I got hit in the rear once while driving a truck. Guy on a cell phone didn't notice I was stopping at a yield sign waiting to get in traffic. Solid steel powergate on the back of the truck, lol @ that vans front end.

What's a topic? We are on the side of the road, they can drive around =)

Me too!  I know I can't be too picky, but I got to have standards also!

I can't stand drama queens or high maintenance women or stuck up bitches or prudes either.  Abstinence til marriage is insane and offensive.  I feel it is important to be sexually compatible with the one you marry.  Apparantly they don't know that sex isn't the same with everyone, lol.  Of course, when I was a Christian back in high school I also believed in no sex before marriage.  But, I wouldn't have found anyone to have sex with back then anyway.

Depends on how hot she was. All these guys that say otherwise are damn liars.

It is just one factor amoung many. She would have to tolerate my lack of belief. I would have to hold my tongue when I see the absurdity in her religion. But that is the way all relationships, it's a game of give and take.

There is a cost to pay to get what you want. Tolerating her religion, religious family and friends may just be the price to pay. Maybe I have to pretend to aleast be nominally spirtual. You put up with a shit from a boss/customer to get a paycheck, so why not put up with some shit to get laid? 

Believe me there a lot of Christian men that are Pussy Whipped into 'believing'. Science tells us that  women are pretty much whores, men their johns. Some want cash, some want submission, but nothing is free.

The two things I could never tolerate would be telling me she can't fuck me because Jesus would get pissed and indoctrination of children with religion and the fear of hell.

 

Well, hotness can be important.  But I don't care as much about sex appeal when it comes to marriage, that is when compatibility is most important, and I am not compatible with theists. 

Well, if my only goal was to get laid, then yeah, I might be willing to put up with a theist for that.  However, I would only go so far.  I wouldn't let a woman string me along for months with the promise of eventually getting some pussy.  That would not be a healthy relationship at all.  Only if she gives it up relatively quickly would I consider putting up with and tolerating such BS.

I totally agree.  I wish more women realized this, and that this view was more socially acceptable.  Also, I wish most women weren't so "expensive."

I can't tolerate any of that either, which is why I could never marry a theist.  Date one, maybe, but marry, no.

Perhaps ... my wife is an atheist.  But we have baptized our daughter.    purely out of the cultural tradition I'd say.  

However, I feel soooo uncomfortable if someone starts praying while I have no idea what to do and even don't have any idea WHY I should have any idea about it. 

So, non participation during attendance hurts my feelings.  Maybe it is similar to watching how the God rapes your wife... 

If they are praying, give them a questioning look, as if "is this really the time or place to play out a fantasy?"

There is no need to be uncomfortable, they are the ones who should feel uncomfortable forcing their religion on others, but they have a knack for turning it around.

 

But I think you're setting yourself up to be taken advantage of. You should have sex with not so attractive women and hookers until you build your confidence up more, just think of it as paying your dues. Women are not going to be attracted to men that are so submissive like this anyways.

That's what is so ridiculous about Christian women is they want men that are so submissive to religion and so no passive about sex. But then they bitch that Christian men don't pursue them and they are too wimpy. You take away men's sex drive with irrational fears of eternal punishment, what the hell do they expect?

 I married a theist, so I obviously think it's plausible.  We saw it as one of the biggest hurdles for our relationship, but we are very open and respectful of each other's opinions and constantly talk about it.  I wasn't sure at one point in my life, but now-a-days there are simply more important things.  When someone is brought up their entire life believing in something, they really need a strong personal motivation to change that belief.  If a person is content with who they are, it can be difficult if not impossible to find that motivation.

I don't think it is critical to a successful marriage to have the same beliefs just as I don't believe it is critical to have the same interests.  In fact, having contrasting faith's can be a boost and an great source of conversation if the two people approach it right.

When my husband and I dated we didn't talk much about religion ~when we did I gathered that he called himself 'non-practicing catholic' and I shared that I had some exposure to religion but was not religious. It never really got too deep until 3 years later when he asked me to marry him. During discussions of marriage ceremonies we both agreed that neither of us believes in god nor do we follow any religion so we married in the church of my parents' choice.

I am not sure how it would have gone if he would have insisted he believed in a god and wanted to practice his faith. I wasn't as confident in my non-belief back then as I am now so i may have been okay with his belief? (who knows).

As for kids, we have chosen not to have them... It was the one thing back in our late teens that we were 100% in agreement on.

 

x2 now let me read the rest of the post's

The problem is theists don't really  have opinions or logical arguments, they just have their feelings. They believe in Jesus because to them it feels better than not believing.

