i'm an atheist. like wikipedia so eloquently put, i can only KNOW things that are true by definition. i'm not saying the big bang (a part of the universe) was or wasn't caused by some omni-all being. only that said being doesn't seem to possess omnibenevolence (in addition to the other 3) and is not worthy of me worshipping it.

10/2/2009 10:55:59 AM

from my post yesterday

Quote :

"The interesting thing to me in the argument between God and no-god is the fact that the seed of doubt sprouts from the same place - how did either side come to exist. If there is a God that created everything, how did he come to be? If there is no god how is it that anything exists if laws of physics state that you cant create something from nothing? Whoever can explain one of these first wins my vote."

from God's reply

Quote :

"Clearly in your argument, God would win since religion does offer an explanation. Science (or, "no god" as you put it) says that "We do not know, but we are trying to figure it out. That is the wonder of the Universe." And, again, something was not created from nothing. That is a misunderstanding of what the big bang was."

How does God win? There is no independent proof of how he came to exist.

I as a human am incapable of comprehending infinity of the past.

There has to be an ultimate beginning.

Mixing ingredients to create something unique is not THE beginning.

It is merely existence perpetuating.

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 11:05 AM. Reason : ...]

10/2/2009 11:04:24 AM

Here's something to think about.

God is on an intellectual scale above us. I believe it is impossible to understand him the way we want to. He designed us with this limit because if we could understand what he understands, then we would be gods ourselves. God's intellect to ours is similar in comparison of how our intellect seperates our capabilities from say a sloth. If we could think and undestand God, we would eventually (no doubt) find a way to create like God. We may not be able to create matter, but I'm sure God can. To think about infinity hurts my head... >_<

10/2/2009 11:17:31 AM

^^ Actually there doesn't need to be any ultimate beginning, since time and space are mixed together in our universe and our comprehension of them extends only so far as our perception. Time, as we view it, doesn't really exist.

Also, in the multitudes of other parallel universes that likely exist (that there is more and more evidence for) time may not even be a dimensional element entwined in their existence...

Time isn't really relevant.

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 11:18 AM. Reason : *]

10/2/2009 11:18:22 AM

^ time is very relevant. IIRC, in string theory, there are multiple spatial dimensions that all share the same temporal dimension.

But, that type of speculation is not really for this thread...

10/2/2009 11:34:36 AM

Well I meant our perception of it in our universe and regarding the big bang as a beginning. 13.7 billion years is the accepted age, but it's the accepted age of what? This universe, which may just be a subset...

But yeah it's getting into another discussion altogether.

10/2/2009 11:43:24 AM

Quote :

"How does God win? There is no independent proof of how he came to exist. I as a human am incapable of comprehending infinity of the past. There has to be an ultimate beginning. Mixing ingredients to create something unique is not THE beginning. It is merely existence perpetuating. "

Proof? No. Explanation? Yes. You asked for "whoever can explain one of these first."

That's what religion does. It wraps everything up in a nice neat little package. God exists. He made you. Be nice and you go to heaven. How was God created? Why, he has always existed throughout eternity.

Science is a constant search for the truth about the natural world, and because it is like that there will always be questions. If we figure out exactly how the Universe was created, we still have to figure out the why. And once we figure out the why, we have to figure out how the why came to be, and so on and so forth.

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 11:48 AM. Reason : ]

10/2/2009 11:45:29 AM

I told my parents you're an atheist. They seemed indifferent.

10/2/2009 11:55:38 AM

Quote :

"Proof? No. Explanation? Yes. You asked for "whoever can explain one of these first." That's what religion does. It wraps everything up in a nice neat little package. God exists. He made you. Be nice and you go to heaven. How was God created? Why, he has always existed throughout eternity. Science is a constant search for the truth about the natural world, and because it is like that there will always be questions. If we figure out exactly how the Universe was created, we still have to figure out the why. And once we figure out the why, we have to figure out how the why came to be, and so on and so forth. "

I hereby retract the word explanation from my initial post and reinsert independent proof sorry for the poor choice of words.

