SultanOfSurreal

[SultanOfSurreal]

I guess people didn't really understand what I was trying to say. If lots of people believe something, then their "version" of reality probably makes sense. Some philosophers think that we could be a bunch of brains in a vat hooked up to wires and that our perceptions are controlled by a gigantic computer. Some people think it's ridiculous, but guess what? It makes sense.

If only a few people believe something, then accusing them of not using their mental faculties might be more accurate. But most religions have many, many followers whose logical perception of the world is fully compatible with their religion. If we were not told that the world was round, and hadn't seen pictures or seen the curvature of the earth on an airplane, we very well might think that it was flat. We wouldn't be stupid, though.

sweet merciful christ you are awful

i mean...

jesus

edit: no seriously. this is the stupidest goddamn thing i've ever read here, and in just two weeks i've seen claims that a scientific theory involving god is not just possible, but self-evidently correct; people defending torture; people writing off an entire trial's worth of sworn testimony in favor of a 20 minute jailhouse interview; arguments that there exists no such thing as "international law"; and the unstoppable, logic-mangling freight train to hell that is targetman's posting history.

but this takes the cake. congrats.

[Haggis_McMutton]

This thread is like a microcosm of most cults/religions around the world. It's a bunch of people convincing each other that they are right and the opposing viewpoint is ridiculous.

Guess what- if billions of people believe something, don't you think it might make a tad bit of sense? Get fucking real.

Wow. I am speechless, i think i've finally found an argument even worse than Pascal's Wager. Impressive to say the least.

A lot of people say this, therefore it must be somewhat true, brilliant.

Well, I'm off to bury the shards of the mirror i broke under the full moon(you know, so that the evil spirits don't profit of my incomplete soul to bring me bad luck), just to be sure I'd better have my fortune read in some goat intestines too.

[Neoteny]

I guess people didn't really understand what I was trying to say. If lots of people believe something, then their "version" of reality probably makes sense. Some philosophers think that we could be a bunch of brains in a vat hooked up to wires and that our perceptions are controlled by a gigantic computer. Some people think it's ridiculous, but guess what? It makes sense.

If only a few people believe something, then accusing them of not using their mental faculties might be more accurate. But most religions have many, many followers whose logical perception of the world is fully compatible with their religion. If we were not told that the world was round, and hadn't seen pictures or seen the curvature of the earth on an airplane, we very well might think that it was flat. We wouldn't be stupid, though.

sweet merciful christ you are awful

i mean...

jesus

edit: no seriously. this is the stupidest goddamn thing i've ever read here, and in just two weeks i've seen claims that a scientific theory involving god is not just possible, but self-evidently correct; people defending torture; people writing off an entire trial's worth of sworn testimony in favor of a 20 minute jailhouse interview; arguments that there exists no such thing as "international law"; and the unstoppable, logic-mangling freight train to hell that is targetman's posting history.

but this takes the cake. congrats.

That, sir, is worth sigging.

EDIT: Alas, it is 100% too long.

[Snorri1234]

I guess people didn't really understand what I was trying to say. If lots of people believe something, then their "version" of reality probably makes sense. Some philosophers think that we could be a bunch of brains in a vat hooked up to wires and that our perceptions are controlled by a gigantic computer. Some people think it's ridiculous, but guess what? It makes sense.

"makes sense" and "is possible" are not the same thing.

[john9blue]

Wow guys. Did anyone actually read what I wrote? Or are you trolling?

[Neoteny]

Wow guys. Did anyone actually read what I wrote? Or are you trolling?

I just found his summary of his experience here amusing.

[Snorri1234]

Wow guys. Did anyone actually read what I wrote? Or are you trolling?

No, we're dismissing your argument because you're using the wrong words. And are just plain wrong.

You're using an Appeal to Majority. A very unconvincing and obvious fallacy.

[MaleAlphaThree]

If only a few people believe something, then accusing them of not using their mental faculties might be more accurate. But most religions have many, many followers whose logical perception of the world is fully compatible with their religion. If we were not told that the world was round, and hadn't seen pictures or seen the curvature of the earth on an airplane, we very well might think that it was flat. We wouldn't be stupid, though.

The first reason everyone is jumping down your throat about this paragraph is that you are ignoring the facilities of science and reason. We didn't need to be told or shown pictures of the round Earth to think it was flat. Anyone with the proper mathematical or scientific tools can discover that one. Anyone with a sharp enough brain can figure it out on their own, through simple exercises of applied logic.

