn startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
In fact there are multiple current definitons of agnosticism. There isn't just a one and only true meaning.These days it basically goes from, "There is a god, I'm just not sure about the colour of his/her underwear, halleluja!" to "There's no god, and you religious faggots are just lucky that I have no proof!".
You're still making a logical error by saying you have to admit the possibility unless proof can be found that there is no God. Things exist from the moment evidence for them is found, not until proof of their non-existence is provided.
The logical position, therefore, is atheism rather than agnosticism.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
I suppose I could claim to be an Atheist now. It's not like I go to church of any sort or pray to anyone. That and I'm a firm believer in what I can see and feel with my own senses.
I dont have any religious persuasion. I respect all religious beliefs, as that is something that I have no right to try to destroy. Everyone can believe as they wish. I am not anti-religion. I do not consider myself spiritual or particularly concerned about souls, least of not whether they exist.
I dont have any place in my life for religion. Perhaps it is athiest, but athiesm itself requires a person to care about belief. I simply do not believe.
My dogtags say no preference, too.
I do not really think of myself as belonging to any one denomination. I see God more as my CO 
quote:
Bloodsage impressed everyone with:
You're still making a logical error by saying you have to admit the possibility unless proof can be found that there is no God. Things exist from the moment evidence for them is found, not until proof of their non-existence is provided.The logical position, therefore, is atheism rather than agnosticism.
Why does the term Agnostic Atheism even exist then? 
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Bloodsage said:
You're still making a logical error by saying you have to admit the possibility unless proof can be found that there is no God. Things exist from the moment evidence for them is found, not until proof of their non-existence is provided.The logical position, therefore, is atheism rather than agnosticism.
Well, supposedly there is proof, it's just that most non-religious people do not agree with it.
I do, however, agree with you in principle.
quote:
Tarquinning:
Well, supposedly there is proof, it's just that most non-religious people do not agree with it.
Because the only proof is supernatural.
If you extend agnosticism to include people who believe a supreme deity is highly unlikely, then the term becomes redundant.
"Atheist" serves to encompass those who live life as if there is supreme deity. If you instead call the highly doubtful crowd "agnostic", then you will be lumping people who live with a fair amount of certainty that there is no god in with people who are very likely to hedge their bets or follow scripture "just in case" Maradon! fucked around with this message on 03-08-2007 at 08:17 PM.
Yeah, I'm nihilistic.
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about dark elf butts:
My dog tags say, "No Preference."
So when you die someday it's going to be a surprise to whoever gets your soul?
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Jajahotep had this to say about the Spice Girls:
Baptised, but our family wasn't big on religion. Then when I was going to marry my ex-husband, I had to be a member of the Lutheran church to be married there. So I went through all that bull for nothing. I stopped going because it became more about money (they wanted you to give minimum 10% of your yearly income to the church to secure your spot in Heaven -- wtf) and way too political.I believe in a higher power and all, I just don't like a lot of the views on religion that are going around right now. Especially down here. About every week someone approaches me while out shopping about joining their church.
I think I'll worship at the temple of Trent
1. Ha ha ha...religion to get married...hooboy what a bummer.
2. Ha ha ha...Southern "save your soul types"? A cliche! PSHAW! Sux 2 b u.
3. Worship at the temple of Snoota. The benefits are better, and it's in Vegas.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
So when you die someday it's going to be a surprise to whoever gets your soul?
Heck, he doesn't even care what happens to his body when he dies.
Me, I was raised Catholic -- went through the whole batism, catechism (CCD), and communion thing. Started the first year of a two year confirmation process and told the church to go to hell, I'm not buying their doctrine.
I believe there is no god. Instead, I find that western religions are nothing more than early forms of governing people with authority given by "God." Nowadays that authority seems to be earned by having the most money (and influence) 
Now eastern religions? Still trying to work that one out. It's interesting how western and arabic cultures form their governments based on religious principles, yet asian governments on the surface seemed to have formed without religious principles. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't studied this theory yet.
quote:
Vernaltemptressing:
Now eastern religions? Still trying to work that one out. It's interesting how western and arabic cultures form their governments based on religious principles, yet asian governments on the surface seemed to have formed without religious principles. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't studied this theory yet.
Yeah, this is pretty wrong. Until relatively recent history the emperor of japan was viewed as a quasi-deity. The kamakazi were motivated by blind patriotism, but it was of a sort not far removed from the motivation of the contemporary wahabbist suicide bomber.
One thing to be said about eastern religions, is that despite being highly ritualized, they are more akin to life-philosophy and a method of thinking, as opposed to a belief in adherence to scriptures or fables. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 03-09-2007 at 01:07 AM.
quote:
Maradon! stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Because the only proof is supernatural.
quote:
Maradon! stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Because the only proof is supernatural.