I recognize that there is no proof at this time - only evidence. That is why I am torn.

10/2/2009 1:01:58 PM

wow lots of words in this thread.... my reply:

[words]

while i'm not an athiest, i can say that i've dealt with at least some of the feelings/situations that you describe in your first post.

i consider myself a christian, but i'm fairly liberal as to what that actually means. i believe in god, jesus, right and wrong (which i realize is not exclusive to christianity), heaven and hell, and the concept of salvation. however, i do not believe, nor do i adhere to the strict tenants of fundamental christianity (ie i curse like a sailor, i drink, i gamble, i didn't have a problem with premarital sex).

i also haven't attended a church regularly in probably 12 years. though that is more of a function of me not being able to relate with most ministers; hellfire and brimstone sermons do not appeal to me at all.

i have no issue with other religions, and i'm not arrogant enough to "know" that they are wrong and i am right. i recognize that some people have difficulties believing in god, and i see that as their personal journey.

anywho, my dad is an elder in my old church, and he and my mom have been fairly devout attendees since before i was born. we always said prayers at dinner and in the evening, they sent me to church camp, they tithe. they taught sunday school. my dad drives the church van. hell, my dad even baptized me.

when i was in college, i knew that it bothered them that i didn't attend church. they were always very careful though in their prodding. they would hint around. i'd just say that i was too busy or had too much homework. i didn't want to tell them that i was burned out on church, having spent every sunday morning, evening, and every wednesday night of my first 18 years there. they'd send me little prayer requests. i'd thank them, but hit delete before i actually read anything. they'd tell me all about the goings on in the church. i'd just nod my head and daydream.

when i left college, they commented several times how they hoped i'd find a church in my new city, lalala. i never did. i think i tried one just so that i could tell them i tried. note: in all this, i never stopped believing. i just didn't want to be around typical "chuch people". people waving their hands around and being all emotional scares the shit out of me. i just want to read my bible, have an intelligent conversation, and move on. i found it was easier to do that on my own rather than trying to find other people to do it with.

over time, i think they've finally come to grips with the fact that i'm not going to be the type of christian that they are. we've had some conversations, with my mom more than my dad. they know that i believe, but they also know that i don't discount other people's beliefs as well. my dad will stay say things every now and then that make me cringe, but i have just learned to ignore them. when we visit them, i do attend their church because i know that it makes them happy and it is nice to see people i grew up with.

i don't discuss my opinions with my grandparents at all, though i think they would be sad more than mad at me. they really aren't bad at all - i think their generation's taboos prevent them from being overly dramatic in their religioous views. but some of my distant family are real backwoods bible thumpers. in fact, on of my cousins through marriage is a preacher at a tiny primitive church in the sticks. he brought a coffin with a mirror inside into his service once and made his church members walk by and "imagine" that it was them in there and that they were burning in hell. fucked up i know. i cringe to think about the conversations that i've been able to narrowly avoid at reunions. my parents are smart enough to not discuss my situation with them.

in truth, my parents are pretty cool with me and my personal views. though, if and when my husband and i have kids, i'm sure we'll be pressured into raising our kids in a church environment. we may go this route, but i doubt that we'd ever be as regular in attendance as my family was when i was young.

[/words]

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 1:10 PM. Reason : holy shit i didn't realize i'd typed that much]

10/2/2009 1:07:14 PM

Why believe in God?

10/2/2009 1:19:29 PM

Quote :

"And IF the Bible were infallible, why is there so much division even among Christians? Even among Christians of the same denomination? "

To be fair, a lot of that division is regarding things that are legitimately up for interpretation.

Quote :

"i'm not an evangelical atheist and don't feel this way personally, but i could see the argument for trying to 'convince' bible beaters the error of their ways in order to avoid/reverse what you said about the legislating religious beliefs in this country"

I suppose there is some weak case for that, but that would be like having a doctor who's solution for every ailment was to amputate.

People making my business their business pisses me off, too, but the solution isn't to turn them all into atheists.

Quote :

"i just didn't want to be around typical "chuch people". people waving their hands around and being all emotional scares the shit out of me."

