best netphorian as a human being

the idea of god as something defined by the boundaries of not being able to explain this or that is pointless. it's not relevant to anything, least of all intelligent discussion. either there is a father figure god who is always right when he says hes right or theres nothing

[Kahlo]

Originally Posted by sleeper

im not saying theyd be less capable of parenthood than a straight man or whatever, theyd probably even be mroe capable if anything

I know one gay couple with a kid, who are doing pretty great, and a few fuck ups who I went to school with who are raising horrible children.. this is never black and white.

i understand the christian system of morality and i could never bring myself to redefine those rights and wrongs to bend with the wind so to speak. at the same time i dont feel my accidental or willful transgressions of this moral code negate my understanding of it or subtract from my authority on the matter as an intelligent human being the way a protestant TV star's authority might so easily be cashed in. i havent taken the pill myself though i find more and more that i cant bear all sorts of different breeds of fist-raisers and my personal socialization/bias favors the obscured01s of the world over them.

i dont know whether i can really claim to buy into it all, but i am sure that it is all or none, or a play at one with the other shining through. it's an unresolved issue to me, though i find myself frustrated by myself when i call myself anything like an atheist. it seems like im just trying to protect my own respectability and authority to clowns who just wont get the right meaning out of a poem; something that cant be proved

im going to go ahead and not "del", but whenever i write something like this im disappointed with it afterwards. imagine how such an egotist as i (note how i left the t in egotist) must feel reading all of your garbage when even mine fails to properly word things


are you people really happy with how youve put things 5 minutes or 2 days later? one of the heros of the shithead type is kafka and the only thing to his credit was that he wasnt

[Shapan]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

right, that's an example. but i was referring more to the fact that there is no physical evidence against the major tenets of christianity. so those non-beliefs aren't justified, just like your saying the beliefs aren't justified.

but it was a question....so i'm wondering what you think the differences between the two are.

thats pretty much the entire struggle between religious people and non-religious.

religious: do you have any evidence seriously disproving the existence of god?

atheist: do you have any evidence seriously proving the existence of god?

and around we go. a few months ago i had a thread asking atheists what they would say to defend themselves if someone asked them why they dont believe in god, and it seemed most of their first reaction was to say "why do you believe in god?". if you take two people on extreme ends on both sides it would be hard to sway either side, it just happens on a message board where people have come together in interest(at least originally) of the smashing pumpkins has more people overtly non-religious than those religious.

after all, emptiness is loneliness and loneliness is cleanliness and cleanliness is godliness and god is empty just like me.

[Luke de Spa]

Originally Posted by Netphoria

[the previous three pages]

oh holy fuck auuuuuuuughhhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrrrhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaa uuuuuuuuggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh bleaaaaaaaaarerrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhrrrrrr rrrrr uuunfffffffffff unnnnfffffffghhhhhghhhhhhaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrr

[Luke de Spa]

Originally Posted by Shapan

thats pretty much the entire struggle between religious people and non-religious.

religious: do you have any evidence seriously disproving the existence of god?

atheist: do you have any evidence seriously proving the existence of god?

the former is logically fallacious. the latter is a completely reasonable question

put simply, the struggle is between sanity and superstition

i'm getting off track here, though. auuuuuuuughhhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrrrhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaa uuuuuuuuggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh bleaaaaaaaaarerrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhrrrrrr rrrrr uuunfffffffffff unnnnfffffffghhhhhghhhhhhaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrv auuuuuuuughhhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrrrhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaa uuuuuuuuggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh bleaaaaaaaaarerrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhrrrrrr rrrrr uuunfffffffffff unnnnfffffffghhhhhghhhhhhaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrauuuuuuu ughhhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrrrhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaa uuuuuuuuggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh bleaaaaaaaaarerrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhrrrrrr rrrrr uuunfffffffffff unnnnfffffffghhhhhghhhhhhaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrauuuuuuu ughhhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrrrhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaa uuuuuuuuggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh bleaaaaaaaaarerrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhrrrrrr rrrrr uuunfffffffffff unnnnfffffffghhhhhghhhhhhaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrr

[barden]

I once asked a distinguished astronomer, a fellow of my college, to explain the big bang theory to me. He did so to the best of his (and my) ability, and I then asked what it was about the fundamental laws of physics that made the spontaneous origin of space and time possible. "Ah," he smiled, "now we move beyond the realm of science. This is where I have to hand you over to our good friend, the chaplain." But why the chaplain? Why not the gardener or the chef? Of course chaplains, unlike chefs and gardeners, claim to have some insight into ultimate questions. But what reason have we ever been given for taking their claims seriously? Once again, I suspect that my friend, the professor of astronomy, was using the Einstein/Hawking trick of letting "God" stand for "That which we don't understand." It would be a harmless trick if it were not continually misunderstood by those hungry to misunderstand it. In any case, optimists among scientists, of whom I am one, will insist, "That which we don't understand" means only "That which we don't yet understand." Science is still working on the problem. We don't know where, or even whether, we ultimately shall be brought up short.

Agnostic conciliation, which is the decent liberal bending over backward to concede as much as possible to anybody who shouts loud enough, reaches ludicrous lengths in the following common piece of sloppy thinking. It goes roughly like this: You can't prove a negative (so far so good). Science has no way to disprove the existence of a supreme being (this is strictly true). Therefore, belief or disbelief in a supreme being is a matter of pure, individual inclination, and both are therefore equally deserving of respectful attention! When you say it like that, the fallacy is almost self-evident; we hardly need spell out the reductio ad absurdum. As my colleague, the physical chemist Peter Atkins, puts it, we must be equally agnostic about the theory that there is a teapot in orbit around the planet Pluto. We can't disprove it. But that doesn't mean the theory that there is a teapot is on level terms with the theory that there isn't.

Now, if it be retorted that there actually are reasons X, Y, and Z for finding a supreme being more plausible than a teapot, then X, Y, and Z should be spelled out--because, if legitimate, they are proper scientific arguments that should be evaluated. Don't protect them from scrutiny behind a screen of agnostic tolerance. If religious arguments are actually better than Atkins' teapot theory, let us hear the case. Otherwise, let those who call themselves agnostic with respect to religion add that they are equally agnostic about orbiting teapots. At the same time, modern theists might acknowledge that, when it comes to Baal and the golden calf, Thor and Wotan, Poseidon and Apollo, Mithras and Ammon Ra, they are actually atheists. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

[Luke de Spa]

that's a start. thread could use some more dawkins

[ChristHimself!]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

There is no proof that Jesus Christ was not divine.

As a matter of fact, my fucking surname is Devine

hint much?

[Kahlo]

Originally Posted by ChristHimself!

As a matter of fact, my fucking surname is Devine

hint much?

This always makes me laugh.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Andrew Pakula

the idea of god as something defined by the boundaries of not being able to explain this or that is pointless. it's not relevant to anything, least of all intelligent discussion. either there is a father figure god who is always right when he says hes right or theres nothing

are you just fucking around now with a comment like this?

what else becomes allowed when we allow those standards for proof, where things are accepted as is and where you dont attempt to use reason?

honestly, i find one of the strongest arguments against religion is the fact that there are so many

so many believe exactly what you believe, but entirely differently

so many are so absolutely certain, but in ways that dramatically conflict

does this not say something about the nature of that belief itself?


theres always one question i want to ask religious people, as like a fantasy:

why is you religion right? why is theirs wrong?

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Andrew Pakula

i understand the christian system of morality and i could never bring myself to redefine those rights and wrongs to bend with the wind so to speak. at the same time i dont feel my accidental or willful transgressions of this moral code negate my understanding of it or subtract from my authority on the matter as an intelligent human being the way a protestant TV star's authority might so easily be cashed in. i havent taken the pill myself though i find more and more that i cant bear all sorts of different breeds of fist-raisers and my personal socialization/bias favors the obscured01s of the world over them.

i dont know whether i can really claim to buy into it all, but i am sure that it is all or none, or a play at one with the other shining through. it's an unresolved issue to me, though i find myself frustrated by myself when i call myself anything like an atheist. it seems like im just trying to protect my own respectability and authority to clowns who just wont get the right meaning out of a poem; something that cant be proved

if you died right now, where do you think youd go, heaven or hell?