If you extend agnosticism to include people who believe a supreme deity is highly unlikely, then the term becomes redundant.If you instead call the highly doubtful crowd "agnostic", then you will be lumping people who live with a fair amount of certainty that there is no god in with people who are very likely to hedge their bets or follow scripture "just in case"
Agnosticism currently IS a catchphrase for a huge spectrum of different non-believers. If this makes the term redundant in your opinion and you'd like to call me an atheist because of that, please, be my guest. 
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Bloodsage was all like:
My dog tags say, "No Preference."
I thought you named him Oberon?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Tarquinn obviously shouldn't have said:
It also includes what some people might call eye-witness reports in the big book of fables, er, I mean the bibleAgnosticism currently IS a catchphrase for a huge spectrum of different non-believers. If this makes the term redundant in your opinion and you'd like to call me an atheist because of that, please, be my guest.
Which gives it just as much credability as Elvis sightings, UFO sightings/abductions, the Locke Ness Monsters, and Bigfoot.
It took me four tries to write Elvis without putting an H on the end, and twice more to write it in this sentence.
Bloodsage, your my hero, having an officer of your rank being non-religious is inspiring.
Azakias, who do you hold so nuetral ground twoards something that you are actively engaged in fighting against? What do you think the planes you repair do to the fervant believer in 72 virgins after death for trying to kill some marines because his cleric told him of the jihad?
quote:
Vernaltemptress's fortune cookie read:
Now eastern religions? Still trying to work that one out. It's interesting how western and arabic cultures form their governments based on religious principles, yet asian governments on the surface seemed to have formed without religious principles. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't studied this theory yet.
Keep in mind that "Eastern" religions come from, broadly speaking, two eras and two different places. Buddhism is from India, and things like Taoism, Confucianism, etc are Chinese.
Also keep in mind that Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism were NOT in fact religions initially. They were all "guide to life" type philosophies. It wasn't until their creators died that they acquired (especially in Buddhism and Taoism) quasi-religious status. In fact, Buddhism started as a response to what we'd call Hinduism today, as well as all the folks who mortified the flesh and so forth, it included no deities or deity-like entities, and actively discouraged people from believing in such stuff.
Once Gautama died, people deified him, added a bunch of mysticism. Even Hinduism tried to get in on the act (the word was that he was an incarnation of Krishna sent to confuse the unwary).
Taoism was similar. Taoism (along with Confucianism and Legalism) were responses to a particularly chaotic and disorganized "Time of Troubles" in ancient China. While Legalism pushed hardcore laws with brutal punishments for infractions, and Confucianism sought to push an extremely patriarchal family-like organization to society, Taoism was mostly philosophy.
Now what ended up happening was that after Lu-Tze died, Taoism started picking up all sorts of elements from assorted native animistic and shamanic traditions, and thus became a "religion". Elements of Confucianism became mystic too (the whole "ancestor worship" thing is a direct result of the Confucian "older you are, more respect you get" thing). Legalism was overthrown, eventually, but left it's mark in the variety of creative punishments China is known for (the whole "Hells" thing in Big Trouble in Little China is an example of that).
But all of the "religions" would get the mysticism beat out of them as they spread out. Most Buddhists don't necessarily worship the Dalai Lama, for instance. And you see Taoist shrines (root of the word Shinto? Shen Tao) in Japan that are places of meditation rather than any sort of mystic significance. And that's how these philosophies survived.
Japan's always been kinda kooky. They've been self-aggrandizing propogandists from the beginning...mainly because when their ancestors fled China they pretty much had nothing. So it's natural that they'd build a belief system. Especially when every time the Chinese tried to cross the Sea of Japan into Japan, naturally occurring storms kept destroying their flotillas (the original "Kami kaze").
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Elvish Crack Piper obviously shouldn't have said:
Which gives it just as much credability as Elvis sightings, UFO sightings/abductions, the Locke Ness Monsters, and Bigfoot.
Is anyone here seriously thinking that I am actually defending a belief in god(s)? Tarquinn fucked around with this message on 03-09-2007 at 07:59 PM.