Oh yeah...definitely. That is one of the gayer things I've seen. Not quite up there with one bum slobbing another bum's knob behind the Food Lion on Western Blvd, but pretty gay.

I am agnostic in the strictest sense of the word (though the term has been loaded to mean more than it strictly does by definition). I'm not anti-religion in the least. I don't really even lean towards the absense of God. I just flat-out don't know, and recognize that there isn't really any way for me to know. "Over-churchiness" does aggravate the shit out of me, though...the hand waving thing is one of the worst. Another time, I saw my step-mom's photo album of vacations that she and my dad took. She's wonderful in many ways, but I couldn't help but roll my eyes when every picture of a beautiful scene in Hawaii or Alaska or Europe was captioned with things like "Look at what His hand has created." Once or twice wouldn't bother me, but where there are like a hundred pictures in the album with different variations of this...

Quote :

"if and when my husband and i have kids, i'm sure we'll be pressured into raising our kids in a church environment."

I actually do plan on taking my daughter to church when she's up at my house, once she gets a little older (she just turned 3). She goes to a church daycare now when she's with her mother (who is not particularly religious). I certainly wouldn't pressure her to believe anything, but I want to give her the opportunity if she decides to, and if not, at least she'll have some academic understanding of Christianity.

10/2/2009 2:01:05 PM

Quote :

"People making my business their business pisses me off, too, but the solution isn't to turn them all into atheists."

I suppose not, but, like many "non-Believers," I find that people can be completely rational and logical about most things in their life, but they tend to reserve a special spot of irrationality for religion. I find that these are the same types of people who believe in other unfounded pseudosciences like psychics, ghosts, astrology, and dowsing. And when I find someone like this, how can I take them seriously? How can I believe they're an intelligent person when they buy into such nonsense?

I know this is contradicted by such men as Francis Collins, mentioned earlier in the thread, and I believe that's why Dawkins and many others are so baffled by him.

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 2:35 PM. Reason : ]

10/2/2009 2:34:30 PM

10/2/2009 2:37:34 PM

That's incorrect. Atheists don't claim to know everything.

McDanger's penis is drawn to scale. I can personally verify this.

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 2:44 PM. Reason : ]

10/2/2009 2:43:31 PM

The unitarian church on wade ave. reminded me of the support group scenes from fight club. And then most of the "sermon" was them complaining about not being able to retain membership.

That was a hilarious use of that Sunday morning.

10/2/2009 2:45:12 PM

I told you he wasn't an atheist, visual evidence, lol.

10/2/2009 2:51:34 PM

Atheist, Agnostic, and Non-Religious
http://www.new.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2204609276

If facebook lumps them all together, they must be the same thing!

10/2/2009 3:27:39 PM

^^^ I've got friends who are Unitarians but even they agree that their world view is wishy-washy.

Quote :

"people waving their hands around and being all emotional scares the shit out of me. i just want to read my bible, have an intelligent conversation, and move on."

Find a "high church" Episcopal Parish. When I was a believer I used to go to St. Timothy's off Six Forks. At one point our Sunday school was led by a retired Duke divinity professor. A lot of "the Bible says this, and it was written in this context, to this audience." Very little of "the infallible Word of God says . . . "

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 3:46 PM. Reason : ^]

10/2/2009 3:46:00 PM

One of the most frightening moments I've ever had was being taken to a Pentacostal Holiness Church when I was about 6. When they all got up and went literally running around in the aisles, waving their hands and "speaking in tongues", I pretty much freaked out.

In reality all that was a bunch retards attention whoring in the greatest sense, moaning and wailing as if it were a competition to see who could pretend to be the holiest.

10/2/2009 3:55:10 PM

Quote :

"I find that these are the same types of people who believe in other unfounded pseudosciences like psychics, ghosts, astrology, and dowsing. And when I find someone like this, how can I take them seriously? How can I believe they're an intelligent person when they buy into such nonsense? "

That's a pretty drastic generalization. In fact, I would say my experiences would actually be much the opposite of yours. Though I will not try to gloss over the fact that there are weirdos in the church, I will counter that my encounters with them have decreased as I've made it an effort to synch up with other reverent skeptics like myself.

