Atheist Ad Campaign

[Vong]

http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/images/2008/10/22/atheistbus_copy.jpg

The ad campaign that arose in the United Kingdom is coming to Canada!
As an atheist, I'm all for these ads; not as a pure dismissal of theistic beliefs, but as a means of generating discussion and reaching out to closet atheists that it's ok to not believe in a higher power.

If religions can advertise their faiths outdoors, why not the non-religious?

[Pentangeli]

Personally the ad doesn't offend me. Presumably the creators of that banner aren't hypocritical and wouldn't be offended by religious/theistic ads.

But I don't agree with it. "Stop worrying"? I believe in God, I don't worry. You know who worries? Woody Allen, he's a big worrier.

[Preston_79]

I didn't realize religious people worried so much and didn't enjoy their lives.

I'm all for a well thought Atheist message, but this one is a failure.

I liked the Christmas one better that said something like, There is no God, so just be good for goodness sake. Maybe in poor taste, but I dig it.

[Homyrrh]

If we want to discuss theology, gentlemen, I'm all for it. Otherwise, the politics of this seems fine enough to discuss. With that said, I find grave irony in an individual or organization paying money to advertise the premise that Something may not exist.

Besides, I can safely assume that, most unfortunately, Pascal and/or his Wager were never consulted for this. It is the ultimate logic for the objective individual.

[countchocula]

It's not the best ad, but I like the idea. America is still in the dark ages.

[Badbird]

I'm atheist, but I don't know about this one. It's okay, but feels like it's trying to be confrontational.

[Homyrrh]

It's not the best ad, but I like the idea. America is still in the dark ages.
This is the greatest hyperbole that ever was.
I'm atheist, but I don't know about this one. It's okay, but feels like it's trying to be confrontational.
Agreed. To each his own...literally.

[Vong]

The message is mostly for those who are on the fence, worried that if they don't believe in god something bad will happen to them. I know, I've been there. I was raised as a god-fearing Catholic boy, and was scared shitless as a youth what would happen if I stopped believing. Easily enough, once I grew up and stopped believing in superstition I was no longer afraid anymore. This is that message: "no god, no worries", with the added "probably" to keep things civil among believers.

[Dr Martin Luther Loomis]

I didn't realize religious people worried so much and didn't enjoy their lives.

I'm all for a well thought Atheist message, but this one is a failure.

I liked the Christmas one better that said something like, There is no God, so just be good for goodness sake. Maybe in poor taste, but I dig it.

Not to nitpick, but since people seem to get so worked up over the absolutism of the claim "There is no God", let me just correct you. It originally said "Why Believe in God? Just Be Good For Goodness' Sake".

An innocuous little ad asking a rhetorical question while invoking the golden rule. Of course, it was still taken as a vicious attack.

I still think "Don't Believe in God? You Are Not Alone", which ran here in Jersey and a few other states is by far the best. No attacks, it simply raised consciousness and proved a major point when the locals went apeshit over it.

[Dr Martin Luther Loomis]

Personally the ad doesn't offend me. Presumably the creators of that banner aren't hypocritical and wouldn't be offended by religious/theistic ads.

Well, religious ads have kinda been the norm throughout -- I don't know-- the history of mankind, so I think the religious are really the only ones capable of being hypocrites at this point. And seeing how a Christian bus driver has refused to drive his bus because of the ads, I'd say they've pretty much succeeded.

Which of course means that the atheists have succeeded as well, as this lunatic's reaction is precisely why these ads exist in the first place.

This is the way these people react to an opposing point of view in the year 2009. Yes, Mr. Chocula, we are very much still in the dark ages.

[The Postmaster General]

Not to nitpick, but since people seem to get so worked up over the absolutism of the claim "There is no God", let me just correct you. It originally said "Why Believe in God? Just Be Good For Goodness' Sake".

An innocuous little ad asking a rhetorical question while invoking the golden rule. Of course, it was still taken as a vicious attack.

I still think "Don't Believe in God? You Are Not Alone", which ran here in Jersey and a few other states is by far the best. No attacks, it simply raised consciousness and proved a major point when the locals went apeshit over it.


Yes, thank you because this thread was giving me some serious deja vu. What happened to that thread?

[Pentangeli]

It originally said "Why Believe in God? Just Be Good For Goodness' Sake".

I do believe in God, but I love the sentiments of that quote.

[Pentangeli]

Well, religious ads have kinda been the norm throughout -- I don't know-- the history of mankind, so I think the religious are really the only ones capable of being hypocrites at this point. And seeing how a Christian bus driver has refused to drive his bus because of the ads, I'd say they've pretty much succeeded.
Of course there are religious people who are hypocrites, but that doesn't falsify that Atheists are equally hypocrital.

Which of course means that the atheists have succeeded as well, as this lunatic's reaction is precisely why these ads exist in the first place.
I've witnessed people reacting in a similar manner to religious ads, would you describe them as being lunatics?

[Homyrrh]

Of course there are religious people who are hypocrites, but that doesn't falsify that Atheists are equally hypocrital.


I've witnessed people reacting in a similar manner to religious ads, would you describe them as being lunatics?
Easily enough, once I grew up and stopped believing in superstition I was no longer afraid anymore.
Yeah, I walk under ladders and break mirrors as well; it never bothers me.

[The Postmaster General]

To be technical, wouldn't the ad be considered agnostic not atheist?

[Pentangeli]

To be technical, wouldn't the ad be considered agnostic not atheist?

Agnosticism, the most overlooked of the theological views. You're right, the ad has an agnostic message.

[Dr Martin Luther Loomis]

Besides, I can safely assume that, most unfortunately, Pascal and/or his Wager were never consulted for this. It is the ultimate logic for the objective individual.

There is nothing more cringe inducing, more infantile, more intellectually dishonest and hypocritically selective than Pascal's Wager. It's debunked. It's dead. Perhaps it's an impressive argument for preschoolers, and I'm sure it's a hot topic in Bellevue, but bring it up in a serious philosophical debate and you'll have your pooper handed to you.

