Atheist, O! Atheist... Wherefore art though, Atheist?

Ch3sty1775
atheist
Posts: 19
Joined: 2011-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Atheist, O! Atheist... Wherefore art though, Atheist?

 I want to here everyone's post as to why:

  1. You are an atheist
  2. You are an agnostic
  3. You are a theist

I would also like people to post their thoughts on the possibility of being neither of the three? What intangible thoughts can you try and muster into words? Tell me.


The reason I ask is because I don't find any weight in either category. Atheism is a pessimist's dream; theism is a fool's thought; and agnosticism is a lazy person's excuse. 

So... give me your thoughts. 

 

Tell 'em that God's gunna cut you down.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
I'm not a theist. That's

I'm not a theist. That's what is termed atheist.

My parents were not theists either. Neither were their parents.

Not too difficult to see why I never became a theist.

 

I'm not a gnostic. I don't see any supernatural or the metaphysical. So, it's impossible for me to have knowledge of what's not there.

This is what is termed agnostic.

 

Ch3sty1775 wrote:

What intangible thoughts can you try and muster into words?

Huh?

Ch3sty1775 wrote:

The reason I ask is because I don't find any weight in either category.

You're mixing metaphors, and creating a non sequitur.

That like you asking me if I'm Swedish, a viking, or not, and then saying you don't find weight in either category.

Ch3sty1775 wrote:

Atheism is a pessimist's dream

That's about as nonsensical as saying that when I admitted I was not a Swede, that being a non Swede is a pessimist's dream. 

Ch3sty1775 wrote:

theism is a fool's thought

I think it's more like a fairy tale that one has not grown out of.

Ch3sty1775 wrote:

and agnosticism is a lazy person's excuse.

That's a non sequitur, as well.

That's like saying a deaf person is lazy because they can't experience sound, and have no knowledge of what sound is. 

 

Ch3sty1775 wrote:

 So... give me your thoughts. 

Sure.

Just remember that you asked.

Your thoughts do not sound like those of a person who is sober...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Ch3sty1775
atheist
Posts: 19
Joined: 2011-02-07
User is offlineOffline
 I don't see how I'm mixing

 I don't see how I'm mixing metaphors. 

I asked for you to muster some words for those intangible thoughts you have because everyone has them. It's that little thought or feeling you have about something, but you can't seem to find the right words to describe it. Hence "intangible." 

Being Swedish and being philosophical are two different things. Philosophical can have a broad spectrum of classifications based on religion or whatever. Being Swedish is whether or not you physiologically possess a gene that is tied to Swedish ancestry, or Viking ancestry for that matter, since you mentioned that. I'm discussing the possibility of God or no God, and not knowing if God exists. Not if you're black or white, or tall or short. 

And yeah, theism is more of a fairy tale. 

Agnosticism is a lazy excuse because you do possess the capability of experiencing different paranormal or supernatural situations but choose not to acknowledge or study them. You also have to consider the definition of paranormal or supernatural. Let's break those words down: Para (latin) - Above, against, counter, outside - and Normal; Super (latin) above or beyond - and Normal. However, the direct definition of both is an experience or situation that lies outside of normal occurrence or scientific explanation. In that case, a relatively common scientific experience can be considered supernatural or paranormal but we don't have the advancement to explain it yet. 

And I asked to explain each category with respect to what you believe you are. Are you an atheist? Theist? or agnost? I apologize for not explaining that more thoroughly.

Consider the term "Possibilianism." It's a school of thought that lies outside of agnosticism, theism, and atheism. It's based on the premise that many different things can hold many different explanations yet none of the are entirely correct nor incorrect. From my inexperienced opinion, I would say that Possibilianism is very parallel to quantum mechanics. Take Schroedinger's Cat for example.  


Think outside the box. 

 

Tell 'em that God's gunna cut you down.


Ch3sty1775
atheist
Posts: 19
Joined: 2011-02-07
User is offlineOffline

BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
First a comment about the

First a comment about the mistake of trying to get a more accurate idea of the meaning of a word by analysing it into its etymological components. That does not necessarily get you closer to the precise meaning of the word as it is actually used, only about its origin, which may or may not correspond closely to its current usage.

"Capability of experiencing different paranormal or supernatural situations"?? That statement only makes sense if you assume such things actually exist. Maybe you mean "able to observe or experience things which you can't explain at the time you experience them", but that would apply to everyone.

Most rational scientifically inclined people would simply say 'unexplained', which is more accurate than using the terms 'supernatural' or 'paranormal', which beg the question.

The only sense in which 'agnostic' is lazy is when used with respect to things which are, in fact, open to a useful degree of clarification with a modest amount of research and thought, such as "God", which is a primitive idea which really does not deserve the regard in which it is still held.

Atheist is simply the default position, in the absence of any evidence pointing to anything corresponding to any of the God figures described by the various faiths. All we have, at best, are some unexplained reports of various phenomena, which could be plausibly explained by a whole slew of 'possibilities', from alien visitors to the wilder 'supernatural' ideas of God, or Gods, or Demons.

Atheism is not normally the starting point for a world-view, except in the sense of not pre-supposing a God. Apart from the person who simply doesn't care, and has never been indoctrinated into a faith, it is typically one of the consequences of an honest investigation of what is known about our 'reality', it implies neither optimism or pessimism, in itself.

Hope that helps.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Ch3sty1775
atheist
Posts: 19
Joined: 2011-02-07
User is offlineOffline
I can agree with that -

I can agree with that - Unexplained instead of saying supernatural or paranormal. In which case, yes, I'm applying to everyone and asking them to really dive into that area of thought. 

 

Tell 'em that God's gunna cut you down.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13610
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ch3sty1775 wrote: I want to

Ch3sty1775 wrote:

 I want to here everyone's post as to why:

  1. You are an atheist
  2. You are an agnostic
  3. You are a theist

I would also like people to post their thoughts on the possibility of being neither of the three? What intangible thoughts can you try and muster into words? Tell me.


The reason I ask is because I don't find any weight in either category. Atheism is a pessimist's dream; theism is a fool's thought; and agnosticism is a lazy person's excuse. 

So... give me your thoughts. 

 

Atheism is a position, it says nothing about the positive or negative outlook an individual may have on life. MOST atheists I know are POSITIVE that humans can do better than believing in fictional utopias. Just like if you wanted to study the stars you'd us a telescope and not a kaleidoscope.

Theism IS a fools thought, AND pessimistic. It presumes that we cannot find natural answers so "therefore god". Atheism is positive in that it leaves the door open for future natural answers we might find. Theism is pessimistic in that it assumes an answer without facts to back it up.

"agnostic" is not a stand alone word. It was coined by Thomas Huxley. But in it's literal prefix "a" meaning without, and suffix "gnostic" meaning knowledge, DOES not say either way what you have knowledge about. IT IS A QUALIFYING WORD, NOT A POSITION.