One of my favorite writers, A.W. Tozer penned the phrase reverent skeptic and writes:


"Faith never means gullibility. The man who believes everything is as far from God as the man who refuses to believe anything. Faith engages the person and promises of God and rests upon them with perfect assurance. Whatever has behind it the character and word of the living God is accepted by faith as the last and final truth from which there must never be any appeal."

10/2/2009 4:07:24 PM

Excellent. More quotes! I BELIEVE NOW!

10/2/2009 4:09:28 PM

ok, glad that turned out on the positive to neutral side it seems.

no reason to turn this thread into either religion bashing or religion evangelicalism...

shit, i'm religious but i can completely see where the atheist/agnostics are coming from.

10/2/2009 4:11:21 PM

I think we've exhausted the effort of trying to make either side "believe" one way or the other based on the dialogue in this thread.

I'm simply replying to the generalization that Christians are gullible and will believe any pseudoscience. I am using the quote in place of my own, less poetic explanation.

10/2/2009 4:13:04 PM

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was the "Christians post here if you feel looked down on" thread.

10/2/2009 4:14:41 PM

He's an angry, little elf.

10/2/2009 4:17:48 PM

Shaggy, you've posted that chart before, and it's just as wrong as it ever has been. I want to thoroughly refute what you've posted, and hopefully - moving forward - you can be a little less ignorant. I won't hold my breath, of course.

Technically, you're right that an atheist "believes" in the non-existence of gods. Just like you believe in the non-existence of every conceivable being that can't be seen, sensed, or verified in any way. How one can "recognize" the non-existence of something, I don't know. To recognize something, you have to see it, and your brain matches it to something you've seen previously. I've never seen god, so to say that I recognize its non-existence is to misuse the word recognize.

Atheists don't claim to know everything. We've been over that literally 10-20 times in this thread alone. Most atheists are also agnostics, because they admit that not everything can be known. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive; they refer to two different things. Atheism refers to a position on a specific, unsupported claim. Agnosticism refers to knowledge, or what can and cannot be known. So yes, there is absolutely overlap between the two, and if you disagree, you don't know what the words mean.

To be fair, I don't think theists necessarily claim to know everything. Many of them will even admit that we can't comprehend all of "God's glory."

Furthermore, you could be an atheist, agnostic, and areligious. You could be a theist and areligious. Many people are de facto atheists/agnostics, even if they don't actively refer to themselves as such. If one were raised in an environment where no mention of God or religion were ever made, they would be atheist, agnostic, and areligious. There just seems to be a lot of confusion on the meaning of these labels, and you're not really helping clear that up.

I wish I could just direct every semantic argument in this thread to this post. It ultimately boils down to how we define something as "existing." If something can't be sensed or detected in some way, you wouldn't say that it exists. It does not matter if something can't be disproved. There are an unlimited number of things that can't be disproved. The onus - the burden of proof - is always on the person making the unsupported claim. It's never my job to disprove your argument, which is an invalid argument right out of the gate.

I don't think anyone's mind has been changed in this thread. If someone is irrational, believing something for no reason, no amount of reason will change their mind. It isn't a simple matter of "choosing" to believe something. You're either convinced of the truth of a given proposition, or you are not. Some people are more easily convinced than others. Other theists, in my opinion, are driven to keep believing out of a subconscious (or conscious, perhaps) instinct to avoid eternal damnation. That was me, for a long time. Every time I began to doubt the doctrine of Christianity, my fear of hell reigned me back in. No Christian will admit that this is the reason they remain Christians, because it would reveal how insincere their belief is. In before no true scotsman. That's part of the reason that the concept of Hell is so immoral, and I can't figure out why more people don't see right through it.

Quote :

"The man who believes everything is as far from God as the man who refuses to believe anything."

The man who refuses to believe anything wouldn't even be able to function on a basic level. This is a commonly asserted false dichotomy where you either believe in everything, or reject everything, which certainly is not the case with me, or any reasonable atheist.