[Kahlo]

Originally Posted by sleeper

if you died right now, where do you think youd go, heaven or hell?

nowhere. my body would go in the ground, and my brain would be dead.

[ChristHimself!]

Originally Posted by sleeper

if you died right now

i think this fool you love somehow, is here with you

(im terribly sorry)

[wally]

This thread had my interest for about 5 pages, then I stopped caring.

I hate librarians as well.

[wally]

btw, what selfless job does 2m2b have?

[Kahlo]

Originally Posted by wally

This thread had my interest for about 5 pages, then I stopped caring.

I hate librarians as well.

HEY FRAU KAHLO IS A LIBRARIAN

[rocksteady]

Originally Posted by Andrew Pakula

im going to go ahead and not "del", but whenever i write something like this im disappointed with it afterwards. imagine how such an egotist as i (note how i left the t in egotist) must feel reading all of your garbage when even mine fails to properly word things


are you people really happy with how youve put things 5 minutes or 2 days later? one of the heros of the shithead type is kafka and the only thing to his credit was that he wasnt

i dont read anything past the first page.

[GlasgowKiss]

Originally Posted by barden

I once asked a distinguished astronomer, a fellow of my college, to explain the big bang theory to me. He did so to the best of his (and my) ability, and I then asked what it was about the fundamental laws of physics that made the spontaneous origin of space and time possible. "Ah," he smiled, "now we move beyond the realm of science. This is where I have to hand you over to our good friend, the chaplain." But why the chaplain? Why not the gardener or the chef? Of course chaplains, unlike chefs and gardeners, claim to have some insight into ultimate questions. But what reason have we ever been given for taking their claims seriously? Once again, I suspect that my friend, the professor of astronomy, was using the Einstein/Hawking trick of letting "God" stand for "That which we don't understand." It would be a harmless trick if it were not continually misunderstood by those hungry to misunderstand it. In any case, optimists among scientists, of whom I am one, will insist, "That which we don't understand" means only "That which we don't yet understand." Science is still working on the problem. We don't know where, or even whether, we ultimately shall be brought up short.

Agnostic conciliation, which is the decent liberal bending over backward to concede as much as possible to anybody who shouts loud enough, reaches ludicrous lengths in the following common piece of sloppy thinking. It goes roughly like this: You can't prove a negative (so far so good). Science has no way to disprove the existence of a supreme being (this is strictly true). Therefore, belief or disbelief in a supreme being is a matter of pure, individual inclination, and both are therefore equally deserving of respectful attention! When you say it like that, the fallacy is almost self-evident; we hardly need spell out the reductio ad absurdum. As my colleague, the physical chemist Peter Atkins, puts it, we must be equally agnostic about the theory that there is a teapot in orbit around the planet Pluto. We can't disprove it. But that doesn't mean the theory that there is a teapot is on level terms with the theory that there isn't.

Now, if it be retorted that there actually are reasons X, Y, and Z for finding a supreme being more plausible than a teapot, then X, Y, and Z should be spelled out--because, if legitimate, they are proper scientific arguments that should be evaluated. Don't protect them from scrutiny behind a screen of agnostic tolerance. If religious arguments are actually better than Atkins' teapot theory, let us hear the case. Otherwise, let those who call themselves agnostic with respect to religion add that they are equally agnostic about orbiting teapots. At the same time, modern theists might acknowledge that, when it comes to Baal and the golden calf, Thor and Wotan, Poseidon and Apollo, Mithras and Ammon Ra, they are actually atheists. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

Hear that, thats the sound of me biting the bullet on the teapots around pluto question.

Agnosticism forever.