One can think their might be a god, but not know if there is one, that would make them an agnostic theist, one who thinks their might be a generic god.

You can also have someone who does not believe in a god, but doesn't know for sure, an agnostic atheist.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
 I will make this quick, I

 I will make this quick, I am a life long atheist simply because I never believed in any god, I could never understand why people believed in gods in the first place as it always sounded pretty ridiculous, like an imaginary friend. As for atheist is pessimist I don't see how you get to that point. Theist being foolish sure, pessimistic yeah it is. As for the agnostic part, well then you would have to claim that everyone knows everything, therefore no one can be agnostic about anything if they bothered to learn everything, however it's impossible and we are all agnostic in our knowledge about something.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Ch3sty1775 wrote: I want to

Ch3sty1775 wrote:

 I want to here everyone's post as to why:

  1. You are an atheist
  2. You are an agnostic
  3. You are a theist

I would also like people to post their thoughts on the possibility of being neither of the three? What intangible thoughts can you try and muster into words? Tell me.


The reason I ask is because I don't find any weight in either category. Atheism is a pessimist's dream; theism is a fool's thought; and agnosticism is a lazy person's excuse. 

So... give me your thoughts. 

 

I am a former theist who abandoned religion and it's ideas several years ago.

I became an atheist because after years of searching for god and believing in god, I found absolutely no evidence that one exists.

What I did find, was a bunch of people telling me what god was and how god thought. They all seemed to think that god shared their political and ideological convictions.

I rejected  religion because  it perpetuates a sense of self-hatred and constant guilt.

I reject rejected religion because of it's abhorrent view of humanity and the way that it believes that humanity is lost without a god.

I rejected religion because of it's bizarre ideas of morality.

I rejected religion because it feeds people delusions of grandeur and discourages critical thinking and inquiry.

I also disagree that Atheism is a pessimist dream.  Try grabbing some books on physics, astronomy, biology, history and anthropology. The world became a whole lot bigger, a whole lot more mysterious and a whole lot more interesting when I took god out of the picture. It took away my own feelings of self-importance and allowed me to understand how little we actually know about things.

Darwin was not being a pessimist in his quest to find the origin of the species. He was searching for truth.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
What Exactly Are We Discussing?

Ch3sty1775 wrote:
Being Swedish and being philosophical are two different things. Philosophical can have a broad spectrum of classifications based on religion or whatever.

You didn't ask for discussion on "Philosophical", you asked for discussion on the three terms which you listed. Those three terms, like nationality, have quite precise meanings. So, comparing the understanding of one set of terms with another is perfectly reasonable.

Ch3sty1775 wrote:
Being Swedish is whether or not you physiologically possess a gene that is tied to Swedish ancestry, or Viking ancestry for that matter, since you mentioned that.

The more research that comes out, the more we are able to identify which genes lend toward which types of traits in humans. Apparently there are genes which we can attribute to some of our urges to aggressively speculate about what is possible, and those genes would probably be associated with things like supernatural belief.

There is not a Swede gene that I am aware of, though I'm sure there are many folks on this board who could clarify that for us.

Ch3sty1775 wrote:
I'm discussing the possibility of God or no God, and not knowing if God exists. Not if you're black or white, or tall or short. 

If we are talking about god or no god, and how much information is known about these two assertions, that is also something which can be rationally discussed. We would just need to decide on exactly what we are talking about.

Philosophy for the sake of philosophy is fun but it doesn't really get us anywhere but to more questions. You like asking questions all day long? Grand, have at it, but don't confuse someone not "getting" what you are asking with you just asking murky questions and being unhappy about the results.

 


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Agnosticism

Ch3sty1775 wrote:
Agnosticism is a lazy excuse because you do possess the capability of experiencing different paranormal or supernatural situations but choose not to acknowledge or study them.

I'll never understand how so many people haven't a clue what agnosticism means.

It is in the dictionary... how is it that people have such wild and completely hogwash definitions of the word? It would be different, I suppose, if everyone agreed on the same hogwash definition and we could just change what the word means. The problem with this one is that it seems to change meaning entirely from person to person. Certainly when used by people who want to turn everything into a spiritual woo-woo conversation about what is "reality".


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Ch3sty1775 wrote: I don't

Ch3sty1775 wrote:

 I don't see how I'm mixing metaphors. 

I asked for you to muster some words for those intangible thoughts you have because everyone has them. It's that little thought or feeling you have about something, but you can't seem to find the right words to describe it. Hence "intangible." 

I define 'tangible' as something that you can experience with your five sense (touch,smell,see,hear,taste).  All thoughts are intangible.  Perhaps you mean 'abstract'? I'm just going to go with...

Huh? Coppywright@redneF,2011

Ch3sty1775 wrote:
 

Agnosticism is a lazy excuse because you do possess the capability of experiencing different paranormal or supernatural situations but choose not to acknowledge or study them. You also have to consider the definition of paranormal or supernatural. Let's break those words down: Para (latin) - Above, against, counter, outside - and Normal; Super (latin) above or beyond - and Normal. However, the direct definition of both is an experience or situation that lies outside of normal occurrence or scientific explanation. In that case, a relatively common scientific experience can be considered supernatural or paranormal but we don't have the advancement to explain it yet. 

If it were a common scientific experience(not sure what a scientific experience is, perhaps you mean experiment?.  An experience can be examined using the scientific method, perhaps that's what you mean?) it wouldn't be beyond 'Normal'.  

Ch3sty1775 wrote:


And I asked to explain each category with respect to what you believe you are. Are you an atheist? Theist? or agnost? I apologize for not explaining that more thoroughly.

I'm an agnostic atheist.  Read the main link here to save me a lot of typing.

Ch3sty1775 wrote:


Consider the term "Possibilianism." It's a school of thought that lies outside of agnosticism, theism, and atheism. It's based on the premise that many different things can hold many different explanations yet none of the are entirely correct nor incorrect. From my inexperienced opinion, I would say that Possibilianism is very parallel to quantum mechanics. Take Schroedinger's Cat for example.  

Think outside the box. 

 

I'm going to ask you to elaborate on that statement because it doesn't make a lot of sense right now.  And I am familiar with quantum mechanics and the Schroedinger's Cat thought experiment.   Atheism, theism are polar positions in answer to 'does god exist?'.  I'm not sure what many different explanations for different things have to do with anything? It sounds like New-age pseudo scientific nonsense.  Look up Lumminon in this forum, you two have a lot to talk about. 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Ch3sty1775 wrote: I don't

Ch3sty1775 wrote:

 I don't see how I'm mixing metaphors. 

I know.

That's what led you to making the mistake.

Ch3sty1775 wrote:
I asked for you to muster some words for those intangible thoughts you have because everyone has them.

So, you presume I have them too?

That's projection.

Ch3sty1775 wrote:
  It's that little thought or feeling you have about something, but you can't seem to find the right words to describe it. Hence "intangible."