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 4:39 PM. Reason : ]

10/2/2009 4:29:12 PM

I think you are looking past the general context of the quote and using strict interpretation to break down that particular sentence.

Anything and nothing are polar extremes in the controlled environment of theology in this sense.

While I think I have found a church that is consistent with the teachings of the Bible, I maintain a skepticism for what is said at the pulpit, because in the end it is a flawed man preaching to me.

Nothing equals not believing in Christ/God. Everything meaning any nutjob who professes Christ is an authority on his Will. Both are equally dangerous according to Tozer.

10/2/2009 4:46:40 PM

I think part of the issue here might be in how the human brain interprets data. While, on a scientific level, we seek the most possible data points believing that the more data the more accurate the conclusion.

However, the human brain cannot function as a "frequentist". If one lion eats your neighbor, the survival of the species does not depend on you taking your time to determine if this lion was an outlier or if he was the norm. You assumed that lions eat people and you lived your life accordingly. Thomas Bayes explored this line of thought and developed what are loosely understood to be "Bayes Rules".

So, combined with the previous article about the "presence" of God in the brain and the overwhelming significance (to the individual) of one or two data points in the brain, belief in God might seem perfectly rational. Equally, one could not believe in God on equally sparse data.


Here is the link for anyone who has an online subscription to the Economist: http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5354696 I can cut and past the whole article if anyone wants to PM me for it, but I won't take up the whole thread with it.

10/2/2009 4:55:03 PM

Quote :

"This is a commonly asserted false dichotomy where you either believe in everything, or reject everything, which certainly is not the case with me, or any reasonable atheist"

That's not at all the point of that quote.

10/2/2009 5:14:14 PM

getting back to the point of this thread, atheists should surely go out of their way to belittle their christian family members

10/2/2009 6:26:26 PM

d357r0y3r, thanks for clearing up the semantics, perhaps now we can have a discussion without confusing each others terminology. To be honest, that post belonged on the first page, but the semantics didn't begin until people started throwing around labels. I'd be interested to hear what God, McDanger, and your specific labels are. Perhaps you are all the same variation?

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 6:58 PM. Reason : -]

10/2/2009 6:53:18 PM

Quote :

""I don't really know what the evangelical atheist is out to accomplish.""

That is simple. They are trying to stop the destruction and resistance to progress caused by organized religion.

10/2/2009 8:00:23 PM

Semantecs or whatever, but athiests and agnostics dont overlap. athiests reject the posibility of a diety, agnostics reject the question because we cant know either way. These two views conflict.

You can be an agnostic that operates on the assumption there is no god, but thats not the same as rejecting the possibility of god. In my view if you dont believe in a diety, but would believe in one given evidence, then you are an agnostic. Provided evidence of a deity, athiests would contiue to reject the possibility of a diety.

Most people claiming to be athiests are probably agnostics.

10/2/2009 8:19:20 PM

I don't think that's fair. I think atheists would proudly admit they were wrong given falsifiable evidence for a god.

10/2/2009 9:18:41 PM

well, a lot of christians would also admit that they were wrong if they were presented with incontrovertible proof that god doesn't exist.

10/2/2009 10:51:00 PM

Quote :

"In my view if you dont believe in a diety, but would believe in one given evidence, then you are an agnostic. Provided evidence of a deity, athiests would contiue to reject the possibility of a diety. Most people claiming to be athiests are probably agnostics."

But you have to realize that giving evidence for a god is impossible. How do you prove a god exists? What is the measurement at which you say "this is a god?" What is the difference between a god and a powerful intelligent life form? What IS a god?

That is why I do not believe that I can ever be an agnostic. What you would refer to as a god, I would simply refer to as an extra-terrestrial life form.

Quote :

"well, a lot of christians would also admit that they were wrong if they were presented with incontrovertible proof that god doesn't exist."

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Since there has been absolutely no evidence throughout the entire course of human civilization that has in any way been evidence towards a god existing, we can assume that a god does not exist.

