Why The Anger?

[Moontanman]

ydoaPs, I like your style, but if I may; just where do you stand on the issue? You inject a lot of judgmental conjecture, yet are so aloof as to make me wonder? Are you a religous zelot, perhaps a real die hard athiest or maybe one of us stuck in the middle who don't know which fork in the road to take when we get there? C'mon, let's hear from you and your feelings?

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by fork in the road when you get there? if indeed there is a god, you will know when you die, no matter what your beliefs are now when you die you will know if there is a God, you will not have a choice of paths one leading to a god and the other leading to no god. If there is no god, then when you die you will not know anything, you will be dead. i don't see how there could be a fork in the road....

[ydoaPs]

I'm not sure what you mean by fork in the road when you get there? if indeed there is a god, you will know when you die, no matter what your beliefs are now when you die you will know if there is a God, you will not have a choice of paths one leading to a god and the other leading to no god. If there is no god, then when you die you will not know anything, you will be dead. i don't see how there could be a fork in the road....

The existence of one or more deities does not necessitate life after death.

[Moontanman]

The existence of one or more deities does not necessitate life after death.

 

 

Ok, I'll grant you that but if there is no life after death what's the point of believing in god to begin with ?

[ydoaPs]

Ok, I'll grant you that but if there is no life after death what's the point of believing in god to begin with ?

The search for truth.

[Moontanman]

The search for truth.

 

 

If there is no way to know if the truth is the truth what's the point of it?

[ydoaPs]

If there is no way to know if the truth is the truth what's the point of it?

Not all formulations of the deity concept are plagued by the problem of divine hiddeness.

[rigney]

Ok, I'll grant you that but if there is no life after death what's the point of believing in god to begin with ?

 

 

What scares me most about some guys is that they talk a mean game, but root from the cheap seats. Noncommittal and keeping their inner thoughts to themselves is their business I suppose. I'm not saying it's wrong, not to bare yourself to the world, allowing it to poke fun at you. But c'mon!, this is among friends.

Me!, I'm an AGNOSTIC. Moon, I read you as a total hard line ATHEIST. Jackson33, bless your heart, you're totally RELIGOUS, and I wish that I could share your faith along with some of the other conrtibutors to this post, but I can't. The "Y" in the road?, you'll get there ydoaPs, along with the rest of us. I just hope you and I both have an open mind when we get to that turning point.

Edited August 9, 2010 by rigney

[ydoaPs]

What scares me most about some guys is that they talk a mean game, but roots from the cheap seats. Noncommittal and keeping their inner thoughts to themselves is their business I suppose. I'm not saying it's wrong, not to bare yourself to the world, allowing it to poke fun at you. But c'mon!, this is among friends.

Me!, I'm an AGNOSTIC. Moon, I read you as a total hard line ATHEIST. Jackson33, bless your heart, you're totally RELIGOUS, and I wish that I could share your faith along with some of the other conrtibutors to this post, but I can't. The "Y" in the road?, you'll get there ydoaPs, along with the rest of us. I just hope you and I both have an open mind when we get to that turning point.

Get where?

Edited August 9, 2010 by ydoaPs

[rigney]

Get where?

 

 

Noncommittal? Get where? You've got me hands down on both issues guy. Give me a break and tell me what you're talking about, and what your stand is?

[ydoaPs]

Noncommittal? Get where? You've got me hands down on both issues guy. Give me a break and tell me what you're talking about, and what your stand is?

I already explained it quite clearly. Hell, I did it on the first page and on this page.

[jackson33]

ydoaPs; As I said, in response to your original comment, your simply playing word games. The philosophical term 'Ignosticism', just such an example. The inference of ignorance to what a specific person might be thinking on Religion, does not apply IMO, where on some subjects/issues this might apply.

 

Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[1] while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that they cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or an atheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth. [/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

 

With this said, those that claim agnosticism, certainly in this discussion, have determined the meaning of Theist and/or Atheist, preferring to accept neither in total for forever the reason. You then in my opinion are simply an agnostic, with out giving reason.