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but, can you give me an example, so that I can figure out if I have some thoughts that you would categorize as such? 

Ch3sty1775 wrote:
 Being Swedish and being philosophical are two different things.

That's compatible with my assertion that being an atheist (non theist) and being a theist as 2 different things. Just as being a skydiver and being one who doesn't skydive, are completely different states of being.

There's no correlation.

That's the point.

Ch3sty1775 wrote:
 Philosophical can have a broad spectrum of classifications based on religion or whatever.

Opposing views does not make a correlation between them.

There exists a confict, or incompatibility between them.

Making a correlation that they're both 'views' is superfluous.

Ch3sty1775 wrote:
 Being Swedish is whether or not you physiologically possess a gene that is tied to Swedish ancestry, or Viking ancestry for that matter, since you mentioned that.

Incorrect.

None of those are necessary to be classified as Swedish.

Ch3sty1775 wrote:
 I'm discussing the possibility of God or no God, and not knowing if God exists. Not if you're black or white, or tall or short. 

I understand what you've managed to unnecessarily convolute.

Ch3sty1775 wrote:
 Agnosticism is a lazy excuse because you do possess the capability of experiencing different paranormal or supernatural situations but choose not to acknowledge or study them.

You're merely 'projecting' again.

The burden of proof that I'm lazy, and that I do possess the capabilties you list, is on you to prove.

Not me to convince you otherwise.

Ch3sty1775 wrote:
 You also have to consider the definition of paranormal or supernatural.

You're also very presumptuous, and mistaken.

I don't have to do anything of the sort.

Ch3sty1775 wrote:
 And I asked to explain each category with respect to what you believe you are. Are you an atheist? Theist? or agnost? I apologize for not explaining that more thoroughly.

And I answered you very precisely, and correctly.

You assign superfluous meanings to those basic 'states' of being/not being.

I don't.

You're the one with the problem, not me.

Ch3sty1775 wrote:
  Consider the term "Possibilianism." It's a school of thought that lies outside of agnosticism, theism, and atheism. It's based on the premise that many different things can hold many different explanations yet none of the are entirely correct nor incorrect. From my inexperienced opinion, I would say that Possibilianism is very parallel to quantum mechanics. 

Another superfluous term, for what is probably intrinsic in humans, as a species.

Yawn...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 Lol @ redneF, here you go

 Lol @ redneF, here you go making friends again.   Such a friendly disposition makes a weak case out of the 'pessimistic atheist' stereotype.  Smiling  You should be the official forum greeter.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote: I'm not sure

Ktulu wrote:

 I'm not sure what many different explanations for different things have to do with anything? It sounds like New-age pseudo scientific nonsense.  Look up Lumminon in this forum, you two have a lot to talk about. 

Good one.

 

Ktulu wrote:

 Lol @ redneF, here you go making friends again.   Such a friendly disposition makes a weak case out of the 'pessimistic atheist' stereotype.  Smiling  You should be the official forum greeter.

Why, because a new poster comes in starts redefining terms and meanings? And redefining what I already clearly understand better than he does?

I should encourage people into making grey areas out of black and white, in order to appear more friendly?

I'm not a politician...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3707
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the

Welcome to the forum.

Ch3sty1775 wrote:

 I want to here everyone's post as to why:

  1. You are an atheist
  2. You are an agnostic
  3. You are a theist

I would also like people to post their thoughts on the possibility of being neither of the three? What intangible thoughts can you try and muster into words? Tell me.

I define a dichotomy between theism and atheism. Theism is belief in God. Atheism is without belief in God. I am an atheist, as I do not believe in God, with the exception of some pantheist Gods. I define an agnostic as, not possessing absolute knowledge of whether God's exists or not. I'm an agnostic too.

So, I'm an agnostic atheist.

Under these definitions, everyone is a theist or an atheist. If they define the terms differently, they could possibly be an atheist, agnostic, or theist.

Ch3sty1775 wrote:
The reason I ask is because I don't find any weight in either category.

Then you must be defining them in a way I've never heard of.

Ch3sty1775 wrote:
Atheism is a pessimist's dream; theism is a fool's thought; and agnosticism is a lazy person's excuse.

Ditto, you are arbitrarily attaching meaning to each term based on your personal impression of each position. Under no common definition do atheists have to be pessimists nor is atheism a "dream." Theists are not always fools, at least based on how I'm defining fools. Agnosticism is not lazy, and it is not an "excuse." 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote: Lol @ redneF,

Ktulu wrote:

 Lol @ redneF, here you go making friends again.   Such a friendly disposition makes a weak case out of the 'pessimistic atheist' stereotype.  Smiling  You should be the official forum greeter.

I actually enjoy it when redneF goes after the irrational theists positions.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Ch3sty1775 wrote:I can agree

Ch3sty1775 wrote:

I can agree with that - Unexplained instead of saying supernatural or paranormal. In which case, yes, I'm applying to everyone and asking them to really dive into that area of thought. 

 

What, that my mom used to think she was clairvoyant and she really wasn't?  What's the point?  See James Randi's website for some explanations.

For the rest of it, try reading 50 Reasons people give for believing in a god by Guy P. Harrison.  He says it a lot better than I do.  It was at my local library, so you don't have to buy it if you don't have the money.  And if you don't have a library card, shame on you.

I'm atheist for all the reasons in this book.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3707
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Ch3sty1775 wrote:Being

Ch3sty1775 wrote:
Being Swedish and being philosophical are two different things. Philosophical can have a broad spectrum of classifications based on religion or whatever. Being Swedish is whether or not you physiologically possess a gene that is tied to Swedish ancestry, or Viking ancestry for that matter, since you mentioned that. I'm discussing the possibility of God or no God, and not knowing if God exists. Not if you're black or white, or tall or short.

Please define theism, agnosticism, and atheism.

The point is that you simply define the term, and then, the term either applies to you or it doesn't. Asserting that none of them "hold weight" suggests incoherency. If you fit the definition of the word, then that label applies to you. You do not "choose" to wear that label. 

Ch3sty1775 wrote:
Agnosticism is a lazy excuse because you do possess the capability of experiencing different paranormal or supernatural situations but choose not to acknowledge or study them. You also have to consider the definition of paranormal or supernatural. Let's break those words down: Para (latin) - Above, against, counter, outside - and Normal; Super (latin) above or beyond - and Normal. However, the direct definition of both is an experience or situation that lies outside of normal occurrence or scientific explanation. In that case, a relatively common scientific experience can be considered supernatural or paranormal but we don't have the advancement to explain it yet.

Wow, what a semantic mess.