[Edited on October 3, 2009 at 12:35 AM. Reason : ]

10/3/2009 12:33:25 AM

Quote :

"That is simple. They are trying to stop the destruction and resistance to progress caused by organized religion. "

1. I don't think it's nearly that altruistic lots of times. I think it's more often due to bitterness towards religion and/or an (unwarranted) high-horse attitude.

2. Religion, even the organized variety, isn't the problem, per se. Again, I get frustrated by the destruction and resistance to progress as well, but attacking it by attacking organized religion is (a) a futile effort, and (b) like I said before, analogous to a physician who treats every malady with amputation.

Quote :

"You can be an agnostic that operates on the assumption there is no god, but thats not the same as rejecting the possibility of god."

Absolutely, and furthermore, also subtly different from rejecting the existance of God, let alone the possibility.

For example, I certainly don't reject the existance of God. I don't even reject the existance of God. I just operate largely on the assumption that there is no God, as I simply don't know.

[Edited on October 3, 2009 at 12:40 AM. Reason : ]

10/3/2009 12:38:28 AM

Quote :

" Because you can't appeal to the authority of the Bible if you're arguing with an agnostic or atheist in favor of religion. Christ, how is that not painfully obvious to you? The Bible has no academic authority to the non-Christian. Furthermore, Scripture is a pretty weak basis for belief in God. That's sort of putting the cart before the horse. Your idiocy makes me want to smite you."

Well I see theDuke866 not only ignored the rest of my post but resorted to the same "you're an idiot" response. It's not about creating an argument. It is not about intellectual debate. It is not about "academic authority." All these philosophical debates are a just waste of time. To truly believe in God's divine nature is to take the complete opposite stance. To stop raving and ranting about what our completely misguided minds think up, and stop trying to wrap our minds around what we cannot comprehend and just acknowledge His power. He has made himself known through creation and the Bible only supports that. In fact these debates that have no basis except for "well this is what I think" only support what it says about our nature. Just read through II Timothy.

If you don't believe in any of that then fine. But how is this an idiotic stance? It's "acceptable" for people to believe in God through their own accord but try to provide support through the Bible of how our own accord will ALWAYS BE WRONG, or *gasp* that He actually lays out how we are supposed to live, and you're a raving lunatic.

10/3/2009 12:50:08 AM

It isn't an idiotic stance.


Pretty much everything else you said is far, far beyond idiotic.

I would try to explain why, but you're not going to get it, so I'm not going to bother. Maybe one of these dickhead fervent atheists will, because they get off on that shit, and your kind and theirs belong together anyway.

10/3/2009 12:58:58 AM

The irony is that he majored in a scientific field.

10/3/2009 1:04:06 AM

I also noticed that.

10/3/2009 1:05:13 AM

^^^^

It makes no sense to say that only the bible is right, when everyone’s interpretation of the bible is different enough.

[Edited on October 3, 2009 at 2:08 AM. Reason : ]

10/3/2009 2:04:17 AM

I've already addressed part of that. Additionally, what part(s) of the Bible to Muslims directly share?

I think that having different interpretations of the Bible is perfectly legitimate. Furthermore, the basic tenets that are applicable to this discussion are pretty commonly accepted (by Christians, of course).

At any rate, it doesn't really matter. You cannot use the Bible to support the Bible to people who don't believe the Bible. You also cannot just say to someone who doesn't believe in God, "Uhh, it's obvious that God exists, so you should just, well, believe. Yeah, that'll do it. Then you can read and believe the Bible, and it'll confirm everything for you. Oh, and if you still don't believe, it's just because God is so badass that your little human mind can't understand, so you should just say 'fuck it', stop thinking about it, and believe."

That should be self-evident, but apparently not.

Furthermore, while religion requires faith, what NCSURemy is describing isn't the good kind of faith.


The good kind of faith is "Hey, nobody's ever gone to the moon before, but we've examined this as best as we know how, and in my best judgement, this is gonna be OK."