The second reason everyone is jumping down your throat about this paragraph is that you're completely ignoring the factor of IGNORANCE. If you don't have sufficient knowledge of a topic and attempt to make a logical and/or rational and/or critical decision based on that knowledge, then you're almost guaranteed to make a faulty choice. Yes, there are a handful of intelligent people out there, but they are the rare irregularities among the crowd of their scientifically minded peers. There are also people in the world that have tons of "book smarts", but lack in Critical Thinking skills. Critical Thinking basically takes knowledge, intelligence, and common sense to the next logically step which is: making good judgments and decisions.

And by "good judgments and decisions", I don't mean "What Would Jesus Do" type of nonsensical crap, I mean what would YOU do, if you made the best observation available to you, with the best judgment/decision available to you, to achieve the best outcome available for the situation. No matter who you are, our lives break down into one easy to remember law: YOU Are Responsible For YOU And YOU Alone. Don't pussy out and say, "God told me to murder those people" or "My parents raised me to hate black people" or "I was born in the wrong country so now I'm a Nazi". At any time in your life, there is always an "out" option where you can make your life better, or at least different, than what it was before. Blaming other people, other circumstances, or invisible father figures in the sky won't change anything.... outside of making you appear weak to those you reveal your blaming to.

If you are unaware of how religion spreads through society like a plague, See: Meme. Religion is nothing more than an idea propagated through the generations by parents that want to ensure that their children can have as ignorant a life as their own. It really is quite sad when you gain true objectivity to the process.

It's idiotic to dismiss a certain viewpoint as ridiculous and start making fun of it when millions of people genuinely believe it.

It's idiotic to think that viewpoints are somehow more correct or, at least, more deserving of respect than others simply because so many damn people share it. Personally, I grew up with the desire to be different from everyone else in anything I do or think. I felt (and still do) that if the majority of people believe something, then there must be something seriously wrong with it. The fact is: the more intelligent people in the world are extremely rare. You won't find Stephen Hawkings and Albert Einsteins walking down every street. No, you'll only get one of those for about every million regular joes. Chances are, their opinions are completely different from the regular joes, and chances are, their opinions are a hell of a lot more pertinent to our unwaveringly honest universe.

You want to mimic the most powerful minds in history? Try thinking like they did, and have a little doubt in everything. It's not as scary as you might think.

[Snorri1234]

Perhaps you should post more.

[john9blue]

The reason we aren't communicating is because I am using a different type of logic.

You are attempting to think in absolutes. If anyone here can give me irrefutable proof that God does or does not exist, I'd like to see it. I've done reading on the subject and have never once found definitive proof one way or the other. I am convinced that using traditional laws of logic regarding the question of God's existence is an exercise in futility.

Furthermore, if there was such a proof, I would assume that it would be propagated by its proponents mercilessly, and that this debate would come to an end. Needless to say, no such thing has happened, so it's reasonable to conclude that nobody yet has any definite conclusion to the question.

Notice what I just did. Yes, it is possible that a proof exists, but judging by the evidence, it most likely does not. I did not use any traditional laws of logic, and yet I came to a reasonable conclusion by examining evidence.

When I say that 'a great number of people believe in God, so the concept most likely makes sense', I am not trying to prove that God exists. I realized that it would be a logical fallacy in a formal proof, but I did not care because that was not my objective.

I had discarded deductive logic as insufficient, and instead had used inductive logic.

Inductive logic consists of finding pieces of evidence and sorting them out so that they lead to a certain conclusion. It is NOT a 100% guaranteed flawless proof like deductive logic. You will not find that in religion or atheism. Atheism is like other faiths in that it has two different types of followers: those that are convinced that they must be correct, and those that think that they might be correct. The second option is the reasonable one. Many of you fall within the first, probably because atheist propaganda would have you think that their faith is entirely logic-based when it is not. For example, let's use another situation where deductive logic is useless.

Suppose Mad Money's Jim Cramer advises you to sell stock, and your son (who is in high school economics) advises you to buy. Most people would say it's reasonable to sell. But guess what? You just made an ad hominem logical fallacy by taking Cramer's advice over that of your son.

How about this: the majority of Wall Street investors are buying stock. You weren't going to buy anything, but now you think it might be a good idea. But guess what? You just made an ad populum logical fallacy by following the crowd.