You forgot to define "natural." The term is "supernatural," not supernormal. Something that is "natural" is something of this universe, or observable and testable reality. Ergo, something "supernatural" is something outside of observable and testable reality, something that cannot be evaluated by science. And, it does not just mean that our current understanding of science is insufficient to study the phenomena, it means that it CAN'T be evaluated by science, ever. In the way I define it, agnosticism is not a lazy excuse; rather, if you are not an agnostic, you are irrational. Paranormal generally just means something that is currently unexplained by science. It does not claim whether it can ultimately be explained or not.

Breaking down a word into its components does not necessarily grant you the most popular definition of the term nor the definition used amongst philosophers. Even with these definitions, your assertion that we "do possess the capability of experiencing different paranormal or supernatural situations" but agnostics are just  too "lazy," is unjustified.

Ch3sty1775 wrote:
And I asked to explain each category with respect to what you believe you are. Are you an atheist? Theist? or agnost? I apologize for not explaining that more thoroughly.

Most people that frequent this forum are agnostic atheists.

Ch3sty1775 wrote:
Consider the term "Possibilianism." It's a school of thought that lies outside of agnosticism, theism, and atheism. It's based on the premise that many different things can hold many different explanations yet none of the are entirely correct nor incorrect.

P or -P. All clear assertions are either true or false.

This does not contradict theism, agnosticism, or atheism.

Ch3sty1775 wrote:
From my inexperienced opinion, I would say that Possibilianism is very parallel to quantum mechanics. Take Schroedinger's Cat for example.

Quantum physics? You are committing category errors of the most incoherent kind.


 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: And if you don't

cj wrote:

 And if you don't have a library card, shame on you.

 

Although I agree with you wholeheartedly, it begs the question "What does one do with that, if one does not possess a brain capable of intelligence", like Dan Quayle?

Oh, ya.

That's right.

They run for office.

 

My bad....

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Why, because a

redneF wrote:

Why, because a new poster comes in starts redefining terms and meanings? And redefining what I already clearly understand better than he does?

I should encourage people into making grey areas out of black and white, in order to appear more friendly?

I'm not a politician...

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you 100%, I just think you're a ray of fucking sunshine Smiling

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Don't get me

Ktulu wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you 100%, I just think you're a ray of fucking sunshine Smiling

 

It ain't pretty, bein' easy...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13610
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Ch3sty1775 wrote:I

cj wrote:

Ch3sty1775 wrote:

I can agree with that - Unexplained instead of saying supernatural or paranormal. In which case, yes, I'm applying to everyone and asking them to really dive into that area of thought. 

 

What, that my mom used to think she was clairvoyant and she really wasn't?  What's the point?  See James Randi's website for some explanations.

For the rest of it, try reading 50 Reasons people give for believing in a god by Guy P. Harrison.  He says it a lot better than I do.  It was at my local library, so you don't have to buy it if you don't have the money.  And if you don't have a library card, shame on you.

I'm atheist for all the reasons in this book.

 

 If only I was your age I would date you in a heartbeat.

 If you saw pics of me.....well, that would also be a reason to be an atheist.

There can't be a god who allows you to have a crooked nose(me), missing teeth(me) and the social skills with women of Jerry Luis in the Nutty Professor.

HEY LADY!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:cj

Brian37 wrote:

cj wrote:

Ch3sty1775 wrote:

I can agree with that - Unexplained instead of saying supernatural or paranormal. In which case, yes, I'm applying to everyone and asking them to really dive into that area of thought. 

 

What, that my mom used to think she was clairvoyant and she really wasn't?  What's the point?  See James Randi's website for some explanations.

For the rest of it, try reading 50 Reasons people give for believing in a god by Guy P. Harrison.  He says it a lot better than I do.  It was at my local library, so you don't have to buy it if you don't have the money.  And if you don't have a library card, shame on you.

I'm atheist for all the reasons in this book.

 

 If only I was your age I would date you in a heartbeat.

 If you saw pics of me.....well, that would also be a reason to be an atheist.

There can't be a god who allows you to have a crooked nose(me), missing teeth(me) and the social skills with women of Jerry Luis in the Nutty Professor.

HEY LADY!

 

Was that a come on?  If so, you sweet boy, you -- if not, up yours. 

(Did I think that or did I type it?)

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13610
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Brian37 wrote:cj

cj wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

cj wrote:

Ch3sty1775 wrote:

I can agree with that - Unexplained instead of saying supernatural or paranormal. In which case, yes, I'm applying to everyone and asking them to really dive into that area of thought. 

 

What, that my mom used to think she was clairvoyant and she really wasn't?  What's the point?  See James Randi's website for some explanations.

For the rest of it, try reading 50 Reasons people give for believing in a god by Guy P. Harrison.  He says it a lot better than I do.  It was at my local library, so you don't have to buy it if you don't have the money.  And if you don't have a library card, shame on you.

I'm atheist for all the reasons in this book.

 

 If only I was your age I would date you in a heartbeat.

 If you saw pics of me.....well, that would also be a reason to be an atheist.

There can't be a god who allows you to have a crooked nose(me), missing teeth(me) and the social skills with women of Jerry Luis in the Nutty Professor.

HEY LADY!

 

Was that a come on?  If so, you sweet boy, you -- if not, up yours. 

(Did I think that or did I type it?)

 

Don't you steal my material, YES I DID TYPE THAT!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:cj wrote: Was

Brian37 wrote:

cj wrote:
 

Was that a come on?  If so, you sweet boy, you -- if not, up yours. 

(Did I think that or did I type it?)

Don't you steal my material, YES I DID TYPE THAT!

 

So sue me - see what it gets ya. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Becoming Free

Becoming Free

Blame it on my parents.  They always told me to "think for yourself”.  I doubt they ever considered what would happen if I really did that. 

Now, I suspect what they meant was, "Think what we tell you but do it in your own words."  Too late.  When I was 13, I began to question everything and soon the total absurdity of religion became apparent. 

Because I have been “encouraged” (forced) to read the bible several times, it was easy for me to see the contradictions in the book, what christians professed to believe, and how they really lived.

When I refused to go with them to their church, they said they would "Make me go." 

I asked them, “How are you going to make me? How will forcing me to attend church change my mind?”  Already, their attitude was starting to harden me against everything else they would tell me.

Their next idea was to have their minister talk to me.  I told them it was a waste of everyone's time.  They persisted and had him come to the house to “Talk some sense into me.”  (as if they ever works for anyone)  After about 15 minutes of him quoting the bible to me and me pointing out that he was either wrong in his quotes or showing him how it said something else in another place, he became very angry and told me I was going to hell.  I suspect it was because I knew the bible better than he did and was, at age 13, able to prove how ridiculous his arguments were.

I told him, “If there is a Hell I'll see you there.  Save me a nice place, OK?"  He said I was an impertinent, disrespectful child.  By then, I was angry myself and for the first time, I told a christian that he was a hypocrite, a liar, and a fool.  My parents insisted that I apologize.  I refused and left the room to a lot of yelling and threats.

