Question for Atheists

[Azalin]

a devout atheist is simply the other side of the coin from a devout believer: they both hold to a belief that is impossible to prove one way or another.....both views require faith. personally, I think too many people focus on the arguement of whether or not God is real, and neglect to pay much attention to the actual philosophy promoted within the Judeo-Christian religions.

[TakeYouToTasker]

He's satirizing those religious people who feel the need to profess their faith at every turn. (Which pretty much amounts to "being a dick," yeah). It's far less about being "anti-religion" than it is being anti-zealot or anti-hypocrite.

I disagree. He's doing it because when you earn your pay-checks by being in a spotlight, any spotlight will do.

[John Adams]

a devout atheist is simply the other side of the coin from a devout believer: they both hold to a belief that is impossible to prove one way or another.....both views require faith. personally, I think too many people focus on the arguement of whether or not God is real, and neglect to pay much attention to the actual philosophy promoted within the Judeo-Christian religions.

 

Yours is the argument that gets people talking about the Spaghetti Monster.

[Azalin]

Yours is the argument that gets people talking about the Spaghetti Monster.

the 'spaghetti monster' meme has always irked me because it's purposefully disrespectful to believers in a 'higher source' by conjuring the image of some kind of interstellar, extra-planar mass of malevolent pasta & meatballs with a frown and likely a few fangs tossed-in for good measure.

 

all I was trying to say is that people shouldn't get their pants in such a wad over what other folks do or don't believe. whether you say a prayer before eating your cheeseburger or roll your eyes at those who do, as long as you're not hurting anyone and are willing to live & let live, I'm okay with it. people who believe that there absolutely is a god require faith to adhere to that belief, as those who fervently believe that there is no god similarly require faith in that belief, since there is no way a mortal has to prove the point one way or another.

 

my own belief comes from being raised attending a methodist church, and subsequently modifying my beliefs a little later in life though studies of astrophysics and cosmology. the result is that I'm pretty much a deist of the Jeffersonian/Franklin type.

[OCinBuffalo]

a devout atheist is simply the other side of the coin from a devout believer: they both hold to a belief that is impossible to prove one way or another.....both views require faith. personally, I think too many people focus on the arguement of whether or not God is real, and neglect to pay much attention to the actual philosophy promoted within the Judeo-Christian religions.

Yep. The philosophy has the potential for a whole lot of good, if its in the right hands, and a whole lot of bad, if in the wrong ones. Book of Eli, and all.

 

How exactly like: a weapon, or, an internet message board. Interesting, isn't it?

 

The reason they shy away from the philosophy? They don't want to be reminded that they are fallible, and, don't want to have a consistent code against which they have to compare their behavior. That's unsettling. It's much easier to make morality a relative thing, that they can adjust and amplify, so as to use it against those who don't share their values. It's much more convenient that way, and it helps them with their arguments.

Yours is the argument that gets people talking about the Spaghetti Monster.

Wow, 3 pages in before the Flying Spaghetti Monster gets raised? I am impressed with the attempt at reasonable dialogue here. And you are right, sorta.

 

My 2 cents:

If you are secure in your beliefs, and your beliefs rooted in grace, and not power/control, you don't feel the need to be a dick about them to others.

(Unless you just like to rile people up)

If you aren't secure, it ain't about grace, and it is about power/control, you tend to be dick more often.

 

If your beliefs have nothing to do with grace, involve getting more $ for you personally via your cause, and your cause is about making $ and has little to do with truly helping people, you take every opportunity to be a dick. I should know, I've had the unfortunate circumstance to live near Scientologists, in 2 different cities. Before you say "what about LDS/Jehova's witnesses"...try living where I did for 6 months, and then come back and talk to me. The difference in approach, and certainly the difference in tactics and behavior, is nowhere near "the same".

 

There is more than enough phoniness, hypocrisy, and insecurity coming from non-believers as there is coming from believers. The only difference is: non-believers tend try to hide their phoniness, hypocrisy, and insecurity behind what they call "reason". It isn't reason at all.

 

Actual reason: Given what we know about the universe, which in reality, is practically nothing(talk to any physicist), any statement that includes the phrase "I know there is no" God...or Flying Spaghetti Monster, is patently retarded. Man spent 10s of thousands of years "knowing" all sorts of things that were simply: untrue.