Also, you completely misunderstood the question that I was answering.

I was NOT saying that the beliefs of many had any effect whatsoever on the truth of God's existence. What I was saying is that the fact that so many people believe in God means that the chances of the belief being unreasonable is very, very low. Maybe someday we will have a proof that shows that it actually is unreasonable. But I am not thinking in absolutes. I am using probability and conjecture.

The posts of SOS and MAT in this thread mean nothing to me because:

- We are not using the same modes of thought
- Their posts fail to address the issue and instead extol the usual atheist propaganda of "logical reasoning"
- They have no respect for my opinions
- They have preconceived notions and cannot open their mind to new possibilities

Those who know me well can attest that I am extraordinarily open-minded and reasonable. For you to assume that I am just another ignorant Catholic schoolboy is the height of ignorance and prejudice.

[xelabale]

the fact that so many people believe in God means that the chances of the belief being unreasonable is very, very low.

This is simply not true. The chance of the belief being reasonable is not a function of the number of believers.

Wow I just reread that and realised what you actually said. You're talking about the probability of reasonableness???? How does one quantify reasonableness? How do you define reasonable? Does the reasonableness of a belief affect whether you believe something? That is a seriously wacky argument.

Additionally your examples show that believing what the majority believe can be unreasonable, thus defeating your own argument. I'm glad I got to this one first

[john9blue]

This is simply not true. The chance of the belief being reasonable is not a function of the number of believers.

Wow I just reread that and realised what you actually said. You're talking about the probability of reasonableness???? How does one quantify reasonableness? How do you define reasonable? Does the reasonableness of a belief affect whether you believe something? That is a seriously wacky argument.

Additionally your examples show that believing what the majority believe can be unreasonable, thus defeating your own argument. I'm glad I got to this one first

IMO more than one side of an issue can be "reasonable". I was just responding to those who thought I was stupid for believing in God.

[targetman377]

alright surreal jones is right thats the way i feel on abortion. in cases of rape its the womens choice only in a case where a women is in danger its the womens. surreal how do you feel on abortion

[SultanOfSurreal]

The reason we aren't communicating is because I am using a different type of logic.

You are attempting to think in absolutes. If anyone here can give me irrefutable proof that God does or does not exist, I'd like to see it. I've done reading blah blah blah

guess how much of this i read

hint: i stopped when you asked for irrefutable proof of a negative

F- see me after class

[MaleAlphaThree]

Let's write another book.

The reason we aren't communicating is because I am using a different type of logic.

Obviously, and I'm sure we will disagree on what qualifies as logic while we're at it.
(And look at that, we do! lol)

You are attempting to think in absolutes. If anyone here can give me irrefutable proof that God does or does not exist, I'd like to see it. I've done reading on the subject and have never once found definitive proof one way or the other. I am convinced that using traditional laws of logic regarding the question of God's existence is an exercise in futility.

A common argument from a mind that has been deeply tainted by the brainwashing effects of popular religion, you might have been raised with it like most others, and had no choice as to what to believe as a child. Your mind naturally feels the need to defend it's belief purely because it is comfortable with those beliefs and the human ego does not want to admit that it is wrong (especially about an idea that attempts to explain existence as a whole). That does not give your beliefs any more basis in reality than anyone else, not even mine (psst, I don't have any beliefs). Unfortunately, the real world tends to exist in a lot of absolutes, and correlating one's thinking to examine those absolutes does help to understand it better. Gravity is only a theory and doesn't exist.... right?

I had discarded deductive logic as insufficient, and instead had used inductive logic.

Inductive logic consists of finding pieces of evidence and sorting them out so that they lead to a certain conclusion. It is NOT a 100% guaranteed flawless proof like deductive logic. You will not find that in religion or atheism.

Inductive logic is also insufficient to determine the existence of an infinitely powerful super-being. I don't think you're entirely familiar with what inductive logic is. Your inductive reasoning seems to be weak, at best.

Atheism is like other faiths in that it has two different types of followers: those that are convinced that they must be correct, and those that think that they might be correct. The second option is the reasonable one. Many of you fall within the first, probably because atheist propaganda would have you think that their faith is entirely logic-based when it is not.