When I was a little toddler-sized Nicole, I noticed that everyone around me seemed to have a religion, but I really didn't. It was a question everyone but me had an answer to. I supposed I was Roman Catholic, as my entire family is Roman Catholic, and that sort of satisfied me while I was growing up. My family's religious leanings shifted dramatically while I was growing, all the way over to Wiccan, and I just sort of went along for the ride, going to their ceremonies and calling myself by that title. As I grew and eventually distanced myself from them, I realized what I was doing - just keeping up appearances. I came to the almost immediate conclusion that whatever faith I defined myself as in the past, whatever system of belief I had attatched myself to, I was there mostly because the atmosphere and aesthetic appealed to me at the time, not because I actually believed in anything. I figured that the possibility that my life and consciousness could indeed be a product of wonderful chance, but the possibility that it WASN'T seemed equally as probable. I figure that I can deal with all this crap later; I'm not dead yet, and when I am, well, I guess that mystery's solved. I've called myself agnostic and gone on with my life.
*my oven, after I stalk and kidnap you
quote:
Elvish Crack Piper stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
Azakias, who do you hold so nuetral ground twoards something that you are actively engaged in fighting against? What do you think the planes you repair do to the fervant believer in 72 virgins after death for trying to kill some marines because his cleric told him of the jihad?
My planes dont do anything to anybody. We haul cargo, not munitions. And we dont enter active battlefields.
I dont believe in religion. Doesnt mean other people dont either.
I did go through a period where I was pretty convinced that there was really no point to religion. Since my dad passed away, though, I have had dreams of him that make me think there is something greater to our existence that I don't fully understand or can explain. I guess you could chalk it up to my subconscious playing tricks on me, but these dreams I have are so real that I have a hard time dismissing them. I feel strongly that there is another state of existence that we aren't fully capable of perceiving, so I guess you could say I believe in an afterlife.
-H
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
My first exposure to faith and reason was here at college--Catholic college.
Still don't know what to make of it all; I know several proofs for the reasonableness of the divine--but those proofs say nothing about the character of the divine, whether it be Allah, Yahweh, or the Nous-Demiurgos.
The ontological argument's probably the most straight-forward. If I can examine two beings, say Bloodsage and this computer, I can correctly reason that one is greater than the other--Bloodsage is greater than this computer, because he's a thinking thing, &c. If I can compare two select beings, then I can arrange a continuum of beings according to their qualities. Since there is not an infinite number of beings--a finite universe cannot contain an infinite amount of anything--I can determine that there is a being-than-which-nothing-greater-could-be and a being-than-which-nothing-lesser-could-be.
We could care less what that bottom being is, rather our attention is on that superlative being. From the fact that it is superlative we can discern a few things about it: it must exist in actuality, because that which exists in actuality is greater than that which exists in the mind alone; it must be a necessary being, because contingent beings require something external in order to be. That it is a necessary being, we know that it must have caused--or in acting with other co-necessary, co-superlative beings caused--the first contingent beings, from which all other contingent beings have come. Therefore, we know that it is atemporal because time is a quality of matter--or, at least, cannot exist without matter--and matter is contingent.
So this superlative being exists, out of time and space, and created all things. That much we can reason to. However, we can demonstrate no need for this being to be any particular being because to do so would obviate doubt and, pursuant to that, ruin any chance of free will. Yet I know for certain that I have free will, if only because when presented with Option A versus Option B I have doubt as to which will be most advantageous to me absolutely. Thus it is up to my reason and will to determine which option to select. Similarly, this superlative being is mostly irrelevant. If the natural laws were alterable, such as if there were to be irrefutable divine intervention, then we would not have free will--just as one is only free to play chess because of the rigidity of the squares and moves.
All that my study into theology and doctrine has taught me has been that there is no way to reason into faith--nor should there be. The Church has made its doctrine an impregnable island--and the only way in is by walking on water.
Either you have the faith or you don't, and I, despite my learning, don't.
It does not follow that the most superiorest thingy in existence is divine and caused all the other less superior thingies to be. You still run into the problem of infinite antecedents if you try reasoning that way.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Vorbis thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
The ontological argument's probably the most straight-forward. If I can examine two beings, say Bloodsage and this computer, I can correctly reason that one is greater than the other--Bloodsage is greater than this computer, because he's a thinking thing, &c.[qb]
Aren't your standards human created and as such rather arbitrary and relative? How do we know our opinions about beings being greater or lesser actually relate on any macrocosmic scale?
quote:
[qb]If I can compare two select beings, then I can arrange a continuum of beings according to their qualities. Since there is not an infinite number of beings--a finite universe cannot contain an infinite amount of anything--I can determine that there is a being-than-which-nothing-greater-could-be and a being-than-which-nothing-lesser-could-be.
But there is nothing to say that being at the top of your rating scale grants thsi top-rated being supernatural powers to create everything you judge inferior to it. Also, how do we know the universe is finite?