 

Then they're not a theist, are they? [/Quote]

 

Why not? There is nothing 'Black and White' dealing with theology or if you prefer that desire to understand existence and/or purpose. A person can be unsure of their belief's, but profess being Theist, I think 99.99% of all Theist have doubt's about one or more aspects of their chosen theological preference. The main theme of most posting here, has been doubt's about Theism/Religion, while being reluctant to embrace or the reluctance to accept or reject the possibility, in my a case hope/desire to be wrong, Atheism.

 

Jackson33, bless your heart, you're totally RELIGOUS, and I wish that I could share your faith along with some of the other conrtibutors to this post, but I can't. [/Quote]

 

rigney; There were a whole lot of people, in my life that would totally disagree with you and be correct. What I am, I hope is respectful to those that are religious and to a fault, those I feel in search of answers. I have made a concentrated effort over years to understand many religions and there effects on peoples attitudes, while looking for my own answers, which I'm almost convinced your searching for today. Then I have not been lying on those passed loved ones, my Mother a life long ultra Religious person my best example, with all the faults of any human. She died at 84 many years ago and since, I've always hoped she received in death, what she couldn't find in life, self gratification for a well lived life. By the way Moon, the best "point" in actually having a faith for ALL those needing such strength in life, not necessarily an afterlife.

[Moontanman]

By the way Moon, the best "point" in actually having a faith for ALL those needing such strength in life, not necessarily an afterlife.

 

 

Evidently I am a weird person because a belief in something bigger than me but shows no interest in me other than wanting my money does nothing for me at all Jackson, bless your heart

[Severian]

Severian, I believe the analogy between Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse meeting in secret and God existing in the infinite beyond is perfect, since in both cases we come to the assertion equipped with a lot of knowledge about the phantasmogoric character of the entities asserted to exist. We know that intelligent, talking rabbits and mice would have to be beings with miraculous powers, just as we know that a mind-reading, universe-creating, infinite, eternal Nobodaddy in the sky would be an entity with miraculous powers. Given their miraculous nature, we would not for a second entertain sufficient serious doubt regarding any assertion about them -- whether it be that they met in a hotel in New Jersey or that they gave their only begotten son to save the world from damnation -- without equally stunning evidence that there was a good reason to carve out a logical space in our intellect for serious doubt about their reality. But in the absence of some stunning evidence to induce us seriously to begin wondering about their reality, to set us on the path of bothering to think of ourselves as agnostics about their existence, we just dismiss them and move on.

 

It is completely different because you have actual hard evidence that bugs bunny and mickey mouse are not real, because their creation as cartoons is well known and documented!

 

Again, you are trying to move the goalposts, because from your reply it seems like you are now trying to redefine mickey mouse and bugs bunny as supernatural beings. If they really were supernatural gods with miraculous powers, then maybe they did meet in the NY hotel room - who are you to claim not if you have no evidence? But then they are not bugs bunny and mickey mouse because we reserve those names for the cartoon characters.

 

This is the same fallacious argument that idiots invoke when bringing up the flying spaghetti monster.

[Moontanman]

It is completely different because you have actual hard evidence that bugs bunny and mickey mouse are not real, because their creation as cartoons is well known and documented!

 

Again, you are trying to move the goalposts, because from your reply it seems like you are now trying to redefine mickey mouse and bugs bunny as supernatural beings. If they really were supernatural gods with miraculous powers, then maybe they did meet in the NY hotel room - who are you to claim not if you have no evidence? But then they are not bugs bunny and mickey mouse because we reserve those names for the cartoon characters.

 

This is the same fallacious argument that idiots invoke when bringing up the flying spaghetti monster.

 

 

Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, and God all have one thing in common, they all have an equal basis in reality, you trying to claim any of them is a better model for this comparison to Gods is a big part of what pisses me off about Gods fan club. Bugs Bunny's fan club doesn't claim special tax exemption or a special place in science classes to insure that everyone knows about them and their special powers. Suggesting that The Flying Spaghetti Monster's fan club are idiots because you don't approve only under scores how idiotic the fan club of god is....

[rigney]

There are two points here, perhaps.