'Cause nothing says "ultimate logic" like singling out the Abrahamic god and then dishonestly betraying your true beliefs just to be on the safe side of someone elses batshit crazy, barbaric fairytale.

The fact that we're still discussing Mr. Pascal's abysmally dumb proposal in the year 2009 is pretty solid proof that the contemporary Dark Ages are anything but "hyperbole".

To each his own...literally.

Yes, it's a nice philosophy, isn't it? Perhaps if more theists adopted it for themselves, there would be no need for ads like this.

[Dr Martin Luther Loomis]

To be technical, wouldn't the ad be considered agnostic not atheist?

It's easily both. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Prefix A = without. Without theism. It can range from a simple lack of belief to a claim of certainty. Of course, when it comes to the Abrahamic god, it's usually a claim of certainty. But you'd be hard pressed to find a single atheist who straight out claims that it isn't possible for some sort of undefined higher power to exist.

You can lack a belief while admitting you lack knowledge. So the ad is still perfectly atheistic.

[Pentangeli]

It's easily both. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Prefix A = without. Without theism. It can range from a simple lack of belief to a claim of certainty. Of course, when it comes to the Abrahamic god, it's usually a claim of certainty. But you'd be hard pressed to find a single atheist who straight out claims that it isn't possible for some sort of undefined higher power to exist.

You can lack a belief while admitting you lack knowledge. So the ad is still perfectly atheistic.

We all lack knowledge on the issue.

Theism is one of belief, or a confidence that something is true without the facts to support it.

Atheism is also a theological position founded upon the belief that something is true, but like theism there are no facts to support this position.

The ad isn't asserting any belief, and expresses a doubt which can only be fitting to agnosticism. I'm sure there are some agnostics who are uncaring one way or another; but there are agnostics who have an inclination to theism or atheism. The ad clearly has an inclination to atheism, but doesn't state it as a belief, it's open to the possibility there might be a God. The ad is definitely agnostic.

Those atheists, who you claim wouldn't rule out the possibility of a higher power, are clearly in denial about their agnosticism.

[Vong]

The ads were created by the Freethrought Association, which represents the atheists, agnostics and humanists of the world. So, technically, they are reaching out to all three. The key term used is the word "probably", which gives it an added agnostic flavour.

[Dr Martin Luther Loomis]

Those atheists, who you claim wouldn't rule out the possibility of a higher power, are clearly in denial about their agnosticism.

Are you actually going to sit here and claim that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive?

You're on the internet. Put your willful ignorance away and go educate yourself on the definitions.

[Vong]

Just to clarify, there are two types of atheism: hard and soft.
Hard atheists believe there are no god's, Soft atheists leave open to the possibility of a god.
Agnostics do not know what to believe; they are on the fence.

[Homyrrh]

Just to clarify, there are two types of atheism: hard and soft.
Hard atheists believe there are no god's, Soft atheists leave open to the possibility of a god.
Agnostics do not know what to believe; they are on the fence.
I thought atheism was atheism, and any level of degree, hard or soft, was how passionate one was about advocating that (or I guess, more kain to your definition, that a soft ahteist is more likely to be persuaded and vice versa); agnosticism is the uncertainity that there is a God(s).

[Homyrrh]

Yes, it's a nice philosophy, isn't it? Perhaps if more theists adopted it for themselves, there would be no need for ads like this.

Wait a minute...this is at least as ignorant as any advocation of theism. Besides, if the theist posits that a God exists, it is the "job" of the hard atheist to actively refute that. The tides of theological debate have changed, even if the philosophies are the same; with that tablet in Washington last year and the audactiy of the Richard Dawkins' and Christopher Hitchens' of the world, how can you make such a statement? It's a logical fallacy!

Again, however, I'd greatly recommend referencing Pascal's Wager in regards to the text of the as itself. It's intriguing, if not theologically sound.

[countchocula]

Atheists DO NOT believe in God. Agnostics maintain that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. If you're an atheist, and you feel like there is a possibility that God exists, you are not an atheist. There is no such thing as "hard" atheists or "soft" atheists. Atheists and theists have one thing in common; they are categorical in their claims. Agnostics admit that they might be wrong.

This is why I don't call myself anything.

[Vong]

I thought atheism was atheism, and any level of degree, hard or soft, was how passionate one was about advocating that (or I guess, more kain to your definition, that a soft ahteist is more likely to be persuaded and vice versa); agnosticism is the uncertainity that there is a God(s).

Atheists DO NOT believe in God. Agnostics maintain that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. If you're an atheist, and you feel like there is a possibility that God exists, you are not an atheist. There is no such thing as "hard" atheists or "soft" atheists. Atheists and theists have one thing in common; they are categorical in their claims. Agnostics admit that they might be wrong.

There is hard and soft atheism, just as there is hard and soft theism.
Hard theist believe there is a particular kind of god, with particular qualities and characteristics (ie. the Christian god).
Soft theists believe there is something out there, but they are not prepared to say what that god has. (ie. the spiritual idea of a supreme being).

There are degrees to both atheism and theism because there are degrees in certainty in both believing and not believing. There are more soft atheists than hard atheists, (I consider myself a hard atheist), because there are people who are still open to the slim possibility that a supreme being can exist.

Agnostics are the undecided voter; they can't make up their minds because they don't know for sure, or they believe they can't know. Most agnostics I know are truly in a philosophical plenum debating the issue with themselves and others. It really can be detrimental to your mental and emotional being when you are confronted with a severe ontological condundrum...I know, I've been there too.

This is why this ad campaign is so rewarding to agnostics. It shows that there are people out there that live without the worry of a supreme being not existing and can live out a normal and moral life.

[countchocula]

Those are beautiful words, but according to the dictionary, you're wrong (please cite dictionary.com). An agnostic isn't undecided; rather, an agnostic has decided that humans cannot hold all of the answers. They have decided that no one knows. An agnostic is not on the fence. That would suggest that they believe that at some point, they will be off of the fence. To the agnostic, there is no fence to be on. There is no way to be decided or undecided.