First off, Atheism is NOT a faith. There is no faith involved in our ideas. There is nothing for Atheists that substitutes the word, meaning, thought, action, or any other characteristics of faith. In fact, the idea, word, and thought of faith (and faith related things) makes me cringe, along with many other Atheists. Atheism might as well be secondarily defined as: "the position that faith is an unnecessary idea / practice / thought process for the human mind to make use of to live a healthy, satisfying life or explain the nature of the universe". Because we renounce faith, along with belief, I would hardly classify us as anything remotely similar to a "follower", yet alone an organized group of massive size. See: Herding Cats.

Second, many atheists (especially ones you will find on the internet, like myself) seem to be Strong Atheists (your first category), because we tend to get extremely frustrated when conversing about belief related topics [like this one] with people on the other end of the argument [like yourself] and tend to begin throwing insults like an angry Strong Atheist would (i.e. you're a damn retard). However, if you actually get to know most atheists, you will find that the overwhelming majority are Weak Atheists (your second category) and will admit something like "it is impossible to know if there is a "God" or not because we do not [yet] have the capability of testing the universe for divine elements that such a powerful entity would leave traces of".

Third, atheist propaganda does not try to convince atheists, or anyone else, that atheism (the assertion that there are no deities and/or the lack of belief in a deity) is based entirely on logic. Sure, logic is extremely important in organizing your brain to understand the anti-concepts of atheism, but there is also an overwhelming lack of physical evidence for proving existence of a deity. We all know these arguments well, do we really need to go over them word for word?

Also, you completely misunderstood the question that I was answering.

I disagree.

I was NOT saying that the beliefs of many had any effect whatsoever on the truth of God's existence. What I was saying is that the fact that so many people believe in God means that the chances of the belief being unreasonable is very, very low. Maybe someday we will have a proof that shows that it actually is unreasonable. But I am not thinking in absolutes. I am using probability and conjecture.

You seem to have contradicted yourself, in the same convenient paragraph. I note: "truth of God's existence" in the first sentence, and then: "But I am not thinking in absolutes. I am using probability and conjecture." as the last two sentences. You also seem to be completely ignoring the theoretical trends of memes and the verified tendencies of large groups of people. See also: Groupthink. I am surprised you haven't pulled out Pascal's Wager yet. Maybe it has failed you too many times already?

The posts of SOS and MAT in this thread mean nothing to me because:

- We are not using the same modes of thought
- Their posts fail to address the issue and instead extol the usual atheist propaganda of "logical reasoning"
- They have no respect for my opinions
- They have preconceived notions and cannot open their mind to new possibilities

I do hope that you had fully read my posts and understood their full intended expositions. I will explain any concepts to you in more detail if you wish.

-That is correct
-That is incorrect (on my part, at least)
-That is incorrect (on my part, at least)
-That is partially correct

Most atheists do wish to "arm themselves" with preconceived notions so as to "defend themselves against rampaging Christians", but I think that this is merely balancing the playing field. Christians have ancient [and newer] books combined with billions of minds full of preconceived notions, and most Christians (and the like) are notorious for closing their minds to new possibilities (i.e. there is no "God"). Those bullet statements do appear familiar, and I assume that they have been shot at you by many an atheist before. Reflecting the statements back at me will not convince me that we have switched sides of the metaphorical table, however.

Those who know me well can attest that I am extraordinarily open-minded and reasonable. For you to assume that I am just another ignorant Catholic schoolboy is the height of ignorance and prejudice.

You do seem extraordinarily open-minded and reasonable compared to.... all the others that would be arguing on "your side of the table". Otherwise, you really wouldn't have any purpose in reading my posts.

I did not temper my arguments with the assumption that you were "just another ignorant Catholic schoolboy", but I certainly had it in my mind, . After all, there are many millions of "Catholic schoolboys" out there, and the majority are neither Catholic, nor a schoolboy. It does not seem to keep them from having the same stereotypical mindset, unfortunately.

[john9blue]

guess how much of this i read

hint: i stopped when you asked for irrefutable proof of a negative

F- see me after class

I think we've lost him...

A common argument from a mind that has been deeply tainted by the brainwashing effects of popular religion, you might have been raised with it like most others, and had no choice as to what to believe as a child. Your mind naturally feels the need to defend it's belief purely because it is comfortable with those beliefs and the human ego does not want to admit that it is wrong (especially about an idea that attempts to explain existence as a whole). That does not give your beliefs any more basis in reality than anyone else, not even mine (psst, I don't have any beliefs). Unfortunately, the real world tends to exist in a lot of absolutes, and correlating one's thinking to examine those absolutes does help to understand it better. Gravity is only a theory and doesn't exist.... right?