The truth is there are very few things that should be matters of opinion or differences of opinion. Scientific methods and logical reasoning can pretty much demonstrate what or what is not logically plausible. So I don't think there is any difference of opinion between theists and atheists. There is only the difference of their imaginary 'friend' not being our drug to get us through the day as well.

The same is true for political opinions. When you get down to what people believe, it is not an informed opinion based on facts and evidence but rather it just feels like the right position to take.

I agree faking it is one thing, I wouldn't fake it for anyone, hence the reason I asked both my friends that if they were sure that they wanted me as a godfather, apparently the reason is that I am very rational when it comes religion around the world, mainly it was A)was because they didn't want their religious family members to have the position, and b) they wanted their kids to have someone to able to talk to about the world, academics, or just things about life they can't talk to their folks about. We shall see how this goes. As such i don't play like or pretend like, I don't lie about my religious views, however I am not going to turn down my friends and family because they believe in it, if they know exactly my views then it's all good, its when you start hiding that fact and actually pretending you believe all the shit that it's wrong, well in my view it is.

1) Religious opinion is not what deserves respect, but people do.  People, in this case we are talking about my wife, are capable of having a belief while researching the alternatives, becoming informed, and searching for answers.  You can choose to take the stance that they must make an immediate shift or you will insult them, or you can be respectful of their journey and their approach to seeking answers in life.  Aggression and intimidation to a mass group is great for garnering peoples attention, but aggressiveness to an individual will very rarely do anything other than put up their walls.  There is a big difference between respecting an idea and respecting a person. 

2) I didn't suggest that motivation has to do with motivation.  What I am suggesting is that motivation has everything to do with results.  If someone does not 'want' to change, they won't.  People who have a life-time of positive experiences associated are going to be hard to motivate to change their faith because there is simply no motivation on their end to invest the time, emotion, and effort into convincing themselves of an alternative belief.  If someone likes their cup of coffee and is not looking to change, it is going to be harder to get them to switch to your brand even if they do know the facts and have tried it.

3) I disagree that everything has to do with feelings.  I am not an atheist because it makes me feel better, I am an atheist despite catholicism making me feel better.  For many people their religion is not the one that makes them feel better so much as the one that aligns best with their formerly constructed perspective on the world.  For most that is what they are raised with, for some it is something else. 

4)  My comment was not to suggest that science did not seek answers, but rather the individual not seeking the answers.  Many people are simply not interested new things and those that are can take many years to educate themselves in the many different topics that religion and science touch on.

5) I disagree that politics is pure emotion.  That plays a big role in the grand scheme of things, but it is not pure emotion.  There is also simply a difference in opinion on the results of various strategies or difference in opinion on how to achieve the same goals.

 

 

I find that your responses are trying to boil all religious and political argument down to a handful or less of single world problems and that is very narrow perspective on reality and it is fairly pointless.  If you aren't willing to appreciate the complexity of what goes into faith and political opinion you obviously aren't going to be able to find a partner that has different views on life, and an even harder time having any practical difference on shifting the zeitgeist.  Atheist are in the world minority.  To run around screaming "we are right and you are all idiots" is one thing in a large group, but it is impractical and ineffective when directed at individuals.

Charles "no-name" Maddox aka Manson had a bisexual "swinger"- and occasional prostitute-of-a-mother... who was born into strict, "killjoy", fundamentalist Catholicism. She abandoned him frequently. Manson himself finished his 'journey' to life-long crime and a juvenile facility of some sort by age 11.

Ed Gein (the real-life inspiration for Buffalo Bill in "Silence of the Lambs".) had a similar experience with strict, domineering, and fundamentalist family. He thought 'being a woman' would save him from his natural, pubescent sexual desires and sin in general.

Hehehe... for that matter; most bible-thumpin' fundies would chalk this up to "sinful family" and "original sin". I dare suggest most of us RRS'ers are smart enough to know that "sin" has fuck-all to do with "breeding the future monsters", who, for all we know... might have actually been fairly normal to start out with, out of the womb!!! 

The sad thing is, there are STILL domineering and overly disciplinarian mothers in the world.

Theism most certainly is an illness.

---

As a more... direct response to your post: dropping the whole 'idiot bible-thumper' act does wonders for freeing one's self from asinine moral proscriptions proposed by many mainstream religions. Naturally, many former fundies are going to seek out a great deal of... sexual liberation.

 

I am actually confused by this one.  Can an atheist be at the same time an agnostic?