The atheist denies the existence of an omnipresent deity. That's all there is to it. By definition, a "soft atheist" is an agnostic.

[Vong]

Oh, forgive me. I forgot that dictionary.com provides more relevant information than an education in philosophy....my bad.

[Homyrrh]

Those are beautiful words, but according to the dictionary, you're wrong (please cite dictionary.com). An agnostic isn't undecided; rather, an agnostic has decided that humans cannot hold all of the answers. They have decided that no one knows. An agnostic is not on the fence. That would suggest that they believe that at some point, they will be off of the fence. To the agnostic, there is no fence to be on. There is no way to be decided or undecided.

The atheist denies the existence of an omnipresent deity. That's all there is to it. By definition, a "soft atheist" is an agnostic.
Yeah, I checked dictionary.reference.com immediately after my post and confirmed what you then posted.

And a theist believes in a God or gods as the creator(s) of the universe, though I've never, ever heard of a theist being "hard" or "soft". A deist believes in the existence of a Supreme Being solely on reason and logic and does no affirm any supernatural ability of that Being.

[Homyrrh]

Oh, forgive me. I forgot that dictionary.com provides more relevant information than an education in philosophy....my bad.
Well, a dictionary, whether it is that which Dictionary.reference.com uses or the one that I also checked, Merriam-Webster(.com), is the sole method by which to establish a metric to argue. I cannot necessarily trust your "education in philosophy" as you cannot trust mine. Besides, whatever text you may have read or lecture you may have heard still has to use the terms "atheist", "agnostic", "theist" and "deist" exclusively as they are officially defined in order to properly discuss and debate.

[countchocula]

Oh, forgive me. I forgot that dictionary.com provides more relevant information than an education in philosophy....my bad.

Dude, the folks over at Dictionary.com got their information from DICTIONARIES. In other words, this isn't their opinion.

Maybe you're speaking in metaphors. If you're not interested in the literal meaning of "atheist," fine. But I'm here to tell you that a "soft atheist" is an agnostic. An atheist has already made up his mind. If you don't categorically deny the existence of a god, than you are not an atheist. These are facts. A cucumber is a cucumber. If it looks and tastes like a pickle, than it's not a cucumber. It's not a "soft cucumber" either. It's a fucking pickle.

[Vong]

Look, you guys don't have to accept what I'm saying...just as I don't have to accept what you say. I'm only offering the knowledge I've obtained from studying ontological phiolosophy. You can take it or leave it, it doesn't matter to me.

However, I would only ask that you read a genuine source on ontology and metaphysics rather than a site on the internet before you ever confront a philosopher and debate the existence of god. To put it bluntly, you will be severely pwned.

[countchocula]

We're not debating the existence of God; we're debating the existence of the dictionary. Since when is the dictionary an unreliable source???

Philosophers are merely intellectuals with opinions. Anyone can make up terms like "soft atheist" and pretend that they're an authority on something.

[countchocula]

Oh, yeah. I forgot...

http://pwnedvideo.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/pwned.jpg

[Homyrrh]

I don't understand what you're trying to propagate, Vong. Countchocula and I referenced two dictionaries simply to establish an official definition of some terms. I was not even debating you; in fact, I did not even realize the definition you provided was slightly off until...I consulted an official dictionary.

If I come to the point where I meet anyone educated on the matter, I'll discuss other matters of theology that none of us with our internet educations and high school/undergrad educations are qualified to engage.

[Pentangeli]

[regarding: Originally Posted by Pentangeli - Those atheists, who you claim wouldn't rule out the possibility of a higher power, are clearly in denial about their agnosticism.]Are you actually going to sit here and claim that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive?

You're on the internet. Put your willful ignorance away and go educate yourself on the definitions.

How on Earth did you arrive at such an absurd conclusion. No where did I claim atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive.

The quote you provided doesn't remotely substantiate your point. A person who wouldn't rule out the possibilty of a higher power is an agnostic. This is the reason I mentioned they were in denial about their agnostic position.

The immaturity you've exhibited at the end of your post is certainly befitting the ineptness preceding it.

[Vong]

Maybe you're speaking in metaphors. If you're not interested in the literal meaning of "atheist," fine. But I'm here to tell you that a "soft atheist" is an agnostic. An atheist has already made up his mind. If you don't categorically deny the existence of a god, than you are not an atheist. These are facts. A cucumber is a cucumber. If it looks and tastes like a pickle, it's not a cucumber. It's not a "soft cucumber" either. It's a fucking pickle.

You are used to strict definitions, I can see.
A cucumber isn't the same as an atheist dude. There are levels to being things, which is different than having a name labelled to something as trivial as a vegetable. The notion of being something or understanding a being can be different depending on how you perceive yourself (or it) among others and what you think is true. For example, when it comes to perceiving a supreme being or the notion of a supreme being we all have different ways of imagining it. Be it the "Clock Maker", "The Primary Mover" or Yahweh. The supreme being is different in every case but their prescence of being is the same. That is to say that there exists a supreme being but the concept or character behind it is different. They are not the same, and you cannot simply call all of them "God".

If you take this idea and apply to theism and atheism, it's the same deal. For example:
The Soft Atheist - "I deny the existence of a supreme being, but hell, I could be wrong!"
The Hard Atheist - "I deny the existence of a supreme being and I'm damn sure about it!"

Notice how they both do not believe in a supreme being but one is open to the possibility? You can say they are both atheists but you'd be wrong to say they were the same person or thought the same. The factor that distinguishes them is the concept of doubt, which is pivotal in the debate on the existence of god. It shows that there can be a degree of "wrongness" (for lack of a better word) in your belief. People can have it or not; if it isn't crucial to you or your belief system that there is a possibility of a supreme being existing, then it's your choice to disregard that possibility.

This is why the concept of hard and soft was introduced in calling someone an atheist: sure they don't believe in god, but what if there was more to it? They both reside in the atheist family, but are an apple and orange growing from the same tree.