 

It's just as likely that God is a supernatural or multidimensional overlord/caretaker, as he is a myth, as he is an alien that just happened to be in the neighborhood, and wanted to get us started on the right moral footing, as he is something that, for all our hubris to the contrary, we simply cannot comprehend.

 

There is no evidence that supports any of these notions over any of the others.

 

We "know" nothing.

[Azalin]

It's just as likely that God is a supernatural or multidimensional overlord/caretaker, as he is a myth, as he is an alien that just happened to be in the neighborhood, and wanted to get us started on the right moral footing, as he is something that, for all our hubris to the contrary, we simply cannot comprehend.

 

There is no evidence that supports any of these notions over any of the others.

 

We "know" nothing.

yes, that's my point exactly, only said more succinctly.

[John Adams]

yes, that's my point exactly, only said more succinctly.

 

OCinBuffalo complimented for being succinct?

 

There's the first horseman.

Edited August 12, 2013 by John Adams

[Azalin]

OCinBuffalo complimented for being succinct?

 

There's the first horseman.

[OCinBuffalo]

OCinBuffalo complimented for being succinct?

 

There's the first horseman.

 

Yes, I admit that is a first.

 

Now, let's ask stuttering John if he thinks it's OK to pretend his values...are morality. That should be good for a laugh as well.

 

And if he answers in any way that is unexpected? That is the 2nd horseman.

[Gene Frenkle]

First let me ask that anyone willing to respond not bring an agenda into the conversation and derail it. I'm really interested in SPECIFIC responses to my question below. I know this topic can trigger a lot of divergent views and long-held passion, but I'm really curious to hear sincere answers to the question I'm posing.

 

Okay, so here's the thing. I've always found those who consider themselves agnostic or atheists to have arrived at that position very honestly. Let's face it, even for those of us who do believe in God, it's not an easy thing to come by sometimes. I came across a new expression of atheism recently that honestly has me really wanting to bring it up as a discussion and to get the perspectives of those who share in this mindset.

 

I have always been drawn to intellectuals, mainly for selfish reasons. I feel a day without learning or exploration is a day wasted, and intellectual types offer an endless buffet of opportunities to do exactly that. One of my favorite celebrities has been Penn Jillette. He's clearly functioning on a very high level not just with his humor or magic, but also with his politics and other areas. I found it interesting recently to hear him say that he did not have a position on global warming because "there is not enough evidence". This was interesting to me because I've always known him to be an atheist, and it would seem that it would be far more difficult to gather proper evidence to come to a conclusion on God and the hereafter than it would global warming, yet he's certain on the former while being undecided on the latter. This led me to look a bit further and I found that he, along with other atheists, have started going on youtube and making a public declaration to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. They do this because they are so certain there is no Judeo-Christian God that they are focusing on the one "unforgivable sin", per the Christian Bible, and committing it for all to see.

 

So here is my question: There are things I do not believe in at all, say for example Voodoo and Mummy curses. But if I found myself among those who practice Voodoo or if I were on some excavation in Egypt attempting to recover mummified remains, there's absolutely no part of me that would purposely do something antagonistic or defiant. Even though I feel quite strongly that these things are not legit, there is still a part of me that respects the fact that I cannot know with certainty that my position is valid, no matter how unlikely or absurd the idea of it being real may be. If I were atheist, I cannot possibly imagine that I would ever be so bold in my assumptions that I would feel the need to commit an act that so many millions of people would view as heresy. It's not like we're talking about the Easter Bunny here...we're talking about GOD...something that people all over the world have dedicated their lives to, whether it be through the practice of faith, erudition, pastoral or clergical duties, whatever.

 

I can understand a lack of faith and/or belief. But a lack of faith or belief has no bearing whatsoever on whether something is true or not true. What could possibly be to gain from this sort of act? How can there be NO consideration given to, "what if I'm wrong?" It just doesn't strike me as something an intelligent person would do, and that's why I'm interested to hear some feedback from others who may have more insight as to why an atheist would even bother himself with something like this?

 

PS. If anyone woudl like to respond privately, please feel free to PM me. I will respect your privacy and not disclose your comments to anyone else.