Wtf. Too many assumptions about me. You act like we've known each other for a while...

I didn't say inductive logic was totally useless. But for a question like this (which extends far beyond the "real world" as you say) we've got to admit that we really don't know things like this for sure. I think you said this later on regarding weak atheism.

Inductive logic is also insufficient to determine the existence of an infinitely powerful super-being. I don't think you're entirely familiar with what inductive logic is. Your inductive reasoning seems to be weak, at best.

You like linking to Wikipedia, lol. Okay, let's read the article:

The premises of an inductive argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; i.e. they do not ensure its truth.

So basically, you're right, it isn't sufficient. But I'm not trying to prove God exists, remember? I'm using it exactly the way it is intended.

First off, Atheism is NOT a faith. There is no faith involved in our ideas. There is nothing for Atheists that substitutes the word, meaning, thought, action, or any other characteristics of faith. In fact, the idea, word, and thought of faith (and faith related things) makes me cringe, along with many other Atheists. Atheism might as well be secondarily defined as: "the position that faith is an unnecessary idea / practice / thought process for the human mind to make use of to live a healthy, satisfying life or explain the nature of the universe". Because we renounce faith, along with belief, I would hardly classify us as anything remotely similar to a "follower", yet alone an organized group of massive size. See: Herding Cats.

This is a common misconception. A true lack of faith is called agnosticism, not atheism. If you don't believe me, find a faith-based assumption that agnostics make. Here is the faith-based assumption atheists make: God does not exist.

Second, many atheists (especially ones you will find on the internet, like myself) seem to be Strong Atheists (your first category), because we tend to get extremely frustrated when conversing about belief related topics [like this one] with people on the other end of the argument [like yourself] and tend to begin throwing insults like an angry Strong Atheist would (i.e. you're a damn retard). However, if you actually get to know most atheists, you will find that the overwhelming majority are Weak Atheists (your second category) and will admit something like "it is impossible to know if there is a "God" or not because we do not [yet] have the capability of testing the universe for divine elements that such a powerful entity would leave traces of".

Your definition of Weak Atheism is actually Agnosticism. Atheists think that too, but add that "they believe that God does not exist". I think that too. Whaddaya know?

Let's use Wiki again.

the truth value of certain claims... is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove.

That's from the article on Agnosticism. Sounds like what you're saying, right?

So basically, atheism and other faiths start with agnosticism and add on other things like "I think God does/doesn't exist" or "Jesus died for our sins" or "L. Ron Hubbard is a prophet" or whatever. Agnosticism is the starting point and is based entirely on logic, not atheism.

Third, atheist propaganda does not try to convince atheists, or anyone else, that atheism (the assertion that there are no deities and/or the lack of belief in a deity) is based entirely on logic. Sure, logic is extremely important in organizing your brain to understand the anti-concepts of atheism, but there is also an overwhelming lack of physical evidence for proving existence of a deity. We all know these arguments well, do we really need to go over them word for word?

I often hear about "science vs. religion" debates. Why do people frame a debate like that? Because science always wins.

You're citing arguments against God's existence. Well, actually only one: the assertion that any new hypothesis should be rejected without proof. I disagree with that and say that any new hypothesis should be checked for logical inaccuracy and matched with our current knowledge of the world to decide whether it is likely or not.

I disagree.

I can see why.

Wait...

You seem to have contradicted yourself, in the same convenient paragraph. I note: "truth of God's existence" in the first sentence, and then: "But I am not thinking in absolutes. I am using probability and conjecture." as the last two sentences. You also seem to be completely ignoring the theoretical trends of memes and the verified tendencies of large groups of people. See also: Groupthink. I am surprised you haven't pulled out Pascal's Wager yet. Maybe it has failed you too many times already?

Okay then, replace "truth" with "question".

Yes, I know about herd mentality. Almost everyone does. The reason for this stretches across many species: being different is a disadvantage, and working with the pack is an advantage. A lone predator is going to die. That doesn't mean it's always right, but this is our subconscious we're talking about.

I started a thread a while ago about Pascal's Wager. The Wager addresses why someone should believe in God and, like groupthink, has no actual bearing on whether God exists or not. Pascal got a lot of heat for it in his time, mostly from people like you who thought he was out to prove God's existence.