For the next four years, I heard about this at least once a week.  So the night I graduated high school, I left my parent's home and didn't see them again for well over a year.  By then, with the credits I had accumulated in high school and summer school,  I had completed a couple of years of college.  Fortunately, I was able to pay for this myself.  I was entering the army and wanted to try to make peace with them, but had to listen to the same old recriminations and arguments again. 

The next time I saw them was two years later when I was getting married.  After several years of an on-again, off-again relationship they finally agreed to just not discuss it any more.  I'd like to say that worked, but  subtle hints slowly became outright condemnation.  Then I took a job transfer from Ohio to Arizona, so family meetings were rare enough to become occasions for something other than contention.

What did I learn?  Even your family can turn against you if you refuse to share in their illusions.  There are times, if you are to become your own person, you must stand firm in what you know to be true.


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
I'm an atheist because I'm a

I'm an atheist because I'm a skeptic and a rationalist.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3080
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Ch3sty1775 wrote: I want to

Ch3sty1775 wrote:

 I want to here everyone's post as to why:

  1. You are an atheist
  2. You are an agnostic
  3. You are a theist

I would also like people to post their thoughts on the possibility of being neither of the three? What intangible thoughts can you try and muster into words? Tell me.


The reason I ask is because I don't find any weight in either category. Atheism is a pessimist's dream; theism is a fool's thought; and agnosticism is a lazy person's excuse. 

So... give me your thoughts. 

 

I see that all gods were created by man to solve the unknown. There is no substantial proof which could convince me otherwise, that there is a creator.

I believe that if there is a god no one has every spoken to this deity. No one has every seen them. This deity has never exposed their self this world.

For this reason I am a buddhist. There is no beginning or end, everything recycles.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Ch3sty1775 wrote: I want to

Ch3sty1775 wrote:

 I want to here everyone's post as to why:

  1. You are an atheist
  2. You are an agnostic
  3. You are a theist

I would also like people to post their thoughts on the possibility of being neither of the three? What intangible thoughts can you try and muster into words? Tell me.


The reason I ask is because I don't find any weight in either category. Atheism is a pessimist's dream; theism is a fool's thought; and agnosticism is a lazy person's excuse. 

So... give me your thoughts. 

 

 

I was raised an atheist and remained an atheist until, in 1993, I became a theist at the age of 27. The reason why I was an atheist is that I was raised that way and I thought that religious people were narrow minded, self righteous, judgmental, idiot hypocrites. I still think that way, but as an atheist I didn't know anything about the Bible other than that it was supposedly the guide of the aforementioned idiots.

 

At 27 I started an effort to educate myself on the Bible in order to debunk it and discovered that it was the truth. Fortunately for me I had some help with the one group of people I thought were the least religious, the Jehovah's Witnesses. With their help I was able to see the Bible without the pagan influence of apostate Christianity.

 

So I am theist because after nearly 2 decades of intensive study - being fortunate that I'm fascinated by the subject and love to study it - I have never found any reason not to believe. If I did find a reason to do so I would probably still be fascinated by the Bible but I wouldn't teach, discuss and debate it from the perspective of a theist, naturally. I enjoy the stuff I do at The Theist because I get to look at the Bible from other perspectives than my own.

 

Oddly enough, though, I think I agree most with your criticism of theists in general and think your criticism of atheism and agnosticism is unfair. Fairness, integrity and objectivity being very important to me I will tell you why I think what I do about your criticisms.

 

Atheism is a perfectly natural position considering the history of any organized religion and the subject matter which is presented, not only by the religious idiots who seldom actually know what they are talking about, but even with someone like myself, who does know what he is talking about. It is a lot to ask to believe given the reality we currently reside in. Resurrection from the dead, Creation by a supernatural being, sin, the sun standing still, walking on water, animals that seem to talk, spirit creatures, miracles, etc.

 

Considering the nature of organized religion and even events in the not so distant past that are historically accepted have their own mythology and legend. A story someone starts on the Internet or even the office can become legend and fable nearly unrecognized in a matter of days, so for the agnostic to seem overwhelmed by the history of the Bible thousands of years old, after having been transmogrified, is hardly an unreasonable or lazy position as well.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3080
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote: At 27 I

The Theist wrote:
At 27 I started an effort to educate myself on the Bible in order to debunk it and discovered that it was the truth. Fortunately for me I had some help with the one group of people I thought were the least religious, the Jehovah's Witnesses. With their help I was able to see the Bible without the pagan influence of apostate Christianity.

So I am theist because after nearly 2 decades of intensive study - being fortunate that I'm fascinated by the subject and love to study it - I have never found any reason not to believe. If I did find a reason to do so I would probably still be fascinated by the Bible but I wouldn't teach, discuss and debate it from the perspective of a theist, naturally. I enjoy the stuff I do at The Theist because I get to look at the Bible from other perspectives than my own.

I'm sorry if this comes across as an insult, but you tried to "debunk" the bible? I can't imagine you put much effort in to the debunking process.

I mean no ill will toward you, I just find your comments above quite ridiculous.

What you have is "faith" because there is no truth(*) to the bible other than what you give in to it. It's a con game and in order for the con to work you need to believe in it.

 

* truth = what I mean by truth is that while there might be some factual references to various areas of history in the bible, I believe 90% of it is myth based, 9% is opinion based and 1% is true.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:The

digitalbeachbum wrote:

The Theist wrote:
At 27 I started an effort to educate myself on the Bible in order to debunk it and discovered that it was the truth. Fortunately for me I had some help with the one group of people I thought were the least religious, the Jehovah's Witnesses. With their help I was able to see the Bible without the pagan influence of apostate Christianity.

So I am theist because after nearly 2 decades of intensive study - being fortunate that I'm fascinated by the subject and love to study it - I have never found any reason not to believe. If I did find a reason to do so I would probably still be fascinated by the Bible but I wouldn't teach, discuss and debate it from the perspective of a theist, naturally. I enjoy the stuff I do at The Theist because I get to look at the Bible from other perspectives than my own.

I'm sorry if this comes across as an insult, but you tried to "debunk" the bible? I can't imagine you put much effort in to the debunking process.

I mean no ill will toward you, I just find your comments above quite ridiculous.

What you have is "faith" because there is no truth(*) to the bible other than what you give in to it. It's a con game and in order for the con to work you need to believe in it.

 

* truth = what I mean by truth is that while there might be some factual references to various areas of history in the bible, I believe 90% of it is myth based, 9% is opinion based and 1% is true.

No offense taken, and hopefully none taken in return. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising to either of us that we think the others comments as ridiculous.  


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3080
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote: No offense

The Theist wrote:
No offense taken, and hopefully none taken in return. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising to either of us that we think the others comments as ridiculous.  