The same is applied in politics. A spectrum exists that levels the degree between the left and the right. You can't just say "I'm right wing" or "I'm a conservative". If you came up to me on the street calling me a "liberal" because my ideals reside in the left wing I'd slap you in the face. There is more to being something than just being called a simple name.

I hope you got this. I did what I could emulating what I remember. I would lend you my notes from second year (if I could find them). My professor's words would probably explain it better than I did.

[Vong]

I'm not arguing the official version of the term "atheist". I'm providing a template that expands the definition that many philosopher's have agreed to. This isn't about semantics, it's about the application of a complex term.

[Vong]

By the way, to show that I'm not talking out of my ass about all of this, I pulled this up on the almighty Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism).
Just replace "weak and strong" with "hard and soft" and it's relatively the same.

[countchocula]

You decry the fact that I used Dictionary.com as a source, and you reference Wikipedia?

Listen, I understand that you have ideas. I get that people are complex. Every belief system is complex. You basically agree with me that all of this talk about hard and soft atheism is simply cogitations on the basic definitions of words. Still, those aren't facts. You can't say that you're a hard/soft atheist. You can say that you think of yourself as a hard/soft atheist.

Saying that you're an atheist isn't quite the same as saying that you're liberal or conservative. "Liberal" and "conservative" are open terms that could involve varying shades of doctrination. It's more akin to saying that you're a moderate. "Atheist" and "moderate" are less ambiguous words. If you feel like you could be wrong, than you're not an atheist. Your beliefs are too complex to be assigned to a label.

Of course, none of this matters because you don't have to call yourself anything.

[Dr Martin Luther Loomis]

How on Earth did you arrive at such an absurd conclusion. No where did I claim atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive.

Uh, yeah... you just did it again for the second time below.

A person who wouldn't rule out the possibilty of a higher power is an agnostic. This is the reason I mentioned they were in denial about their agnostic position.

Ring a bell? Like I said, willful ignorance. In your black and white world no one can admit that despite what they believe, there is the possibility of being wrong.

The immaturity you've exhibited at the end of your post is certainly befitting the ineptness preceding it.

Oh brother, grow a spine.

[countchocula]

Alright, we all need to relax. Let's take the spikes out of our posts.

[Pentangeli]

Ring a bell? Like I said, willful ignorance. In your black and white world no one can admit that despite what they believe, there is the possibility of being wrong.

Theist views and atheist views are assertions. Followers of these theological views are not open to the possibilty of being wrong. Their perception on theological matters might change, however. But while an atheist is such, they will assert "God does not exist", and the theist will assert "God does exist". To be open to the possibility of a higher power is a view suited to neither theism or atheism, it is indeed agnostic. And those people -- who you described as atheists, but open to the possibility there might be a higher power -- are infact agnostics.

Reply again if you must, but I won't continue this debate until you've exhibited an understanding of this topic, specifically the definitions of theism, atheism, and agnosticism.

[The Postmaster General]

http://www.maybelogic.org/bob-window.jpg

"Hahaha." - Robert Anton Wilson

[Badbird]

Agnostics are pussies.

[The Postmaster General]

I thought Paul Giamatti was an agnostic.

[Homyrrh]

Agnostics are pussies.

I thought Paul Giamatti was an agnostic.

Ha, yes. Kudos to both for lightening the thread.

[Criminal Rock]

Theist views and atheist views are assertions. Followers of these theological views are not open to the possibilty of being wrong. Their perception on theological matters might change, however. But while an atheist is such, they will assert "God does not exist", and the theist will assert "God does exist". To be open to the possibility of a higher power is a view suited to neither theism or atheism, it is indeed agnostic. And those people -- who you described as atheists, but open to the possibility there might be a higher power -- are infact agnostics.

Reply again if you must, but I won't continue this debate until you've exhibited an understanding of this topic, specifically the definitions of theism, atheism, and agnosticism.

Claiming an atheist who believes in the possibility of being wrong concerning the existence of a deity does not make that person a "closet agnostic", and to believe so would also warrant the belief that the two terms are mutually exclusive. Perhaps you never blatantly said they are... but it was hinted/suggested by you. And knowing Christians use this method of arguing to point out "contradictions" among Atheists, it is completely understandable to believe that is what you were getting at.

And in no credible source does it say that ALL Theists and ALL Atheists are NOT open to the possibility of being wrong in their beliefs (another idea that warrants mutual exclusiveness). An agnostic atheist might understand that they do not know for sure whether or not god[s] exist while still lacking a belief in god[s] and maintaining the belief there aren't any. Similarly, agnosticism is not mutually exclusive with theism. An agnostic theist might understand that they do not know whether or not god[s] exist, but still maintain a belief in a god or gods.

Here's a good read from a random bloggers atheists perspective on the issue...

"Recently, I’ve been forced to defend my atheism. That doesn’t come as a big shocker to me, given that I live in the ’south’ but what does surprise me is why I’ve been forced to defend it. It all started when a pack of youth missionaries asked me “How can you be so certain that there is no God?”. I told them I wasn’t. For all I know, there could be a God but I simply don’t believe there is one. Like sharks smelling blood, they jumped all over that one for my apparent self-contradiction.

Such ignorance (and I don’t mean that in a derogatory fashion) isn’t relegated to the square walls of the coffee shop I frequent, nor does it fall within the confines of the Mason-Dixon line. Indeed, I’ve read several blogs and forum posts that seem to have a point confused. That point is, namely, that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. In other words, many seem to think that either you are an atheist or an agnostic - you can’t be both. It would be like saying you’re a married bachelor or a compassionate conservative (just kidding…sort of).

So let’s get something straight: agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. One can be an agnostic atheist (hey, if I can do it, you can too). My reason for saying that is fairly straightforward - agnosticism and atheism make completely different claims regarding completely different levels of cognition.
Agnosticism (from the Greek - a (without) gnosis (knowledge)) is a claim concerning itself with knowledge, or more put more aptly, the lack of knowledge. One can be agnostic about a great number of things: the number of jelly beans in the jar, the number of cars on the road at a given time, or the true rationale for war with Iraq. In these circles, however, agnosticism usually refers to the existence of God. Someone who claims that they are agnostic when it comes to God is simply stating that they don’t know. Could be. Could not be. More specifically, many agnostics (myself included) hold that it is actually impossible to know whether or not God exists.