 

First, a general point: that humans are uncomfortable with people who hold contrary views. This can usually be overlooked or accomodated, but when this contrariness is aired, prehaps flaunted, as it is on a discussion forum, then this becomes threatening. I suspect this underpins, to some degree, many of the negative responses.

 

The second one is simultaneously deeply emotional and profoundly intellectual. I have suffered from it repeatedly. I am not agnostic on evolution. Evolution is a reality. The Modern Synthesis is a fairly good stab at describing much of the process. The evidence for it is so enormous, so interweaved and self supporting, so brilliant in its detail, so exciting in its complexitty, overlain by simplicity, that anyone who rejects it is - in my far from humble opinion - a ****ing idiot. I simply cannot conceive how anyone with a functioning brain and an honest heart can ignore this. Yet some do and it frustrates me, saddens me, and so enrages me. Sometimes I express that rage. I think then of the words of Oliver Cromwell - "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ think it possible you may be mistaken?" (Which was pretty rich coming from Cromwell, but that's another story.)

 

That's the sadness of a mortal God with convictions to something he merely surmises.

Edited August 10, 2010 by rigney

[padren]

Not all formulations of the deity concept are plagued by the problem of divine hiddeness.

 

Can you explain this? I don't quite follow. The way I see it, if I had incontrovertible proof of God, delivered by hand by God himself, I would also have to rationally accept that I am unqualified to evaluate that evidence, as it could just as easily be some multidimensional fratboy playing a prank on me, and with my limited 3D over t mental capacities I would be literally incapable of knowing the difference.

 

As such: there is absolutely and incontrovertibly no way to "know" if there is a God (as in Creator of the Universe) or not.

 

 

PS: What would be the right term for me? I am not an atheist because I don't not believe in God, I believe that knowledge of God is Unknowable. As such I refuse to say "I don't believe in God" because it doesn't describe my view. I also refuse to say "I believe in God" because it also doesn't describe my view.

 

 

Anyway, please let me know what you mean as I am not familiar with any deity concepts taht aren't plagued by the problem of divine hiddeness.

 

 

 

 

A total side note:

 

On the whole "atheists kill/theists kill" issue:

Any self-identifying group that places the value of their group fundamentally above other groups is capable of inhumane acts against others. Whether this is based on an idea of a Master Race, Might Makes Right, Divine Right, or a State Above The People it's the elitism and subsequent devaluation of non-members that is at the source.

 

Where I think atheists usually get sticky on where religion has been involved, is that at least when "the commies" do it, we can plainly criticize it logically and that gives us a sense of a "rational safety net" which, while not perfect, is at least something. We can say "sux to your master race" and reject it with empirical data. When religion is involved, it's a collective's "sacred belief" that babykiller killing or commie killing or Arab killing is a moral imperative and no rational explanation need be given. If people wouldn't bring religion into politics and how they interact with the world around them (leave it at a rational level) then it would be a lot easier on the nerves... as it is it's absolutely terrifying since the only way to justify a non-rational set of actions as solutions to buy into the non-rational beliefs... especially with the sheer number of conflicting non-rational beliefs out there that get tossed around as solutions to serious issues.

 

First, a general point: that humans are uncomfortable with people who hold contrary views. This can usually be overlooked or accomodated, but when this contrariness is aired, prehaps flaunted, as it is on a discussion forum, then this becomes threatening. I suspect this underpins, to some degree, many of the negative responses.

I wouldn't entirely say that. I know a lot of people I love discussing issues with whom hold very contrary views. The key issue is being able to approach a topic in a way that is consistent with how both parties examine the issue. Two people can debate scripture quite happily even if they disagree, just as two people can discuss the rational basis of some logical conundrum quite happily. When people try to utilize different methods of examining a topic that are incompatible across the two parties then it gets sticky, IMO.

[Mr Skeptic]

Like I've said before it's not God i have a problem with it's his fan club....

 

I can't say I care much for God's holier-than-thou attitude either.

[rigney]

I can't say I care much for God's holier-than-thou attitude either.

 

I'd like to have that same audacious stance, but I refrain simply because I'm a bit unsure.

[Ophiolite]

Congratulations, you're an atheist! If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist; that's what the words mean.