The bad kind of faith is the kind where parents get their kids killed because they won't take them to the motherfucking doctor, because that would just be a waste of time since God is gonna take care of things anyway...

That isn't too far removed from what you're describing.



[Edited on October 3, 2009 at 2:12 AM. Reason : ]

[Edited on October 3, 2009 at 2:25 AM. Reason : ]

[Edited on October 3, 2009 at 2:27 AM. Reason : ]

10/3/2009 2:10:33 AM

^ of course it’s legitimate in reasonable contexts; but it seems to me that it would cast serious doubt on ncsuREMY’s allegation that human thought will always result in failure, and it’s the Bible that is always right.


[Edited on October 3, 2009 at 2:25 AM. Reason : ]

10/3/2009 2:24:42 AM

Man this thread got dumb

10/3/2009 2:28:32 AM

well its kinda like bill maher said, and im paraphrasing, but if you believe in the bible stories I seriously have to question your judgment (looking at you George W.)

religion is kinda sad really

[Edited on October 3, 2009 at 2:38 AM. Reason : f]

10/3/2009 2:37:40 AM

sup sup luke its kyle, havnt been on here in forever but john linked me this thread. I wanted to give you props for telling your parents. We share the same views on religion and I've given alot of thought about all the possible reactions my parents would produce if I told them. I'm fairly sure my dad knows how I feel, and I'm pretty sure my mom knew at one point, but by now has blocked it out of her mind and convinced herself otherwise. I read the first 3 pages of this thread and was copy/pasting some of the absurdly, highly, extremely uneducated statements, but you locked most of it and then the rest of this thread just degenerated into a worthless purge of opinions. TBH im not sure if your still keeping up with it and will see this post, but like i said before, i'm blown away you told em and its given me new thought about possibly telling mine. Although the conversation from my mother will most likely resemble that of ncsuREMY9's.

10/3/2009 2:47:44 AM

Quote :

"He has made himself known through creation and the Bible only supports that."

This is like me writing in crayon on a napkin: "I wrote this. I'm god" -God

Try to argue with it. You might tell me it's on a napkin. BUT GOD SAYS HE WROTE THIS. WHO ARE YOU TO ARGUE WITH GOD? THE NAPKIN IS DIVINE TRUTH!


Most of this thread is an argument about semantics. People are going to use the terms atheist and agnostic flexibly, but one thing I don't think they can do is this:

1. Theism: knowing there is a God (100% sure).
2. Atheism: knowing there is no God (100% sure).

These definitions are useless. You can't know anything for certain (besides your own existence, AMIRITE?) Why is anyone still treating these like potential stances?

If anyone is going to use these words and not classify EVERYONE as agnostic, they need to be functional. Here's a similar example (probably a poor one considering QM, but whatevs): I bet you use the word 'random' occasionally even though, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a random event. But we're not going to retire the fucking word and start saying "Hey, think of a psuedorandom number between 1-20!" (it's 17 btw).

Similarly, when we say "know" or "fact", we don't mean them in the absolute strictest sense. Otherwise, we'd never use the words outside of theoretical discussion. When we say we "know" something, we mean the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of it.

As God keeps pointing out, it's fine to say you know that the sun will come up tomorrow and that you're not living in the Matrix, even though those are just working assumptions. So I really don't see how knowing or believing (shades of the same thing imo) that there is no God (or vice versa) is an unreasonable position.

Just to reiterate quickly, yes, you could be a dick and say you're agnostic concerning every proposition in the world. But that's a pretty vague, impotent way of communicating your thoughts.


[Edited on October 3, 2009 at 3:39 AM. Reason : asfd]

10/3/2009 3:33:04 AM

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure my mom knew at one point, but by now has blocked it out of her mind and convinced herself otherwise. "

This is my point... If it is so painful to your mother that she would block it out and convince herself otherwise, then WHY in the world would you have the desire to throw it back in her face and keep reminding her otherwise? I guess I just don't understand why someone would actively seek out to hurt their own mother. Everyone's had different life experiences, though... Maybe she burned you guys with cigarette butts or something - who knows?

10/3/2009 8:22:31 AM