While agnosticism makes a claim regarding knowledge, atheism makes a claim regarding belief - namely, I don’t believe God exists (or you can put it into the affirmative if you prefer, e.g. I believe God doesn’t exist). However you want to sexy it up, you’re basically saying the same thing: we’re godless creatures in a godless universe.

The key difference between these two notions is the difference between knowledge and belief. Belief is a sort of substitute for knowledge with respect to things that are not yet known or are inherently unknowable. In other words, one can believe something without having knowledge. For example, I can believe that there are one-hundred fifty four jelly beans in the jar, or that there are two point six billion cars on the road, or that the real rationale for war with Iraq was to feed the military-industrial complex.

The things one can know, however, is a bit trickier. If you really examine what knowing something means, you’ll come to the conclusion that the scope of things we can actually know is somewhat limited when compared with the popular use of the word ‘knowledge’. Perception can be in error. Memory can falter (see Elizabeth Loftus for some interesting work on implanting false memories). We can be mistaken in our reasoning. But, of things we can know, it would seem odd to say that one believes them. For example, I know that two plus two equals four (I got an ‘A’ in pre-algebra). It would seem odd for me to say that I believe that is the case. Or, an old argument that St. Augustine used to trash the Skeptics - I know that I do not want to be in error. It would likewise be odd to say that I believe I do not want to be in error.

The point that I’m trying to get at here is this: belief and knowledge are different operations that are concerned with different levels of epistemic certainty. If you don’t believe me…well, I guess I can’t make you.

Source (http://varkam.wordpress.com/2008/06/13/putting-the-misconception-to-bed-why-atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/)

[BadCoverVersion]

Yeah, I walk under ladders and break mirrors as well; it never bothers me.

I'm a superstitious secularist/atheist. born to a Catholic Ma and Protestant Pa, both from Glasgow. I'm probably going to hell...and my slight belief in such things may mean I'm a closet agnostic.

I only entered this thread to post the story about the Christian who outright REFUSED to drive the bus sporting the aforementioned ad...

Linky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/16/atheism-christian-advertisements-buses)

What a barmpot!

[The Postmaster General]

Yeah, that bus driver should be fired or put on leave without pay. That's just ridiculous. He's paid to drive a bus, not have an opinion. It's not like they are being asked to transport carpet bombers to a kill spot, or mow down some school children. It's an ad just like any other ad and if they don't like it they should spite the message not their employer.



Ha, yes. Kudos to both for lightening the thread.

Lightening? Is that net slang, because I've only heard it referred to in regards to pregnancy. Seriously, I don't know what you mean, but will admit that both responses were lame in relation to the thread, though I will defend that mine was done with good purpose - Giamantti's dad is a notable agnostic, and in light of Badbird's professed love of Paul and her statement about agnostics being pussies, it seemed relevant to mention.

[Homyrrh]

(A) "Lighten", the root, means to "become less gloomy" or serious. I had positively noted the combined effort to alleviate the unnecessary seriousness of the thread. I had not considered pregnancy in regards to this issue.

(B) I believe Badbird is a man...

...and Paul Giamatti is a professed atheist.

[Vong]

You decry the fact that I used Dictionary.com as a source, and you reference Wikipedia?

You obviously missed my cheeky use of "almighty" to describe wikipedia. There is nothing more vile than wikipedia, however, when it comes to making a point it helps when there are at least unintelligent twats who will create a page detailing what you are trying to say and prove you are not insane or talking out of your ass.

Listen, I understand that you have ideas. I get that people are complex. Every belief system is complex. You basically agree with me that all of this talk about hard and soft atheism is simply cogitations on the basic definitions of words. Still, those aren't facts. You can't say that you're a hard/soft atheist. You can say that you think of yourself as a hard/soft atheist.

I can't say I'm a hard atheist? Why the hell not? If I wanted to call myself the Flying Spaghetti Monster incognito what makes you think you can prevent me from calling myself that? The only difference here is that terms such as hard and soft atheists exist, whether you like it or not and if I want to call myself by a term that does exist I sure as hell will. That's a fact.

Saying that you're an atheist isn't quite the same as saying that you're liberal or conservative. "Liberal" and "conservative" are open terms that could involve varying shades of doctrination. It's more akin to saying that you're a moderate. "Atheist" and "moderate" are less ambiguous words. If you feel like you could be wrong, than you're not an atheist. Your beliefs are too complex to be assigned to a label.

If you have a particular view that is different from mine, you are referred accordingly with a term. To say that political terms are exlcusive to being used for describing various "shades of indoctrination" is ignoring the fact that having a view on the nature of a supreme being also has "shades of indoctrination". If you are a theist, you can have very different levels of spirtuality than the person next to you that is also a theist. As I said in my previous post, god can be imagined to be as simple as a "Clock Maker" to the omnipresent watchman known as "God". If you are an atheist, you can have degrees of doubt that are different from other atheists around you. Just as their are degrees and "shades" of political thought, there exists degrees and "shades" of ontological views.

If you want to stick to calling people simply "atheist", all the power to you. Your refusal to acknowledge the concept of hard/soft theists/atheists will not hinder the existence and use of the terms. I just thought I'd open your mind...which is obviously harder than convincing a rooster not to crow at dawn...

[Badbird]

Seriously, I don't know what you mean, but will admit that both responses were lame in relation to the thread, though I will defend that mine was done with good purpose - Giamantti's dad is a notable agnostic, and in light of Badbird's professed love of Paul and her statement about agnostics being pussies, it seemed relevant to mention.

Uh, er... dude, I'm a dude. I'm not really in love with him; it's more of a man-crush.

But my line was both meant as a joke and my own (hyperbolic) personal view on agnosticism.