James Randi is a magician who, much like Harry Houdini, has decided to dedicate his life to debunking pseudo-science, supernatural beliefs, and to some extent, religion. He's usually not really in-your-face about the religion thing. From time to time he does this stage act with the intent of discrediting homeopathy, which is basically based on the principal that 'like cures like'. Homeopaths generally dilute 'something' many, many, many times over until the actual probability of the final solution containing any molecule that is not water is near zero. They package that water up, sell it to the gullible public and profit. Randi purposely 'overdoses' on an entire package of homeopathic sleeping pills on stage to prove their inefficacy. It's an effective demonstration to prove a point about something that is actually provable. Here's Randi at TED if you're interested:

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_randi.html

 

The people making these videos, which I do consider over-the-top and offensive, have no way to prove or disprove the existence of god or the afterlife or any of that other spiritual stuff. They are doing the most offensive things they can think of to invoke the wrath of god. The lack of consequence is probably supposed to prove something to the believers, which is usually an impossible waste of time anyway. Like I said, it's offensive and likely pointless.

 

 

One of my favorite quotes from Thomas Jefferson, which may help explain (if not excuse) the YouTube videos:

 

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity.

 

The thing that is often missed or ignored by those who believe in extraordinary things is that the burden of proof for any such claim lies with the claimant. Just as it is not your responsibility to prove that Voodoo or mummy curses are real, it is not the atheist's responsibility to prove that god or the afterlife exist. Something Carl Sagan once wrote that shows this:

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage" Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

 

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

 

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

 

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

 

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

 

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

 

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

 

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

 

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

 

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

 

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

 

Penn Jillette has every reason not to believe in the extraordinary claim of Anthropogenic Global Warming until the claimants provide sufficient proof of its existence. Likewise, he has every reason not to believe in god or the afterlife until the claimants provide any proof of either's existence.

 

And finally...a quote from famed blasphemer Richard Dawkins, which kind of supports your original post with regards to Voodoo and mummy curses:

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

 

Everyone has the capacity and usually even the inclination to think critically about most things. Most everyone has one or two 'sacred cows' which they exclude from their critical thought process. For many, many people, religion is one of those sacred cows.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

They are doing the most offensive things they can think of to invoke the wrath of god.

 

 

Maybe, but I'd edit that to suggest they are doing the most offensive things they can think of to invoke the wrath of those who believe in God. From my perspective, it's not particularly creative, inventive or interesting. I don't see the big fellow as brilliant or clever, but he is a hell of salesman for his schtick. 50 years ago, someone else was doing the same sort of rap somehwere, 50 years from now someone will take his place. Of course, by then, Penn will sizzling like a fatty pork loin on Satan's George Foreman grill, but such is (after)life.

[Gene Frenkle]

They are doing the most offensive things they can think of to invoke the wrath of god.

 

 

Maybe, but I'd edit that to suggest they are doing the most offensive things they can think of to invoke the wrath of those who believe in God. From my perspective, it's not particularly creative, inventive or interesting. I don't see the big fellow as brilliant or clever, but he is a hell of salesman for his schtick. 50 years ago, someone else was doing the same sort of rap somehwere, 50 years from now someone will take his place. Of course, by then, Penn will sizzling like a fatty pork loin on Satan's George Foreman grill, but such is (after)life.

With regard to this type of topic, I can't think of anything more offensive, arrogant or un-Christlike than to claim another human being will burn and be tortured for eternity for what he believes. You claim to know the rules and the mind of your benevolent god so well as to feel comfortable making such statements? I'm sure it helps to soothe your hurt butt, but Jesus! Maybe you should turn that judgemental spotlight on yourself.

[3rdnlng]

With regard to this type of topic, I can't think of anything more offensive, arrogant or un-Christlike than to claim another human being will burn and be tortured for eternity for what he believes. You claim to know the rules and the mind of your benevolent god so well as to feel comfortable making such statements? I'm sure it helps to soothe your hurt butt, but Jesus! Maybe you should turn that judgemental spotlight on yourself.

 

I had the impression that he was joking, but I guess from your perspective I'd be a little nervous too. Why did Beelzebub buy out Walmart's whole stock of Weber grills?