Nope. None taken. But I would still love to hear your point of view on the bible with out using faith as your "proof"

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


neptewn
Silver Member
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
Ch3sty1775 wrote: I want to

Ch3sty1775 wrote:

 I want to here everyone's post as to why:

  1. You are an atheist
  2. You are an agnostic
  3. You are a theist

I would also like people to post their thoughts on the possibility of being neither of the three? What intangible thoughts can you try and muster into words? Tell me.


The reason I ask is because I don't find any weight in either category. Atheism is a pessimist's dream; theism is a fool's thought; and agnosticism is a lazy person's excuse. 

So... give me your thoughts. 

 

 

I follow suit on atheist and agnostic.

Aren't the definitions of the words, intangible to you?.

They’re dichotomies, you’re not excluded (reference previous sentence).

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:The

digitalbeachbum wrote:

The Theist wrote:
No offense taken, and hopefully none taken in return. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising to either of us that we think the others comments as ridiculous.  

Nope. None taken. But I would still love to hear your point of view on the bible with out using faith as your "proof"

 

Ah, but you see, you use only faith and opinion as your proof, which is no proof at all; I use logic, reason, facts, data, historical references, astronomical charts, arcealogical findings, linguistic examination and secular documentation as evidence. I don't really make the vague and insubstantial juxtaposition of "proof." 

But I'm game. Lets start with your signature. "The God of Abraham is a vague, illiterate and ignorant creation of man." And lets compare that to the first chapter of Genesis, since all I have to do is copy and past my own findings on that from my website. Here is what the "ignorant" "illiterate" Moses wrote about the creation of life, the universe and everything in 1513 B.C.E. Each of the footnotes will take you to an explanation of that verse at my website. Use your back function to return here after carefully, of course, contemplating each annotation.

 

1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [1]

2. And the earth was waste and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. [2]

3. And God said, Let there be light. And there was light. [3]

4. And God saw the light that it was good; and God divided between the light and the darkness. [4]

5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening, and there was morning -- the first day. [5]

6. And God said, Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it be a division between waters and waters. [6]

7. And God made the expanse, and divided between the waters that are under the expanse and the waters that are above the expanse; and it was so. [7]

8. And God called the expanse Heavens. And there was evening, and there was morning -- a second day.

9. And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together to one place, and let the dry [land] appear. And it was so.

10. And God called the dry [land] Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11. And God said, Let the earth cause grass to spring up, herb producing seed, fruit-trees yielding fruit after their kind, the seed of which is in them, on the earth. And it was so. [11]

12. And the earth brought forth grass, herb producing seed after its kind, and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in them, after their kind. And God saw that it was good.

13. And there was evening, and there was morning -- a third day.

14. And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens, to divide between the day and the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; [14]

15. and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens, to give light on the earth. And it was so.

16. And God made the two great lights, the great light to rule the day, and the small light to rule the night, -- and the stars. [16]

17. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens, to give light on the earth,

18. and to rule during the day and during the night, and to divide between the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

19. And there was evening, and there was morning -- a fourth day.

20. And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living souls, and let fowl fly above the earth in the expanse of the heavens. [20]

21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living soul that moves with which the waters swarm, after their kind, and every winged fowl after its kind. And God saw that it was good. [21]

22. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply on the earth.

23. And there was evening, and there was morning -- a fifth day.

24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth living souls after their kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth, after their kind. And it was so. [24]

25. And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing of the ground after its kind. And God saw that it was good. [25]

26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over the whole earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth on the earth. [26]

27. And God created Man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. [27]

28. And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over every animal that moveth on the earth.

29. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb producing seed that is on the whole earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree producing seed: it shall be food for you;

30. and to every animal of the earth, and to every fowl of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth on the earth, in which is a living soul, every green herb for food. And it was so.

31. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning -- the sixth day. [31]

 


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
-+-+-

Even if that was written by "Moses", what would it show? It's still ignorance, and it couldn't have been otherwise.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3080
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:Ah, but you

The Theist wrote:

Ah, but you see, you use only faith and opinion as your proof, which is no proof at all; I use logic, reason, facts, data, historical references, astronomical charts, arcealogical findings, linguistic examination and secular documentation as evidence. I don't really make the vague and insubstantial juxtaposition of "proof." 

But I'm game. Lets start with your signature. "The God of Abraham is a vague, illiterate and ignorant creation of man." And lets compare that to the first chapter of Genesis, since all I have to do is copy and past my own findings on that from my website. Here is what the "ignorant" "illiterate" Moses wrote about the creation of life, the universe and everything in 1513 B.C.E. Each of the footnotes will take you to an explanation of that verse at my website. Use your back function to return here after carefully, of course, contemplating each annotation.

 

Wait! Wait! Wait!....

You want to use the bible as a reference for this discussion? OK. First prove that the christian bible is the actual word of god.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
luca wrote:Even if that was

luca wrote:

Even if that was written by "Moses", what would it show? It's still ignorance, and it couldn't have been otherwise.

 

Ah! I see. It couldn't be otherwise! The rallying cry and motto of the future Ministry Of Science and Technology!


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:The

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Wait! Wait! Wait!....

You want to use the bible as a reference for this discussion? OK. First prove that the christian bible is the actual word of god.

It isn't. Didn't you know that?


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
James Smith João Pessoa,

James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil wrote:

Becoming Free

Blame it on my parents.  They always told me to "think for yourself”.  I doubt they ever considered what would happen if I really did that. 

Now, I suspect what they meant was, "Think what we tell you but do it in your own words."  Too late.  When I was 13, I began to question everything and soon the total absurdity of religion became apparent. 

Because I have been “encouraged” (forced) to read the bible several times, it was easy for me to see the contradictions in the book, what christians professed to believe, and how they really lived.

When I refused to go with them to their church, they said they would "Make me go." 

I asked them, “How are you going to make me? How will forcing me to attend church change my mind?”  Already, their attitude was starting to harden me against everything else they would tell me.

Their next idea was to have their minister talk to me.  I told them it was a waste of everyone's time.  They persisted and had him come to the house to “Talk some sense into me.”  (as if they ever works for anyone)  After about 15 minutes of him quoting the bible to me and me pointing out that he was either wrong in his quotes or showing him how it said something else in another place, he became very angry and told me I was going to hell.  I suspect it was because I knew the bible better than he did and was, at age 13, able to prove how ridiculous his arguments were.

I told him, “If there is a Hell I'll see you there.  Save me a nice place, OK?"  He said I was an impertinent, disrespectful child.  By then, I was angry myself and for the first time, I told a christian that he was a hypocrite, a liar, and a fool.  My parents insisted that I apologize.  I refused and left the room to a lot of yelling and threats.

For the next four years, I heard about this at least once a week.  So the night I graduated high school, I left my parent's home and didn't see them again for well over a year.  By then, with the credits I had accumulated in high school and summer school,  I had completed a couple of years of college.  Fortunately, I was able to pay for this myself.  I was entering the army and wanted to try to make peace with them, but had to listen to the same old recriminations and arguments again. 