[Pentangeli]

Claiming an atheist who believes in the possibility of being wrong concerning the existence of a deity does not make that person a "closet agnostic", and to believe so would also warrant the belief that the two terms are mutually exclusive.
I would like to think you meant the irony in that post.

[Homyrrh]

You obviously missed my cheeky use of "almighty" to describe wikipedia. There is nothing more vile than wikipedia, however, when it comes to making a point it helps when there are at least unintelligent twats who will create a page detailing what you are trying to say and prove you are not insane or talking out of your ass.



I can't say I'm a hard atheist? Why the hell not? If I wanted to call myself the Flying Spaghetti Monster incognito what makes you think you can prevent me from calling myself that? The only difference here is that terms such as hard and soft atheists exist, whether you like it or not and if I want to call myself by a term that does exist I sure as hell will. That's a fact.



If you have a particular view that is different from mine, you are referred accordingly with a term. To say that political terms are exlcusive to being used for describing various "shades of indoctrination" is ignoring the fact that having a view on the nature of a supreme being also has "shades of indoctrination". If you are a theist, you can have very different levels of spirtuality than the person next to you that is also a theist. As I said in my previous post, god can be imagined to be as simple as a "Clock Maker" to the omnipresent watchman known as "God". If you are an atheist, you can have degrees of doubt that are different from other atheists around you. Just as their are degrees and "shades" of political thought, there exists degrees and "shades" of ontological views.

If you want to stick to calling people simply "atheist", all the power to you. Your refusal to acknowledge the concept of hard/soft theists/atheists will not hinder the existence and use of the terms. I just thought I'd open your mind...which is obviously harder than convincing a rooster not to crow at dawn...
Alright, Dick Dawkins...

[Dr Martin Luther Loomis]

Theist views and atheist views are assertions. Followers of these theological views are not open to the possibilty of being wrong. Their perception on theological matters might change, however. But while an atheist is such, they will assert "God does not exist", and the theist will assert "God does exist". To be open to the possibility of a higher power is a view suited to neither theism or atheism, it is indeed agnostic. And those people -- who you described as atheists, but open to the possibility there might be a higher power -- are infact agnostics.

Um, no. You're just flat out wrong. And frankly, you just look ridiculous and embarrasingly clueless. For the life of me, I can't figure out what the hell is so damn hard to comprehend. You can hold the atheistic view that deities are as ludicrous as Xenu, while simultaneously acknowledging the possibilty that something in the enormous friggin' cosmos may cause you to be wrong. Yeah, it's called every damn atheist scientist on the planet. And there's a pretty large chunk of 'em out there. It's kinda their job to be open, despite personally believing it's all nonsense.

So please, take that belligerent, absolutist nonsense you pulled directly out ass, place it back up there, and exchange it for a friggin' book on the subject.

And by the way, I was the only person in this thread who posted the LITERAL, PROPER and UNDEBATABLE definition of atheism, which you conveniently ignored while accusing me of ignorance.

Followers of these theological views are not open to the possibilty of being wrong.

I just wanted to highlight the absurdity of this statement one more time.

It's quite the claim. Impressive how you're able to gather such information, yet completely incapable of citing literally one example to back it up.

On the other hand, I can provide you with an endless list of links showing why it's bullshit. Then again, since we're talking about entire religious and atheist communities, the Google may be a little more practical, and perhaps even a little enlightening.

How on Earth did you arrive at such an absurd conclusion. No where did I claim atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive.

Except for the numerous times that you actually did:

Those atheists, who you claim wouldn't rule out the possibility of a higher power, are clearly in denial about their agnosticism.

A person who wouldn't rule out the possibilty of a higher power is an agnostic. This is the reason I mentioned they were in denial about their agnostic position.

To be open to the possibility of a higher power is a view suited to neither theism or atheism, it is indeed agnostic. And those people -- who you described as atheists, but open to the possibility there might be a higher power -- are infact agnostics.

Well, hello Mr. Contradiction. You clearly don't have the slightest idea what the big boys are talking about here.

Reply again if you must, but I won't continue this debate until you've exhibited an understanding of this topic, specifically the definitions of theism, atheism, and agnosticism.

Oh the irony. The unintentional hilarity. I love being lectured on atheism by a walking cliche who mindlessly parrots the inaccurate garden variety definition of atheism which was most likely taken directly from an episode of South Park. Eh, what else is new. Atheism has hit the mainstream, and now everyone is an expert.

And finally, although it's not really my thing to make appeals to authority in debates, however this is such a rare occasion that I can't resist. Thanks to your brilliant logic, Chapter 4 of the God Delusion, "Why There Almost Certainly is No God", has successfully exposed Richard Dawkins as one big ol' fraud. A feat apologists have been trying to accomplish for years. But you did it all on your own. The poster boy for atheism is ***GASP*** NOT AN ATHEIST. Why? Because Pentangeli says so. That's why.

[The Postmaster General]

(A) "Lighten", the root, means to "become less gloomy" or serious. I had positively noted the combined effort to alleviate the unnecessary seriousness of the thread. I had not considered pregnancy in regards to this issue.

(B) I believe Badbird is a man...

...and Paul Giamatti is a professed atheist.

My bad, I read it as 'lightning' for some reason.

I didn't know that about Giamatti, but not a big deal either way.

And sorry for misreading your post - you are right there's a certain, um, yeah, a punchline was needed here.


Uh, er... dude, I'm a dude. I'm not really in love with him; it's more of a man-crush.

But my line was both meant as a joke and my own (hyperbolic) personal view on agnosticism.

Oh, my bad, I'm not sure where I got that from. I think there was a schmoe on here with bird in their name who was a female, and I was confused. Otherwise, it doesn't really matter either way. You can love Giamatii all you want or however you want. He's a cool dude.


About agnosticism, for me that's my preferred self-description. To me, all it is saying is that you haven't seen tangible proof either way. Agnostics demand proof, and don't base assumptions on lack of proof. There is definitely little room for belief one way or another, be it a belief that god exists or a belief that god doesn't exist, both are making assumption based on the things we are capable of knowing or on the evidence that's been presented.