[OCinBuffalo]

Frenkle has missed the context in which Jefferson spoke. Frenkle is Frenkle, of course, but I think this is an honest misinterpretation. Let's correct Frenkle:

 

Jefferson was not denying the existence of the trinity(no founding father would have ever made such a claim, period). He was saying that no man could define it properly. This is important to understand, because, at that time this was a very relevant discussion. "Reason" as a way of life, was still a relatively new, and still not fully accepted, nor fully understood, way of life, in terms of the previous 500 years. The variance in the Protestant flavors was largely due to their definition of the trinity. Jefferson is merely demanding: humility, in that no one could claim to have the right definition, because no one could rationally show a distinction from one definition of the trinity to the next. The very notion of "Freedom of Religion" is based on this concept. It never had anything to do with respecting atheist's views.

 

Thus, Jefferson's comment is about the variations of Protestantism, and calling that discussion "ridiculous"(hence ridicule) and is not about God exists vs. doesn't.

 

The Carl Sagan line of reasoning is a cop out. People who say something doesn't exist, and they "know" it, have the exact same burden of proof as those who say it does exist. A scientist like Sagan, especially Sagan, should know better: what if there are tests that can prove the existence of God, and we simply haven't discovered them yet? Thus the claim cannot be tested, but, that is due to our lack of knowledge, and not because the test can never exist.

 

Ah yes, the famous fallacy: "Something doesn't exist, can't be done, won't work...because I can't comprehend it, do it myself, or I don't understand how it works".

 

Frenkle: work for 1 week in IT, and you will hear this argument 3 times before the rooster crows on Saturday. How's that for a prophecy?

 

This argument puts Atheists in the unenviable position of claiming their own omnipotence, rather than claiming they don't believe in an omnipotent being. The line is crossed when you say/imply that you "know" God doesn't exist, rather than saying: "Given the evidence you've presented, I remain unconvinced", which is the only reasonable position to take.

 

As I said, and more importantly, as Carl Sagan himself said, we know next to nothing about the universe. "Knowing nothing" doesn't mean: you know nothing, except, when it comes to God, you know everything.

Edited August 14, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[John Adams]

Going to B-Man you all.

 

 

Quincy, Sept. 12, 1813

 

 

Dear Sir [Jefferson],

 

. . . the human Understanding is a revelation from its Maker which can never be disputed or doubted. There can be no Scepticism, Phyrrhonism or Incredulity or Infidelity here. No Prophecies, no Miracles are necessary to prove this celestial communication. This revelation has made it certain that two and one make three; and that one is not three; nor can three be one. We can never be so certain of any Prophecy, or the fulfillment of any Prophecy; or of any miracle, or the design of any miracle as We are, from the revelation of nature i.e. natures God that two and two are equal to four. Miracles or Prophecies might frighten J\us out of our Witts [sic]; might scare us to death; might induce Us to lie; to say that We believe that 2 and 2 make 5. But we should not believe it. We should know the contrary.

 

Had you and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai and admitted to behold, the divine Shekinah, and there told that one was three and three, one: We might not have had courage to deny it. But We could not have believed it. The thunders and Lightenings [sic] and Earthquakes and the transcendant [sic] Splendors and Glories, might have overwhelmed Us with terror and Amazement: but we could not have believed the doctrine. We should be more likely to say in our hearts, whatever We might say with our Lips, This is Chance. There is no God! No Truth. This is all Delusion, fiction and a lie: or it is all Chance. But what is Chance? It is motion; it is Action; it is event; it is Phenomenon, without Cause. Chance is no cause at all. It is nothing. And Nothing has produced all this Pomp and Splendor; and Nothing may produce Our eternal damnation in the flames of Hell fire and Brimstone for what We know, as well as this tremendous Exhibition of Terror and Falsehood.

 

God has infinite Wisdom, goodness and power. He created the Universe. His Duration is eternal, a parte ante, and a parte post. His presence is as extensive as Space. What is Space? an infinite, spherical Vaccuum [sic]. He created this Speck of Dirt and the human Species for his glory: and with the deliberate to design of making, nine tenths of our Species miserable forever, file his glory. This is the doctrine of Christian Theologians in general: ten to one.