I could easily get incensed and thrown off the forum for my reaction to such ****ing nonsense. An atheist belives there is no God. I don't fucking know. I don't know either way. I am completely, utterly, undecided. My wave function of belief/disbelief has not yet collapsed. Now leave it there or I get violent.

[Severian]

Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse, The  Flying Spaghetti Monster, and God all have one thing in common, they all have an equal basis in reality, you trying to claim any of them is a better model for this comparison to Gods is a big part of what pisses me off about Gods fan club. Bugs Bunny's fan club doesn't claim special tax exemption or a special place in science classes to insure that everyone knows about them and their special powers. Suggesting that The Flying Spaghetti Monster's fan club are idiots because you don't approve only under scores how idiotic the fan club of god is....

 

This is a science forum (though sometimes it is hard to believe) so the presance or absence of evidence seems rather important. We have evidence that all these "beings", other than God, have been created as imaginary characters, within the last century. You may think that God is imaginary too, and has been made up by man - that is entirely up to you - but we have no evidence of that. So if you want to refute my argument you either need to refute the evidence that Bugs Bunny et al are made up, or provide evidence that God is.

[iNow]

I found it HERE and a few other places attributed to physicist Dr. Steven Weinberg from an article in the NY Times in 1999. Hitch certainly has raised its popularity however.

Ah... bugger... You're totally right. It WAS Weinberg. Don't I feel like a buffoon... "Hey, jcarlson... you're wrong... let me correct you." "Thanks, but it turns out you're wrong, too... welcome to the club!"

 

Thanks.

[pioneer]

Whether one believes in god or not, god is selective advantage. If you consider that the poorest people are often more religious and they have the fastest growing populations, doesn't Darwin and evolution associate selective advantage with mating rates? Atheists generate less offspring so this orientation is has a lower selective advantage according to evolution.

Edited August 10, 2010 by pioneer

[Moontanman]

This is a science forum (though sometimes it is hard to believe) so the presance or absence of evidence seems rather important. We have evidence that all these "beings", other than God, have been created as imaginary characters, within the last century. You may think that God is imaginary too, and has been made up by man - that is entirely up to you - but we have no evidence of that. So if you want to refute my argument you either need to refute the evidence that Bugs Bunny et al are made up, or provide evidence that God is.

 

 

Severan, you seem to be angry, no wait this is the religious anger thread First of all, all the people who supposedly made up Bugs Bunny are now dead, all we have are writings that claimed they were made up, maybe the followers of your god made up the idea that bugs is made up But to be serious, Mormonism was made up less than a century ago, Islam was made up about 1700 years ago Christianity was made up about 2000 years ago, so what you are saying is that making something up doesn't count if it was along time ago?

 

2000 years from now the entire Earth maybe covered with the Church of Daffy Duck and suggesting he was made up could get you beheaded, good reason to go along with the gag for sure but it doesn't make Daffy real any more than time makes your God real, in fact, and in going along with this thread, it's your impotence at being unable to assert the reality of your God in comparison to the reality of Porky Pig that makes both of us angry, you get angry because you can't provide evidence of the reality of your god so you try to assert his reality by making others take him seriously.

 

I get angry because you try to make others admit your gods reality by imposing your respect for him in schools government, billboards, TV commercials, door to door proselytizers, Pop Culture, amoral politicians, and almost anywhere else you think you can hood wink someone into fearing godly wraith. It's really kind of sad because all it would take is one substantiated miracle to bring me and billions of others into the fold. just one lousy miracle, turn Venus into a life bearing planet like the Earth over night, make the moon bloom with life, should be easy for an Omnipotent God but no we get nothing but assurances that miracles have occurred and that if we don't give our money and believe stuff that is obviously false we will burn in hell.

 

I, on the other hand do not try to proselytize atheism, i do not do my best to convince others that God is false, I hold no services for No God, i do not collect money that will go toward getting others to believe and making more No God meeting places while claiming the money will go toward improving the lot of humanity, i do not go door to door trying to get others to go door to door to do the same thing. i am content to simply not believe, it would be nice not to be consistently mind fucked by people who want me to believe but no that is not how religion works, they need more and more people to believe so they can get more money to build new churches to impress more people into giving more money to build more churches to impress more.... hmm that sounds like a pretty good gig, maybe i should start my own church and collect money to spread the word to others who will give me more money to spread the word, oh yeah, why be angry... money for nothing... chicks for free....