That thought process works into things other than just surrounding God - as in cases of celebrity gossip, to take a further end of the spectrum, I am not going to say that such and such is gay because someone says they are based on something they saw. I need to see it, and decide for myself. For me, I need to see the facts for myself before I can declare one way or another. I could say probably or make calls if forced, but I am not going to declare a belief.

I'm familiar of the perception that was brought up here, comparing Agnostics to undecided voters and that can't be further from the truth. An undecided voter is someone who can't come up with an opinion, despite having everything they will ever know directly in front of them. An agnostic declares that there are certain things that require more information before stating something is fact, rather that be "There IS a God" or "There IS not a God." That is a far cry from, "I like person A" or "I like person B"

I can see where, such as the quote that an "Agnostic is an atheist without balls."-type of thinking derives from, but from what I can tell, it's a way of thought that seeks not to jump to conclusions, but to stay open-minded to answers.

[Homyrrh]

Um, no. You're just flat out wrong. And frankly, you just look ridiculous and embarrasingly clueless. For the life of me, I can't figure out what the hell is so damn hard to comprehend. You can hold the atheistic view that deities are as ludicrous as Xenu, while simultaneously acknowledging the possibilty that something in the enormous friggin' cosmos may cause you to be wrong. Yeah, it's called every damn atheist scientist on the planet. And there's a pretty large chunk of 'em out there. It's kinda their job to be open, despite personally believing it's all nonsense.

So please, take that belligerent, absolutist nonsense you pulled directly out ass, place it back up there, and exchange it for a friggin' book on the subject.

And by the way, I was the only person in this thread who posted the LITERAL, PROPER and UNDEBATABLE definition of atheism, which you conveniently ignored while accusing me of ignorance.



I just wanted to highlight the absurdity of this statement one more time.

It's quite the claim. Impressive how you're able to gather such information, yet completely incapable of citing literally one example to back it up.

On the other hand, I can provide you with an endless list of links showing why it's bullshit. Then again, since we're talking about entire religious and atheist communities, the Google may be a little more practical, and perhaps even a little enlightening.



Except for the numerous times that you actually did:







Well, hello Mr. Contradiction. You clearly don't have the slightest idea what the big boys are talking about here.



Oh the irony. The unintentional hilarity. I love being lectured on atheism by a walking cliche who mindlessly parrots the inaccurate garden variety definition of atheism which was most likely taken directly from an episode of South Park. Eh, what else is new. Atheism has hit the mainstream, and now everyone is an expert.

And finally, although it's not really my thing to make appeals to authority in debates, however this is such a rare occasion that I can't resist. Thanks to your brilliant logic, Chapter 4 of the God Delusion, "Why There Almost Certainly is No God", has successfully exposed Richard Dawkins as one big ol' fraud. A feat apologists have been trying to accomplish for years. But you did it all on your own. The poster boy for atheism is ***GASP*** NOT AN ATHEIST. Why? Because Pentangeli says so. That's why.
Dude, I've hardly, if at all been following your conversation with Pentangeli (I kind of avoided the argument...), but your tone seems very condescending and unnecessarily biting; I'm probably the most "disagreed-with" in the Politics board, but I'm usually dismissed politely and calmly. Don't take it the wrong way at all; it just seemed to an outside observed that your posts were kind of mounting more and more harshness and heading in a very negative direction.

Yeah Bubba, I figured you misread. It's cool. I'm cool. You're old, but cool.

[Pentangeli]

You can hold the atheistic view that deities are as ludicrous as Xenu, while simultaneously acknowledging the possibilty that something in the enormous friggin' cosmos may cause you to be wrong

Clearly you don't understand the definition of atheism and, or agnosticism. Therefore, I must assume you have not done your research as I had instructed.

[Dr Martin Luther Loomis]

Dude, I've hardly, if at all been following your conversation with Pentangeli (I kind of avoided the argument...), but your tone seems very condescending and unnecessarily biting; I'm probably the most "disagreed-with" in the Politics board, but I'm usually dismissed politely and calmly. Don't take it the wrong way at all; it just seemed to an outside observed that your posts were kind of mounting more and more harshness and heading in a very negative direction.

I've been having issues with my Director of Photography.

[Homyrrh]

I've been having issues with my Director of Photography.
???

[Kevin Lockard]

I watched a video over on Youtube (that I'm too lazy to link) where the reason these "There's Probably No God/Why Believe In God" ads are being put on buses is because there were Christian ads on buses in some locations, and on the ads, there were several Bible quotes and a website. And if you go to the website (whatever it is), you'll find the usual idiotic, typical Christian fear mongering where people are letting you know why you'll be burning in hell after your death if you don't accept Jesus as your "Savior."

And yes, Pascal's Wager is a joke. The soldiers of God often use these kind of weak, childish attempts to convert you, and have since the Middle Ages. I am no more afraid of going to hell when I die than I am of being attacked by a flying dragon when I leave my house everyday.

[The Postmaster General]

Yeah Bubba, I figured you misread. It's cool. I'm cool. You're old, but cool.

Groovy - always good to be hep.

[Homyrrh]

And yes, Pascal's Wager is a joke. The soldiers of God often use these kind of weak, childish attempts to convert you, and have since the Middle Ages. I am no more afraid of going to hell when I die than I am of being attacked by a flying dragon when I leave my house everyday.

Either side of the argument is fundamentally flawed. Pascal argued that living life as if there was a theistic God would, purely of logic, be the best idea; an individual, if unsure about this God's existence, would be guaranteed a spot in heaven if there was a God (because he lived a pious life) or else rot in a casket if there was not. Of course, a sensible theology of any brand, including that which is found in the Bible, does not condone the type of "godliness" that Pascal describes, as it is just being "good" and "godly" for the sake of selfishness.