I do hope that you that you fully read my posts and understood their full meaning. I will explain any concepts to you in more detail if you wish.

I'll pass, thanks.

Most atheists do wish to "arm themselves" with preconceived notions so as to "defend themselves against rampaging Christians", but I think that this is merely balancing the playing field. Christians have ancient [and newer] books combined with billions of minds full of preconceived notions, and most Christians (and the like) are notorious for closing their minds to new possibilities (i.e. there is no "God"). Those bullet statements do appear familiar, and I assume that they have been shot at you by many an atheist before. Reflecting the statements back at me will not convince me that we have switched sides of the metaphorical table, however.

I assure you that those bullet points are completely original thoughts.

You do seem extraordinarily open-minded and reasonable compared to.... all the others that would be arguing on "your side of the table". Otherwise, you really wouldn't have any purpose in reading my posts.

I did not temper my arguments with the assumption that you were "just another ignorant Catholic schoolboy", but I certainly had it in my mind, . After all, there are many millions of "Catholic schoolboys" out there, and the majority are neither Catholic, nor a schoolboy. It does not seem to keep them from having the same stereotypical mindset, unfortunately.

Wow, see? You're admitting to bias here. I could be a philosophy major. I could be eight years old. I could secretly be an atheist arguing for theism just for kicks. Who cares? Take what I say at face value.

[jonesthecurl]

OK let me use my move-the-meeting-on skills here, honed in many years of trying to get committees to do something other than generate minutes (incidentally, one thing I promised myslef on moving countries was to NEVER be a part of any committee again)

You are going round in circles.
Blue says: if millions of people think something, and have thought it for thousands of years, then (although it is not necessarily true) it cannot be so downright transparently stupid as to be rejected out of hand.

He didn't say it clearly enough apparently, and I suspect he was trying to slip a couple of corrolaries in there too, but that is his basic contention.

Most of the objections to what he said seem to think that he said "if millions of people think something it must be at least a bit true".

then we got down the track of quoting each other, quoting each others responses to each other, etc etc, until we entered a complete quagmire.

So: blue, have I stated your position adequately?
:everyone else (please wait for him to confirm I've understood him), do you agree with what he meant to say rather than with what you thought he meant to say?

[john9blue]

That's pretty much what I was trying to say. The debate has grown beyond just that point, though. I think (or at least hope) that they realize I'm not a complete idiot.

What exactly was this thread about again? If it is about hearing Sultan's opinions then I will not be reading this anymore.

[MaleAlphaThree]

Guess that wraps it up. Really, I just had one of those "rant bugs" people catch from time to time. Now you'll probably not hear from me for the next month since I'm all tapped out.

It was entertaining to interact with you john9blue, I obviously read into your words too deep and poured out my words too extensively. Hopefully, I hurt someones eyes with those paragraphs!

Things do tend to become black and white when you begin to disagree with someone. I'll keep that in mind for whenever my next rant occurs. I definitely went biased there.


One last effort, though:

Here is the faith-based assumption atheists make: God does not exist.

Personally, I don't put any faith into the "there is no God" bin. I don't put any faith into anything, actually. Faith, as I can tell, according to how religious nuts make of it, is when you reach a point where things stop existing, but you think/act as if they did. How would I act differently if I "believed" that there is no god, from if I "believed" nothing at all? As far as my perception of the universe has told me, there isn't one! I would hardly consider it a belief, even.

What would a godless person do that a religious person wouldn't, only because they don't believe in a "God"? I can't think of anything, besides sleep in on Sunday.
There are plenty of things that a religious person would do, that a godless person wouldn't, however.

Let's imagine a person whom had never heard of religion, "God", or anything else supernatural, then that person would think/act as if there were no "God" by default, an uncorrupted person by all means since they are not religious, atheistic, and agnostic: they wouldn't even know the word "god" at all. All atheists (Strong or Weak) wish to think/act the way this person acts, except they have been to exposed to religious ideas, or controlled by them before. Atheists are only so "evil" because they renounce the "holy scripture" and it's ideas, whilst they are fully aware of it's meaning and purpose.

Agnostics are generally considered the dead center on the belief spectrum. They don't lean to one side or the other. Neutral.
Penn Jillette explains it all better than I do.