 

Whether one believes in god or not, god is selective advantage. If you consider that the poorest people are often more religious and they have the fastest growing populations, doesn't Darwin and evolution associate selective advantage with mating rates? Atheists generate less offspring so this orientation is has a lower selective advantage according to evolution.

 

 

You might have a point there HB, the uneducated do seem to have more babies than the educated, maybe that why many religions deny their members the option of birth control, a little bit of education just might cut down on the number of new followers...

[iNow]

I could easily get incensed and thrown off the forum for my reaction to such ****ing nonsense. An atheist belives there is no God. I don't fucking know. I don't know either way. I am completely, utterly, undecided.

I'm an atheist, and that's not true of me. I most certainly do NOT believe that there is no god. I believe that there is no good evidence for god... that what people call evidence for god is completely uncompelling... and I choose not to accept the concept as a valid description of reality for that exact reason.

 

I do not "believe there is no god." That's quite simply not true, and yet I'm an atheist.

 

 

How do you reconcile this seeming contradiction? Your foundational premise seems based on a misrepresentation.

[Severian]

Severan, you seem to be angry, no wait this is the religious anger thread

 

It does make me angry when I think people are being deliberately obtuse and unreasonable. I think you know perfectly well what the differences between Daffy Duck and God are, and are just trolling for attention. (And I suppose I am stupid enough to feed you.)

 

First of all, all the people who supposedly made up Bugs Bunny are now dead, all we have are writings that claimed they were made up, maybe the followers of your god made up the idea that bugs is made up But to be serious, Mormonism was made up less than a century ago, Islam was made up about 1700 years ago Christianity was made up about 2000 years ago, so what you are saying is that making something up doesn't count if it was along time ago?

 

The key point here, as I keep saying, is reliable evidence. I have evidence that Bugs Bunny is made up, but you have no evidence that Christianity was made up. You have still not managed, or even attempted, to contradict that.

 

I don't know much about Mormonism, but presumably there is not hard evidence that it was made up. I may not believe in it myself, and I may even think it is a silly thing to believe, but I still have the intellectual honesty of admitting that their belief cannot be disproved and give them and their beliefs the respect they deserve.

 

2000 years from now the entire Earth maybe covered with the Church of Daffy Duck and suggesting he was made up could get you beheaded, good reason to go along with the gag for sure but it doesn't make Daffy real any more than time makes your God real, in fact, and in going along with this thread, it's your impotence at being unable to assert the reality of your God in comparison to the reality of Porky Pig that makes both of us angry, you get angry because you can't provide evidence of the reality of your god so you try to assert his reality by making others take him seriously.

 

Once again you use an appeal to ridicule to make your point. It is not reasonable that there would be a Church of Daffy Duck because he is a cartoon character. We all know he is a cartoon character and can't imagine him as anything other than a cartoon character. His elevation to godhood would be very peculiar since he has made not claims to the divine, said nothing spiritually deep and can't even exist in principle in the real world (ie. outside of cartoons). You try and transfer the ridiculousness of your position on to God.

 

One could equally well suggest that there may be people, 2000 years in the future, who deny that Obama wasn't a real person. Maybe he was made up and inserted into the historical record? Maybe by then all hard evidence that he ever existed was gone. While I respect their right to believe that he didn't exist, I know they are wrong. A lack of evidence for something does not mean that it doesn't exist (otherwise we would all be forced to claim that no alien life exists).

 

I, on the other hand do not try to proselytize atheism, i do not do my best to convince others that God is false,

 

Isn't that what you are doing in this thread?

 

I hold no services for No God, i do not collect money that will go toward getting others to believe and making more No God meeting places while claiming the money will go toward improving the lot of humanity, i do not go door to door trying to get others to go door to door to do the same thing.

 

Most Christians don't do any of that either.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Severian