 

Now, my Friend, can Prophecies, or miracles convince You, or Me, that infinite Benevolence, Wisdom and Power, created and preserves, for a time,

innumerable millions to make them miserable, forever; for his own Glory? Wretch! What is his Glory? Is he ambitious? does he want promotion? Is he vain? tickled with Adulation, Exulting and try triumphing [sic] in his Power and the Sweetness of his Vengeance! Pardon me, my Maker, for these Aweful [sic] Questions. My Answer to them is always ready: I believe no such Things. My Adoration of the author of the Universe is too profound and too sincere The Love of God and his Creation; delight, joy, Tryumph [sic], Exultation in my own existence, 'tho but an atom, a Molecule Organique [sic], in the Universe; are my religion. Howl, Snarl, bite, Ye Calvinistick! Ye Athanasian Divines, if you will. Ye will say, I am no Christian: I say Ye are no Christians: and there the Account is balanced [sic]. Yet I believe all the honest men among you, are Christians in my Sense of the Word . . . .

 

When I was in England from 1785, to 1788 I may say, I was intimate with Dr. [Richard] Price. I had much conversation with him at his own House, at my houses, and at the houses and Tables of Friends. In some of our most unreserved Conversations, when We have been alone, he has repeatedly said to me "I and inclined to believe that the Universe, is eternal and infinite. It seems to me that an eternal and infinite Effect, must necessarily flow from an eternal infinite Cause; and an infinite Wisdom Goodness and Power that could have been induced to produce a Universe in time, must have produced it from eternity." "It seems to me, the effect must flow from the Cause.”

 

Now my Friend Jefferson, suppose an eternal self-existent Being existing from Eternity, possessed of infinite Wisdom, Goodness and Power, in absolute total Solitude, Six thousand ears ago, conceiving the benevolent project of creating a Universe! I have no more to say at present.

 

It has been long, very long a settled opinion in my Mind that there is now, never will be, and never was but one being who can Understand the Universe. And that it is not only vain but wicked for insects to pretend to comprehend it.

 

 

Me.

Edited August 14, 2013 by John Adams

[Gene Frenkle]

Frenkle has missed the context in which Jefferson spoke. Frenkle is Frenkle, of course, but I think this is an honest misinterpretation. Let's correct Frenkle:

 

Jefferson was not denying the existence of the trinity(no founding father would have ever made such a claim, period). He was saying that no man could define it properly. This is important to understand, because, at that time this was a very relevant discussion. "Reason" as a way of life, was still a relatively new, and still not fully accepted, nor fully understood, way of life, in terms of the previous 500 years. The variance in the Protestant flavors was largely due to their definition of the trinity. Jefferson is merely demanding: humility, in that no one could claim to have the right definition, because no one could rationally show a distinction from one definition of the trinity to the next. The very notion of "Freedom of Religion" is based on this concept. It never had anything to do with respecting atheist's views.

 

Thus, Jefferson's comment is about the variations of Protestantism, and calling that discussion "ridiculous"(hence ridicule) and is not about God exists vs. doesn't.

I never claimed Jefferson didn't believe in god, but it's nice of you to explain exactly what the man was thinking. To my knowledge, Jefferson was a Deist. I'm pretty sure that means he didn't believe in the "trinity" or subscribe to Christianity. His advocacy of RIDICULE is the relevant part of that quote.

 

The Carl Sagan line of reasoning is a cop out. People who say something doesn't exist, and they "know" it, have the exact same burden of proof as those who say it does exist. A scientist like Sagan, especially Sagan, should know better: what if there are tests that can prove the existence of God, and we simply haven't discovered them yet? Thus the claim cannot be tested, but, that is due to our lack of knowledge, and not because the test can never exist.

 

Ah yes, the famous fallacy: "Something doesn't exist, can't be done, won't work...because I can't comprehend it, do it myself, or I don't understand how it works".

No, that's not even close to true. You're staying that any claim I make up out of whole cloth has legitimacy, which is crap. It's on ME to support my extraordinary claims. It's the Spaghetti Monster thing if you care to read up on that again.

 

 

Frenkle: work for 1 week in IT, and you will hear this argument 3 times before the rooster crows on Saturday. How's that for a prophecy?

LOL...I actually write code, unlike your sorry arse, and have been doing so for 15+ years. I also manage a team of software developers, so I think I qualify as IT. How's that Project Management that you love to talk about so much coming along?

 

This argument puts Atheists in the unenviable position of claiming their own omnipotence, rather than claiming they don't believe in an omnipotent being. The line is crossed when you say/imply that you "know" God doesn't exist, rather than saying: "Given the evidence you've presented, I remain unconvinced", which is the only reasonable position to take.