What exactly was this thread about again? If it is about hearing Sultan's opinions then I will not be reading this anymore.

That why I thought this would be a good place to insert my rants. Fertile planting grounds.

[b.k. barunt]

Let us now consider the sad plight of the Agnostic Dyslexic Insomniac, who lies awake all night wondering if there really is a Dog.


Honibaz

[john9blue]

Guess that wraps it up. Really, I just had one of those "rant bugs" people catch from time to time. Now you'll probably not hear from me for the next month since I'm all tapped out.

It was entertaining to interact with you john9blue, I obviously read into your words too deep and poured out my words too extensively. Hopefully, I hurt someones eyes with those paragraphs!

Things do tend to become black and white when you begin to disagree with someone. I'll keep that in mind for whenever my next rant occurs. I definitely went biased there.


One last effort, though:

Personally, I don't put any faith into the "there is no God" bin. I don't put any faith into anything, actually. Faith, as I can tell, according to how religious nuts make of it, is when you reach a point where things stop existing, but you think/act as if they did. How would I act differently if I "believed" that there is no god, from if I "believed" nothing at all? As far as my perception of the universe has told me, there isn't one! I would hardly consider it a belief, even.

What would a godless person do that a religious person wouldn't, only because they don't believe in a "God"? I can't think of anything, besides sleep in on Sunday.
There are plenty of things that a religious person would do, that a godless person wouldn't, however.

Let's imagine a person whom had never heard of religion, "God", or anything else supernatural, then that person would think/act as if there were no "God" by default, an uncorrupted person by all means since they are not religious, atheistic, and agnostic: they wouldn't even know the word "god" at all. All atheists (Strong or Weak) wish to think/act the way this person acts, except they have been to exposed to religious ideas, or controlled by them before. Atheists are only so "evil" because they renounce the "holy scripture" and it's ideas, whilst they are fully aware of it's meaning and purpose.

Agnostics are generally considered the dead center on the belief spectrum. They don't lean to one side or the other. Neutral.
Penn Jillette explains it all better than I do.


That why I thought this would be a good place to insert my rants. Fertile planting grounds.

Lol. I can do this all day... I am really bored and Facebook/AIM/MSM activity is crawling because of finals. We do need to cut back on the post length.

You'd think that after a while, people who had never heard of religion would begin to wonder about their origins, or absolute truth, or the origin of everything. Those questions aren't going away. I think they start agnostic, then hypothesize that there is someone else responsible (God), then some criticize this notion and say that it's stupid, and the perceptive ones realize that the question is still unanswered, so we can't draw any conclusions yet.

You seem more agnostic than atheist, or at least a really weak atheist. That is a compliment coming from me.

I think we're defining terms differently too, even though we're thinking generally along the same lines. Whatever, I pretty much laid it all out, and if other people have issues then they can ask. Nice talking with you.

[b.k. barunt]

Actually, although this doesn't seem to be the case with MaleAlpha, i have found the majority of atheists on this forum to have a kind of ersatz faith in their atheism. They flaunt it like a banner as if it connotes a superior intellectual capacity - "belief in God is stoopid, therefore i am smart for not believing". It defines their character and becomes a religion in itself.


Honibaz

[john9blue]

Actually, although this doesn't seem to be the case with MaleAlpha, i have found the majority of atheists on this forum to have a kind of ersatz faith in their atheism. They flaunt it like a banner as if it connotes a superior intellectual capacity - "belief in God is stoopid, therefore i am smart for not believing". It defines their character and becomes a religion in itself.


Honibaz

Why the hell do I agree with you so much? It's starting to scare me.

[xelabale]

Actually, although this doesn't seem to be the case with MaleAlpha, i have found the majority of atheists on this forum to have a kind of ersatz faith in their atheism. They flaunt it like a banner as if it connotes a superior intellectual capacity - "belief in God is stoopid, therefore i am smart for not believing". It defines their character and becomes a religion in itself.


Honibaz

Why the hell do I agree with you so much? It's starting to scare me.

Watch that - definitely dangerous!

I agree too - atheism definitely is a belief. Lack of faith is agnosticism. I think the confusion in alpha and your discussion is the connotations of the words "faith" and "belief", especially how they relate to religion. I'd suggest trying to find some more neutral terminology and restating your views. I believe (lol) you may be closer than you think in viewpoints!

[Neoteny]

chuckle chuckle