 

I am not closed to the idea of returning to the catholic church.
They would just need to do something pretty damn remarkable to convince me in that direction.I am not an atheist due to a great opposition to the theoretical construct of god, I am an atheist simply because I don't believe that one exists.  I can't just 'choose' to believe.  I wouldn't go see a hypnotist for the same reason I don't keep myself perpetually stoned.  While being stoned would make me 'feel' better, it doesn't provide me the breadth of experience.  I am fascinated by religion and spend quite a long time researching it. Of course everyone is self-serving.  I don't kid myself about that.  We should also not kid ourselves into suggesting that faith defines every person that believes in it. Would you suggest that every theist is an idiot? I would hope not.Would you suggest that no theist deserves respect? I would hope not. Many people simply are not passionate about the topic and have chosen to accept what they were raised with and focus their time and energies on topic's that interest them.  

You can't simply run social experiments on large sums of people, at least not in a democratic society, without having a majority of the people buying into the experiment.  This does happen.  Progressive countries tend to experiment and push the social standard while other countries lag behind but they do seem to eventually catch up.  You can't run an experiment on millions of people in a test-tube and then show people results before asking them to support a new idea.  You need to spend a long time educating people on the ideas.  While there are a lot of other things that interfere with the political process such as selfishness and  greed, there is still those ideas being presented every day and a in many countries new political, economical, sociological, educational, health reform ideas being tested all the time. 

I do not see faith as a virtue, but faith is not a vice to all as individuals.

I believe faith is a vice to our our society as a whole.

It deserves more respect than racism and homophobia because it is not always based on hatred.  Religious does not in all individual cases cause damage.  While it does on the whole, I have already stated a clear distinction there.  You don't need to hate every individual that doesn't agree with you.

Religion is not, by it's very nature, disrespectful of atheism.  While a lot of it teaches great amounts of disrespect, not all of it does so lumping it all into the same bucket is far too general.  And, while a good portion of the ones that are disrespectful of atheism in and of itself, also teach tolerance of the atheist individuals themselves.

I don't think showing respect needs to just be a show.  

If you honestly can have no respect for any theist, then you're so far to the other end of the spectrum you are pretty much doing the exact things you claim to hate.  How is a person that hates all theists any better than a person that hates all black people or hates all homosexuals? It's not.  It's blind and unjustified.

And if you think that theists never show atheists respect, you are once again blinded by generalizations.  Be careful in your use of "all" as even in the cases of "majority" you are  looking at gigantic numbers of people that your generalizations do not apply to.

 

 

As for 'providing cover'.  I once again go back to how you treat a 'group' and how you act as a 'group' can be in a great contrast to how you treat an individual or how you as an individual represent yourself.

Dawkins can sit down with an Archbishop and have a very honest respect for the man as an individual while the same is true of the Archbishop's respect for Dawkins.  While both can be very vocal about the others beliefs and approach they can still respect each other as individuals who have contrasting beliefs and goals.

 

An agnostic is a type of atheist who is being a cop-out by labeling his or herself something that is more politically correct based on the idea that a god, as defined when people speak of 'God' in particular (which is defined enough to have a certain range of meanings in common usage), is possible.

This is a stance usually either of either ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, or just good old-fashion dishonesty.

 

When we speak of positive, certain atheism, we aren't speaking of certain disbelief in the alien named Zergon who visited the Earth a thousand years ago under the name of Thor and used a thunder device to frighten some humans into worshiping him for his amusement.  Zergon is possible- Zergon is not a god, but has only been mistaken for one.

When we speak of positive, certain atheism, we are speaking using a common definition of 'God' or mythical 'gods' which has certain qualities which are genuinely impossible- ontologically false.

Using any non-standard definition is a matter of dishonesty for the sake of claiming some title for political reasons.

Flailing to recognize that standard definitions of 'God' are not just unlikely, but logically impossible, is a matter of ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

 

 

I am not using the wrong definition.  I am a "gnostic" atheist, if you like.

 

Most atheists are just atheists.  They only become agnostic when they learn the word and decide to  engage in a cop-out, or are literally unsure about things.  The only intellectually honest agnostics are the ones who really are more uncertain out of ignorance.

 

I'm only agnostic if you stretch the definition of 'God' to an extent that the definition itself is dishonest, and not acceptable to common usage.

 

Is there a teapot on the other side of the moon?  Maybe.

Is there an alien named Zergon who likes to cosplay as Thor and screw with humans?  Maybe.

Is there a 'God'.  No.