The next time I saw them was two years later when I was getting married.  After several years of an on-again, off-again relationship they finally agreed to just not discuss it any more.  I'd like to say that worked, but  subtle hints slowly became outright condemnation.  Then I took a job transfer from Ohio to Arizona, so family meetings were rare enough to become occasions for something other than contention.

What did I learn?  Even your family can turn against you if you refuse to share in their illusions.  There are times, if you are to become your own person, you must stand firm in what you know to be true.

 

I'm sorry... why did you bump this PoS all the way back to the top???

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3634
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:It isn't.

The Theist wrote:

It isn't. Didn't you know that?

 

   Depends on which theist you ask. 

See even being sure of your favorite doctrines apparently doesn't carry much weight .....even with other theists.  Ha ha !   Oh, the irony !!!

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:The

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

The Theist wrote:

It isn't. Didn't you know that?

 

   Depends on which theist you ask. 

See even being sure of your favorite doctrines apparently doesn't carry much weight .....even with other theists.  Ha ha !   Oh, the irony !!!

Stand back everyone! I'm going to say "Ramapithecus" to it.

"Ramapithecus!" "Ramapithecus!" "Australopithecus!"

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3634
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:   

The Theist wrote:

 


Stand back everyone! I'm going to say "Ramapithecus" to it.

"Ramapithecus!" "Ramapithecus!" "Australopithecus!"

 

 

    

 

                                                   Would now be a good time to suggest that you get back on your lithium ?

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Would

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Would now be a good time to suggest that you get back on your lithium ?

Notice that I'm using failed science on the subject . . . he isn't responding as dramatically as most science minded heathens would. Maybe we got a retarded one.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3634
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
The Theist

The Theist wrote:

"Ramapithecus!" "Ramapithecus!" "Australopithecus!"

 

                                         Perhaps if you'd care to elaborate ?  You had a point to make ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Perhaps if you'd care to elaborate ?  You had a point to make ?

You are at the point in our relationship where you want to destroy my ego through insulting the closest religious influence to me. Its a sort of bitter acting out upon your own religious past, and the disapointments of the past. There is nothing I can do at this point except to make nonsesical responses to throw you off track and distract those inner feelings. At this point a rational conversation is impossible.

Ramapithecus and Australopithecus are two failed - well fake - examples of evolution. They were taught in schools for as long as 40 years, and then proved fakes. If you are a typical atheist / former apostate Christian your new religion is probably science and the metaphysical experimentation of evolution.

"Ramapithecus!" "Australopithecus!"


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3634
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:  There

The Theist wrote:

 

 There is nothing I can do at this point except to make nonsesical responses to throw you off track and distract those inner feelings. At this point a rational conversation is impossible.

 

      Well I've grown accustomed to nonsensical responses made by theists so it's really hard for me to separate those who are simply trying to distract me from those who are dead on serious.

 

The Theist wrote:
Ramapithecus....

            

             Ramapithicus was reclassified as an ancestor to modern orangutangs.   Orangutangs have evolutionary ancestors as well   .....as do horses, lions, whales, etc. 

 

The Theist wrote:
...and Australopithecus are two failed - well fake - examples of evolution. They were taught in schools for as long as 40 years, and then proved fakes.

 

    Australopithecus has a more muddled role to play as it is apparently believed to be an evolutionary jumping off point for more than one type of primate ( including proto humans ).    If you still believe that there is some sort of anti religious agenda driven deception involved then feel free to direct me to a reputable source.

 

 

The Theist wrote:
If you are a typical atheist / former apostate Christian your new religion is probably science and the metaphysical experimentation of evolution.

"Ramapithecus!" "Australopithecus!"

 

  I was an art major in college and not involved with science courses so science to me is nothing more than .....science.    I don't worship science anymore than I worship art.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13610
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I don't worship

Quote:
I don't worship science anymore than I worship art.

And no credible scientist or teacher of science would expect that. But when given the choice of which makes more sense, and which do you think could be independently tested in a lab, people like you run from scrutiny and cop out to people like me being closed minded as if questioning is a slur like nigger or fagot.

Cut the crap. You have something you want to sell, SO WHAT. I get adds in my mail box, on tv and in e-mail all the fucking time. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. And as far as the history of invisible friend claims in our species evolution, it is obvious humans make crap up because sugar pills sound nice.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Actually David

The Theist wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Perhaps if you'd care to elaborate ?  You had a point to make ?

You are at the point in our relationship where you want to destroy my ego through insulting the closest religious influence to me. Its a sort of bitter acting out upon your own religious past, and the disapointments of the past. There is nothing I can do at this point except to make nonsesical responses to throw you off track and distract those inner feelings. At this point a rational conversation is impossible.

Ramapithecus and Australopithecus are two failed - well fake - examples of evolution. They were taught in schools for as long as 40 years, and then proved fakes. If you are a typical atheist / former apostate Christian your new religion is probably science and the metaphysical experimentation of evolution.

"Ramapithecus!" "Australopithecus!"

 

Ramapithecus and Australopithecus are perfect examples of the power of empiricism applied to modifiable hypotheses. Nothing is entirely certain. Mistakes can be corrected. New data can always be incorporated. 

You're obviously not stupid yet you endlessly refuse to comprehend the inevitable meanderings of methodological naturalism applied by humans to multiple complex and layered environments, all of which we have only begun to piece together in the past couple of hundred years. Why do you insist on pretending the scientific method is not the only reliable way we have of understanding the knowable universe? If you know some other way that is not bald assertion, do divulge it.  

I agree with you in one sense. Many theories are taught in school as concrete fact when they should be taught as hypotheses more or less supported by available evidence. I think it would help the kids to know how to know. I don't think I was ever taught the mechanism of scientific empiricism growing up and to my mind this tool is the most important element in any study of material reality. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3080
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:Ah, but you

The Theist wrote:

Ah, but you see, you use only faith and opinion as your proof, which is no proof at all; I use logic, reason, facts, data, historical references, astronomical charts, arcealogical findings, linguistic examination and secular documentation as evidence. I don't really make the vague and insubstantial juxtaposition of "proof." 

But I'm game. Lets start with your signature. "The God of Abraham is a vague, illiterate and ignorant creation of man." And lets compare that to the first chapter of Genesis, since all I have to do is copy and past my own findings on that from my website. Here is what the "ignorant" "illiterate" Moses wrote about the creation of life, the universe and everything in 1513 B.C.E. Each of the footnotes will take you to an explanation of that verse at my website. Use your back function to return here after carefully, of course, contemplating each annotation.

Wait a minute, wait a minute . . . every time someone says something stupid I have to take a fistful of pills to keep me from blowing shit up . . . okay . . . there we go.

Now, what was the agnostic atheist saying to me? Prove the Christian Bible is the actual word of god?

It isn't. Didn't you know that?