 

As I said, and more importantly, as Carl Sagan himself said, we know next to nothing about the universe. "Knowing nothing" doesn't mean: you know nothing, except, when it comes to God, you know everything.

I consider myself agnostic, leaning towards atheism because I see absolutely no evidence to support the need for a divine creator in our universe. All I see are a bunch of old stories and superstitions used by religious leaders over the centuries to keep the plebs in line. Show me some evidence for god and I'll gladly change my mind, but my intellectual integrity won't allow me to just believe because I want to. If you can talk yourself into such a stance, more power to you, I guess.

 

As far as knowing next to nothing, well, we know more and more all the time. The gaps in scientific knowledge where god resides are shrinking year by year. People are leaving the churches because they are now seeing these institutions for what they are and have fewer things that need to be explained by "god did it". Regardless, our "knowing nothing" provides no proof of anything.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Gene Frenkle

[Gene Frenkle]

I had the impression that he was joking, but I guess from your perspective I'd be a little nervous too. Why did Beelzebub buy out Walmart's whole stock of Weber grills?

I might be nervous if I were a superstitious simpleton who didn't have the balls to think critically and honestly about my belief system.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Gene Frenkle

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

With regard to this type of topic, I can't think of anything more offensive, arrogant or un-Christlike than to claim another human being will burn and be tortured for eternity for what he believes. You claim to know the rules and the mind of your benevolent god so well as to feel comfortable making such statements? I'm sure it helps to soothe your hurt butt, but Jesus! Maybe you should turn that judgemental spotlight on yourself.

 

Well, I Dream of Gene(y), I'm going to have to figure out a way to come to grips with how you feel about me and what I wrote. I do, in fact, feel comfortable with my statements, and thanks for asking. I also appreciate your concern over my "hurt butt', though on some level I find it a little bit creepy.

 

The good news is that we were discussing Penn Jillette and his point of view, and I'd hazard a guess that he would be perfectly fine with my point of view. He might see an opportunity to show me the truth. I read your thoughts on his postings and thought your perspective was excellent. I'm not agnostic, but see a certain mean-spiritedness in the whole thing. Perhaps that influenced my response in kind. Perhaps what you see as arrogance on my part was simply the natural by-product of the human condition. I don't know, I'm only human.

[OCinBuffalo]

I never claimed Jefferson didn't believe in god, but it's nice of you to explain exactly what the man was thinking. To my knowledge, Jefferson was a Deist. I'm pretty sure that means he didn't believe in the "trinity" or subscribe to Christianity. His advocacy of RIDICULE is the relevant part of that quote.

Then why use it in that context?

 

Yes, I pointed out his use of the term ridicule, properly. You are using this argument out of context, to suport an atheist, and not deist, argument.

No, that's not even close to true. You're staying that any claim I make up out of whole cloth has legitimacy, which is crap. It's on ME to support my extraordinary claims. It's the Spaghetti Monster thing if you care to read up on that again.

No, I am not. I am saying that any postion that represents non-belief, other than, "I remain unconvinced based on the evidence at hand/you've provided" is the opposite of reason.

 

That's because making claims that God doesn't exist = authoritatively saying you can prove a negative. That is idiocy.

LOL...I actually write code, unlike your sorry arse, and have been doing so for 15+ years. I also manage a team of software developers, so I think I qualify as IT. How's that Project Management that you love to talk about so much coming along?

Moron. I've never stopped writing code, and I never will. If you were a technical architect, as well as a REAL project manager, you'd know why I do that. You are not, so you don't. I was team leader when I was 23. You want credit for being an individual contributor for 14 years, and just now getting your frist promotion?

 

Ok. Nice job.

 

The question remains: are you familiar with the fallacy that is "If I can't conceive of it, that means it doesn't exist", found so often in IT? Or, is it going to take another 14 years for you to get it? If you are, then, do you understand how saying "I know there is no God" is patenty retarded?

I consider myself agnostic, leaning towards atheism because I see absolutely no evidence to support the need for a divine creator in our universe. All I see are a bunch of old stories and superstitions used by religious leaders over the centuries to keep the plebs in line. Show me some evidence for god and I'll gladly change my mind, but my intellectual integrity won't allow me to just believe because I want to. If you can talk yourself into such a stance, more power to you, I guess.