Even looking at the red-shift of observable astronomical phenomena doesn't necessarily tell us that everything is expanding, just that which is within our scope of observation. And really, when you take into account how long light takes to reach us, all our data is severely outdated by the time it gets to us. And it stands to reason that there is an exponentially greater number of bodies in space that we simply can't see because the light/radiation/whatever emitted decays too much for us to detect it by the time it reaches Earth.
quote:
We could care less what that bottom being is, rather our attention is on that superlative being. From the fact that it is superlative we can discern a few things about it: it must exist in actuality, because that which exists in actuality is greater than that which exists in the mind alone;
Again, this seems to be an arbitrary definition of greater. What kind of actuality do you mean here? Posessing of physical form?
quote:
it must be a necessary being, because contingent beings require something external in order to be. That it is a necessary being, we know that it must have caused--or in acting with other co-necessary, co-superlative beings caused--the first contingent beings, from which all other contingent beings have come.
Your definition makes an arguement for necessity of beings' existences as a matter of comparative worth to other beings. I don't necessarily see where this relationship morphes into a creationist philosphy that demands that a being rated "superior" on your rating scale be responsible for the creation of lesser beings.
Granted, contingent beings require outside forces to come into existence. But there's no reason to say that it has to be a greater being. Do multiple factors that bring about the creation of a being constitute a superior being under your definition? Why should a contingent being's existence be attributable to only one other being? Why can't multiple factors that may not even constitute beings be responsible?
quote:
Therefore, we know that it is atemporal because time is a quality of matter--or, at least, cannot exist without matter--and matter is contingent.
You're making another huge leap here in assuming that time is a quality of matter. Time is a quality of an observer's perspective. Einstein's relativity and experiments that time the bounces of light between two moving points seem to imply this.
quote:
However, we can demonstrate no need for this being to be any particular being because to do so would obviate doubt and, pursuant to that, ruin any chance of free will.
How does it follow that the existence of this superior being in any way controls the actions of lesser beings? You made no argument for it.
quote:
Yet I know for certain that I have free will, if only because when presented with Option A versus Option B I have doubt as to which will be most advantageous to me absolutely. Thus it is up to my reason and will to determine which option to select.
<devil's advocate>
So you know for sure you have free will because you think you chose it? If you didn't have free will, you wouldn't even be aware that the choice was out of your control and in fact, not a choice of free will but dependant upon your experiences, environment, upbringing, etc. You spent the whole time arguing the contingent existence of us lesser beings, and then reverse the arguement.
quote:
Similarly, this superlative being is mostly irrelevant. If the natural laws were alterable, such as if there were to be irrefutable divine intervention, then we would not have free will--just as one is only free to play chess because of the rigidity of the squares and moves.
And saying that all lesser beings are dependant upon a supreme being in a finite universe that created them doesn't seem to buck natural laws?
quote:
All that my study into theology and doctrine has taught me has been that there is no way to reason into faith--nor should there be. The Church has made its doctrine an impregnable island--and the only way in is by walking on water.Either you have the faith or you don't, and I, despite my learning, don't.
Yet it seems that you just tried to reason your way into proving the existence of an atemporal, ultimately superior being that single-handedly started the chain of causality that created all other beings, yet, on virtue of being the greatest in this macrocosm, has no source of its own creation. You seem to make assumptions about physics on a grand scale that we can't really assume yet (Time being a quality of matter, finite universe, etc).
Then you seem to half-heartedly cop out at the end. Don't get me wrong, there is some interesting logic in there, but there are too many assumptions and leaps for it to really stand on its own as a proof for the existence of the aforementioned being.
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
1. Ha ha ha...religion to get married...hooboy what a bummer.
2. Ha ha ha...Southern "save your soul types"? A cliche! PSHAW! Sux 2 b u.
3. Worship at the temple of Snoota. The benefits are better, and it's in Vegas.
Is there beer and hot wings at this temple?
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Vorbis booooze lime pole over bench lick:
The ontological argument's probably the most straight-forward.
The ontological argument is generally used as an example of the intellectual bankruptcy of religionists, for it's easily demonstrable falsehood and the wealth of counterexamples.
You can ontologically destroy the universe and all humanity:
quote:
1) Imagine the most destructive explosion possible. No greater explosion can possibly be conceived of.2) Such an explosion would destroy the entire universe and everything in it. If it did any less, it would not be the most destructive explosion possible.
3) If the explosion were merely imaginary, it would not be destructive at all, therefore in order for this concept to exist, the explosion must exist.
Conclusion: The explosion exists, the entire universe is now ontologically destroyed.
Obviously such childish reasoning runs directly contrary to the anthropic principle, because here we are, alive and contemplating it.