I'm still waiting for the sources to back up your claims. Please do not provide dozens of quotes from the bible (IE: Genesis) as your proof.

Also, I missed this previously, but you mentioned "astronomical charts"? As in Astrology? Egad. Fail.

 

Also, I must clear things up here for you to make sure we are understanding each other (as in where I'm coming from with my opinion).

1 - I make no claim that there is a creator, as there is no evidence which has convinced me that there is one.

2 - I make claim there is no creator, because there is no evidence to support the existence of one.

3 - I do not debate faith.

4 - Any person attempting to use faith to debate the existence of their creator/god/savior has already failed.

 a - A person of faith does not need to debate the existence of their creator/god/savior as faith provides them with no need for proof.

 b - A person of faith can't set-aside their faith in order to debate their faith in their creator.

 c - Attempting to do so proves they either aren't faithful or that they are ignorant.

5 - All historical documentation such as the christian bible, the jewish torah, and the islamic quran are documents of faith.

 a - Using references such as the christian bible requires all parties in the debate to have faith in said documents.

 b - I have no faith in the christian bible.

6 - If the bible is not the word of "god" then that explains the errors.

 a - Since the bible has errors why has no one fixed them?

   1 - Leaders of the christian faith do not make changes in the bible because it is deemed perfect and the word of god (through inspiration also).

 b - If the bible has errors then why do you use it as a reference for this discussion?

   1 - You are a person of faith.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:The

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I'm still waiting for the sources to back up your claims. Please do not provide dozens of quotes from the bible (IE: Genesis) as your proof.

Also, I missed this previously, but you mentioned "astronomical charts"? As in Astrology? Egad. Fail.

Also, I must clear things up here for you to make sure we are understanding each other (as in where I'm coming from with my opinion).

 

That won't be necessary, it is fairly obvious. You are an idiot. You assume the Bible is wrong without knowing anything about it and while refusing to investigate it. That makes you a willful idiot.

 

Herod lived hard and fast, so not surprising Josephus said of his painful death: "an intolerable itching of the whole skin, continuous pains in the intestines, tumours in the feet as in dropsy, inflammation of the abdomen and gangrene of the privy parts, engendering worms, in addition to asthma, with great difficulty in breathing, and convulsions in all his limbs." - The Jewish War, I, 656 (xxxiii, 5).

The problem with the dating of his death when considering Bible chronology is that some put his death in the year 5 or 4 B.C.E. based primarily upon Josephus' history. In dating Herod's being appointed as king by Rome Josephus uses a consular dating, which is a location of events occurring during the rule of certain Roman consuls. According to this method Herod was appointed as king in 40 B.C.E., but another historian Appianos placed the event at 39 B.C.E.

Josephus places Herod's capture of Jerusalem at 37 B.C.E. but he also says that this occurred 27 years after the capture of the city by Pompey which was in 63 B.C.E. (Jewish Antiquities, XIV, 487, 488 [xvi, 4]) So in that case the date of Herod taking the city of Jerusalem would be 36 B.C.E. so 37 years from the time that he was appointed king by the Romans and 34 years after he took Jerusalem (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 190, 191 [viii, 1]) would indicate the date of his death as 2 or 1 B.C.E.

It might be that Josephus counted the reigns of the kings of Judea by the accession year method which was the case with the kings of the line of David.

If Herod's was appointed king by in 40 B.C.E. his first regnal year would probably begin at Nisan 39 to Nisan 38 B.C.E. and if counted from the capture of Jerusalem in 37 or 36 B.C.E. his first regnal year would have started in Nisan 36 or 35 B.C.E. so if Herod died 37 years after his appointment by Rome and 34 years after his capture of Jerusalem and those years are counted both according to his regnal year his death would have been 1 B.C.E.

In The Journal of Theological Studies (Edited by H. Chadwick and H. Sparks, Oxford, 1966, Vol. XVII, p. 284), W. E. Filmer indicates that Jewish tradition says that Herod's death occurred on Shebat (January - February) 2

Josephus stated that Herod died not long after an eclipse of the moon and before a Passover (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 167 [vi, 4]; 213 [ix, 3]). There was a partial eclipse on March 11, 4 B.C.E. (March 13, Julian) and so some conclude that this was the eclipse mentioned by Josephus, but there was a total eclipse of the moon in 1 B.C.E. about three months before Passover on January 8 (January 10, Julian) 18 days before Shebat 2 the traditional day of Herod's death.

There was also another partial eclipse on December 27 (December 29, Julian).

Most scholars date Herod's death as 4 B.C.E. citing the March 11 eclipse as proof and so place the birth of Jesus as early as 5 B.C.E., but that eclipse was only 36 percent magnitude and early in the morning. The other two taking place in 1 B.C.E. would both fit the requirement of having taken place not long before the Passover. The one of December 27 would have been observable in Jerusalem but not as a conspicuous event. Oppolzer's Canon of Eclipses (p. 343), says the moon was passing out of the earth's shadow as twilight fell in Jerusalem so by the time it was dark the moon was shining full. That particular one isn't included in the Manfred Kudlek and Erich Mickler listing. I personally think you can rule that one out because it is uncertain that it was visible in Jerusalem.

The January 8, 1 B.C.E. was a total eclipse where the moon was blacked out for 1 hour and 41 minutes and would have been noticed. (Solar and Lunar Eclipses of the Ancient Near East From 3000 B.C. to 0 With Maps, by M. Kudlek and E. H. Mickler; Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany; 1971, Vol. I, p. 156.)

Also the calculation of Herod's age at the time of death is thought to be about 70, according to Josephus and he received his appointment as governor of Galilee (generally dated 47 B.C.E.) when he was 15, though scholars think that to be an error that should read 25. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 148 [vi, 1]; XIV, 158 [ix, 2]) Though Herod has many inconsistencies in his dating of events and not the most reliable source. The most reliable source is the Bible itself.
The evidence is pretty clear that Herod likely died in the year 1 B.C.E. as Luke (don't give me no shit about Luke!) says that John began baptizing in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. (Luke 3:1-3) Augustus died on August 17, 14 C.E. On September 15, Tiberius was named emperor by the Roman Senate. They (the Romans) didn't use the accession year method os the 15th year would have run from the latter part of 28 C.E. to the latter part of 29 C.E.

John was six months older than Jesus and began his ministry in the spring of that year (Luke 1:35-36) Jesus was born in the fall of the year and was about 30 years old when he came to John to be baptized (Luke 3:21-23) putting his baptism in the fall - about October of 29 C.E. Counting back about 30 years would put us at the fall of 2 B.C.E., the birth of Jesus. Daniel's prophecy of "70 weeks" points to the same time (Daniel 9:24-27 From the year 455 B.C.E. when King Artaxerxes of Persia, in the 20th year of his rule, in the month of Nisan, gave the order to rebuild the wall of the city of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:1-8) to 29 C.E. when Jesus was baptized was 69 weeks or 483 years.