 

As far as knowing next to nothing, well, we know more and more all the time. The gaps in scientific knowledge where god resides are shrinking year by year. People are leaving the churches because they are now seeing these institutions for what they are and have fewer things that need to be explained by "god did it". Regardless, our "knowing nothing" provides no proof of anything.

Believe whatever you want.

 

But don't come here and try to pretend that your belief = reason, and therefore, trumps everybody else's belief.

 

The only thing any of what you wrote proves is: we have an "I'm infallable" problem in this country. This attitude of "I know it all, and need learn nothing" is why software projects fail far too often, it's how Global Warming became Global Warming^TM, and, it's how Obamacare became Obamacare.

 

I agree that the decrease in going to church probably has to do with the fairy tale aspects of organized religion. However, the vast majority of America would be well served by spending an hour a week contemplating their failures, admitting their mistakes, most importantly to themselves, and, resolving to do better.

 

Don't want church? Fine. Replace it with something else that requires humility and introspection, and stop pretending that "we know nothing about the universe"...is going to be solved in a few years, and mostly involves you watching the Discovery Channel and PBS.

Edited August 14, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[Gene Frenkle]

Well, I Dream of Gene(y), I'm going to have to figure out a way to come to grips with how you feel about me and what I wrote. I do, in fact, feel comfortable with my statements, and thanks for asking. I also appreciate your concern over my "hurt butt', though on some level I find it a little bit creepy.

 

The good news is that we were discussing Penn Jillette and his point of view, and I'd hazard a guess that he would be perfectly fine with my point of view. He might see an opportunity to show me the truth. I read your thoughts on his postings and thought your perspective was excellent. I'm not agnostic, but see a certain mean-spiritedness in the whole thing. Perhaps that influenced my response in kind. Perhaps what you see as arrogance on my part was simply the natural by-product of the human condition. I don't know, I'm only human.

Butt-hurt is a term the kids are using these days - didn't mean to make it wierd...lol.

 

From a believer, your comments, while human, didn't seem very Christlike. That's all I'm saying. A guy says he denounces the holy spirit and you say he'll burn in hell for all eternity because of it, which doesn't seem to be a very measured response IMO. I'm really just trying to point out the apparent contradiction between what you seem to believe and how you choose show it. Do unto others and all that...

 

Then why use it in that context?

 

Yes, I pointed out his use of the term ridicule, properly. You are using this argument out of context, to suport an atheist, and not deist, argument.

With regard to the Jefferson quote, I never used it to try to support atheism or deism. I only use it to point out that ridicule is a valid vehicle for shooting down unscientific propositions.

 

No, I am not. I am saying that any postion that represents non-belief, other than, "I remain unconvinced based on the evidence at hand/you've provided" is the opposite of reason.

 

That's because making claims that God doesn't exist = authoritatively saying you can prove a negative. That is idiocy.

I made no such claims

 

Moron. I've never stopped writing code, and I never will. If you were a technical architect, as well as a REAL project manager, you'd know why I do that. You are not, so you don't. I was team leader when I was 23. You want credit for being an individual contributor for 14 years, and just now getting your frist promotion?

 

Ok. Nice job. What else can I say?

If you could blow yourself, would you ever leave the house?

 

The question remains: are you familiar with the notion of "If I can't conceive of it, that means it doesn't exist", found so often in IT? Or, is it going to take another 14 years for you to get it? If you are, then, do you understand how saying "I know there is no God" is patenty retarded?

Again, I made no such claims. Can you say the same?

 

Believe whatever you want.

 

But don't come here and try to pretend that your belief = reason, and therefore, trumps everybody else's belief.

 

The only thing any of what you wrote proves is: we have an "I'm infallable" problem in this country. This attitude of "I know it all, and need learn nothing" is why software projects fail far too often, it's how Global Warming became Global Warming^TM, and, it's how Obamacare became Obamacare.

 

I agree that the decrease in going to church probably has to do with the fairy tale aspects of organized religion. However, the vast majority of America would be well served by spending an hour a week contemplating their failures, admitting their mistakes, most importantly to themselves, and, resolving to do better.

 

Don't want church? Fine. Replace it with something else that requires humility and introspection, and stop pretending that "we know nothing about the universe"...is going to be solved in a few years, and mostly involves you watching the Discovery Channel and PBS.

Look over there!!! You're such a tool.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Gene Frenkle