 

I find uncertainty to the last question unacceptable, and I wouldn't respect a girl very much if she really thought it was possible. 

Either she needs to be more informed (which is easy to accomplish), or she is being dishonest on account of having no backbone, which is something I don't find attractive. 

 

To me, informed agnosticism is only acceptable as a declared stance when one's life or personal safety is in danger- in such cases, it's probably just as acceptable to pretend to be a theist. 

Were I in the middle east, I would probably be "agnostic" to Allah... seeing as I could very well be beaten within an inch of my life, or murdered if I weren't.

It's unacceptable under the mere threat of social ostracization.

 

Of course, if you want to cop-out under threat of trivial inconveniences, that is your own decision.

 

The term was invented as a cop-out, and it's still primarily used as a cop-out.  The only place where it is not used as a cop-out is where the person applying it to his or herself is, to an extent, ignorant.

 

 

This is due to some notion that being open to a possibility is a mark of open mindedness, and is a good thing- and at all credible for its own sake.

That's well and fine save for the fact that it *isn't* a possibility, because the notion of the existence of this 'God' is impossible.

 

Most of these people are agnostic only insofar as they aren't certain what definition one is using when one is referring to a god- some gods being considered 'possible' (like a god defined as "electromagnetism"- well, obviously that exists). 

However, if we tie down the honest use of the word 'god' to standard dictionary definitions, and common usage, and only address what the question is actually in reference to (this limits us to supernatural beings of some description- and not even all supernatural beings), we can derive an honest usage of the word agnostic that simply does NOT contain this belief (e.g. electromagnetism, which is not a god).

Naturalism, in itself, is not agnostic- unless somebody really thinks the impossible is possible, in which case said person needs his or her brain examined.  Dialetheism is not an acceptable stance of a sane and intelligent individual- even upholding the possibility of dialetheism is unacceptable, as this is in itself dialetheism.

 

 

No, they're trying to cop-out of criticisms of closed-mindedness and arrogance from peers, and gain credibility in others' eyes.  Never mind that denying that impossible things are possible is not a mark of closed mindedness, but of sanity.

 

In so far as some of the more educated really believe that the way they're using the word 'agnostic' with regards to belief in deities is correct, they are fooling themselves.

Being agnostic to the alien Zergon, or electromagnetic fields possibly being considered gods in language is not being agnostic to gods- that's like saying I'm uncertain whether or not I'm a potato, because somebody might redefine potato to include me- that's how to abuse language, not how to use it.

 

These things are *clearly* not gods in the spirit with which the question of 'God' or even 'Gods' is asked.  In the same way I can answer definitively "no" when asked if I am a potato, I can answer definitively "no" when posed with the question of validity of the existence of gods. 

Implicitly answering the wrong question with the response of "agnostic" when you are damn well 100% sure that impossible gods do not exist is dishonest.  It is a cop-out.

 

If this is the case, I would readily argue with Dawkins on that point, because I think he's copping out- not from pressure from theists, but due to pressure from other 'free thinkers'.  To the extent that he has declared himself agnostic- because he's educated enough to know better- he is copping out.

 

 

Bloody hell, are you daft?  Impossible to prove something doesn't exist?  That's the only thing it is possible to prove.

 

Through demonstrated logical self-contradictions, we can easily prove that something is impossible.  Being impossible proves that it doesn't exist.  Seriously, learn logic.

 

Now, proving that something *does* exist- that we can't really do.

 

All we can do is evidence that things do exist- empirically evidence them.  Empiricism is flawed, and can in some cases be mistaken.

 

There may be a 99.999999999% chance that the sun exists.  You can call me slightly agnostic to the sun, leaning strongly in the direction that it does exist.

 

I am 100% certain that 'God' does not exist.  And that's not approximating, and not rounding up.  And that involves absolutely no faith whatsoever.  It involves only having the definition of 'God', and a demonstration that it is logically impossible. 

And if you are going to say logic requires faith, you might as well stop arguing right now, since I presume you'll attempt to use this ill-conceived "logic" to do so.  Logic is the anti-thesis of faith; the only thing that can demonstrate irrefutable fact.  If there were one thought that isn't faith, it's logical deduction- without that, all things are equally faith, and the word becomes meaningless (again, see definitions, and why they are not just useful, but essential for communication).

 

 

I am not agnostic to the existence of 'God' under any reasonable or honest definition of the word.  Neither, quite likely, are you.  You're probably either ignorant or copping out.  I can help you solve the former problem- the latter is up to you.

 

 

Please, I read that when I signed up.  Mostly, I was curious as to whether this site got it right.

RRS did a pretty good job of defining the terms.

 

Would you like me to provide you some reading material on language, and how it does and does not work?

 

And by reading material, I mean something to read, and not canned banana (since you might be uncertain as to my meaning there, since apparently you think it's O.K. for people to randomly make up definitions to words and impose the new meanings retroactively onto all human language).

 

 

Well, that would be an argument in favor of your severe ignorance.  Like I said, that can be fixed. 

 

I suspect, however, that this ignorance is both elective and willful- in most cases due to pride.  Let me know if that's not the case, and I'll try to help you recover from this affliction.

 

 

Blind faith is faith in spite of evidence.  If there were evidence of 'God', then atheism would be blind faith.

100% certainty that 'God' does not exist couldn't be blind faith unless you are advancing the proposition that there is actually evidence for 'God'.  If so, please do tell.

100% certainty of atheism would be ordinary run-of-the-mill faith IF there wasn't logical proof against the very definition of 'God'.

Given the proof, it has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.

 

 

"Gnostic" has quite a bit of baggage with it, related to gnosticism, which is an old and reviving religion (arguably the religion from which Christianity evolved).  It refers to spiritual knowledge, and I would tend to say the idea itself is incoherent- there is nothing there to know, except for that none of it exists. 

I am a strict naturalist, and militant positive atheist.

I do know 100% that 'God' does not exist.

Throwing around insults like ignorance, daft, and implying that someone needs to read up on the proper use of language indicates that you are frustrated about something. Are you frustrated? We are all here to share opinions and ideas and thoughts, no need to resort to snarky comments.

Geesh!

I don't know if there is God because I don't really care.  ... and you know, this is one of a very few things of which I am probably proud to be ignorant.    This i probably why I am also an agnostic.  I don't care to search for a proof of existence or nonexistence of God.

 

 

 

 

I assume you are concerned about religion in general then? If so I would contend that a "god" as the driving force of most religion is the heart of the matter. If there is no "god" it make religion...beyond pointless. It exposes it as the needless mind numbing poison it so blatantly propogates. If there "were" a god, then we should all be abjectly scraping forehead to floor in submission and deference. Even though "heaven" doesn't really sound all that awesome really... Sounds like another definition of "boredom".

 

Blake,

This resembles me my discussion with believers, 99% of whom were absolutely unable to understand the difference between: 

1) "I do not believe in gods" and

2) "I believe there is no God".

If you choose #2 and even reinforce it with "I know there is no God", then the burden of proof is on you.  I am positive that this is a bankrupt approach to discuss religion with theists.  

When you are saying that "standard definitions of 'God' are not just unlikely, but logically impossible" do you keep in mind that you might be asked to give a standard detailed definition of ... human.  Remember, you will be also asked to define (in a standard way) human's character and behavior.

If you have a complete bulletproof logical evidence that God does not exist, I would be very interested to see it.  The argument that you can't define God does not work well because all I mean by god here is something (etwas, thing) that consciously set the physics laws for the universe and "hit enter button". 

 

Maybe I am wrong, but I think that people who claim that they KNOW there is no God(s) are very vulnerable to the conversion to theism.

 

Best,

100% + some_agnostic > 100%

 

 

1) As you mentioned it in your next post, you are concerned about someone trying to sell you religion.  I don't think you really care what their gospel says about god (even they may not know this).  Learning about ALL their gods is maybe fun if you really like religion history or philosophy. In general, it's not for me.

 

2) Of course, I am very concerned about religion, especially about churches and smiling people with guns and rifles around who try and can't figure it out what church are we going to on Sundays. 

 

3) "If there is no "god" it make religion...beyond pointless"  I completely agree with you on this one, but have you EVER seen a Christian who would believe your straight arguments about his God and who would then proclaim himself a non-believer?  Also, specific discussion about a God requires a good knowledge of the gospel.  If you had been a christian before, you might know the gospel.  I could not read the Bible, it's boring.  It is likely now though that I will have to read the Bible etc. to be better prepared to protect me and my family. 

 

  

The bible is far from boring, but it is not a happy read, nor is it particularly clever. However I would highly reccomend reading it in full with an open mind even. As you read keep in mind that most people who claim christianity have not read it themselves, they rely on their pastor to read selected verses for them at church, and then listen to his "interpretations". I used to "religiously" (lol) watch the church program which is broadcast live here from the 20million dollar local southern baptist church. Very entertaining to watch the pastor twist words around to suit him, and his congregation eats it up.

So, can I be #1&#2 at the same time?