Meanwhile, those critics like Richard Dawkins, who propose that Pascal would be correct by suggesting the inverse of the argument, are also flawed. To answer Pascal's question is to acknowledge, however theoretically you may please, that there is an omniscient, omnipotent God who controls heaven and hell. Consequently, Dawkins' suggestion that (paraphrasing) "you should live live [in this instance] like there is not a God because it is essentially inconvenient and not worth your while" is equally absurd. For if there is a Supreme Being, of whose existence is confirmed, it cannot be denied that the risk of going to a Hell far outweighs the inconvenience required to gai nentrance to a Heaven.


Also dude, just be conservative when calling Christians "typical idiotic"; I know I've been making a lot of suggestions like this lately, but regardless of faith, no one needs to be called an idiot because of a genuine conviction. While this conviction manifests itself differently in different people, the single fundamental belief of Christianity is that the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, is the Savior of Man. Let's just avoid mocking it.

[QUENTIN]

The glaring problem with Pascal's Wager is obvious. It posits that one should believe in God as a sort of safety net against going to Hell. Err on the side of caution because if you're wrong, you're going in the ground anyway and if you're right, Heaven is awesome and Hell would suck.

Problem is, there's no God or religion in which believing in the existence of God gets you into Heaven or any more reward than exactly doodly-squat. The specific God he singles out from a crowd of thousands, the Christian God described in the Bible (which of course is statistically unlikely to be the right one to follow if you're following just to have the best chances of avoiding damnation) requires one to not just believe in him, but to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Good deeds alone and certainly not just belief will get you into Heaven. And accepting J.C. as your personal savior requires an actual faith you can't fake (and still get into Heaven anyway). Really hedging your bets to avoid eternal damnation, one would follow all Gods known to man that warn of a Hell, except those Gods are uniformly vain and jealous and require you put no other Gods before them. You can't make a smart play when it comes to this avoiding Hell business. So Pascal's Wager is a pointless joke, it just restates the old scary warning "Be a Christian or go to Hell" in the form of a stupid, clumsy appeal to logic and reason that actually appeals to neither.

It's worthless except as a historical artifact that encapsulates Dark Ages thinking. Not because it's Christian, but because it's such an intellectually devoid piece of Christian propaganda.

[Homyrrh]

The glaring problem with Pascal's Wager is obvious. It posits that one should believe in God as a sort of safety net against going to Hell. Err on the side of caution because if you're wrong, you're going in the ground anyway and if you're right, Heaven is awesome and Hell would suck.

Problem is, there's no God or religion in which believing in the existence of God gets you into Heaven or any more reward than exactly doodly-squat. The specific God he singles out from a crowd of thousands, the Christian God described in the Bible (which of course is statistically unlikely to be the right one to follow if you're following just to have the best chances of avoiding damnation) requires one to not just believe in him, but to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Good deeds alone and certainly not just belief will get you into Heaven. And accepting J.C. as your personal savior requires an actual faith you can't fake (and still get into Heaven anyway). Really hedging your bets to avoid eternal damnation, one would follow all Gods known to man that warn of a Hell, except those Gods are uniformly vain and jealous and require you put no other Gods before them. You can't make a smart play when it comes to this avoiding Hell business. So Pascal's Wager is a pointless joke, it just restates the old scary warning "Be a Christian or go to Hell" in the form of a stupid, clumsy appeal to logic and reason that actually appeals to neither.

It's worthless except as a historical artifact that encapsulates Dark Ages thinking. Not because it's Christian, but because it's such an intellectually devoid piece of Christian propaganda.
Pretty much, and any half-sensed Christian should say as much. It's another issue, but most individuals of Christian conviction actually don't comprehend much of the theological logic behind their faith.

There's a passage in the Book of Romans, an epistle from Paul to, yes, the Romans, that reads like "Be transformed by the renewing of your mind". Many in Christian apologetics circles joke that most apparently read it like"...by the removal of your mind." Ka-pow.

What do you mean by:

the Christian God described in the Bible (which of course is statistically unlikely to be the right one to follow if you're following just to have the best chances of avoiding damnation)

(?)

[QUENTIN]

Pretty much, and any half-sensed Christian should say as much.

If that's the case (and it is) then why did you bring up the wager and hail it as "the ultimate logic for the objective individual" wasting the time of a bunch of people in this thread?


Besides, I can safely assume that, most unfortunately, Pascal and/or his Wager were never consulted for this. It is the ultimate logic for the objective individual.

You're not making sense here.



What do you mean by:



(?)



I mean that the wager is meant to appeal to someone trying to give themselves the best odds. But there are 4,200 currently active religions on Earth and several thousand more throughout history. That's a whole lot of Gods and picking the right one out of that lot is a fool's errand statistically. Choose any particular version of the Christian God and you've only got a 1/42000 (or .00002%) chance of being right and avoiding damnation. With odds like that, why not just act in accordance with your real feelings and beliefs?

[Homyrrh]

Besides, I can safely assume that, most unfortunately, Pascal and/or his Wager were never consulted for this. It is the ultimate logic for the objective individual.

Again, however, I'd greatly recommend referencing Pascal's Wager in regards to the text of the as itself. It's intriguing, if not theologically sound.

Hmm, I'm not sure why I said that, especially since there's no indication of being tongue-in-cheek. However, I also made this other statement shortly thereafter, and the one earlier today. I genuinely feel the latter, that either way it's spun, it's at best contrived. It's decision theory, and definitely not legitimate theology.

Your probability about ~4200 existing religions and a low statistical likelihood, etc., is disappointingly misleading. In the context of Pascal's Wager, indeed, it seems worthless to believe in "a God". However, when you mention:

Choose any particular version of the Christian God and you've only got a 1/42000 (or .00002%) chance of being right and avoiding damnation.

...you neglect certain elements of the "Christian God". For example, there are many sects of Christianity, most of which share a fundamental belief. Also, a true "Christian" is no subscriber to mass religions, instead, and more importantly, just a humble and faithful follower of the ways of the Christ. You're also assigning an "equal value" to each one, essentially equating schools of though like Buddhism with monotheistic faiths like Judaism or Islam. I guess I just feel like religion isn't just picking what's behind door number #3.

I'd prefer not to get too entrenched, if at all, with theology. I'm content with the entirety of my "religious views" and respect those of others, and don't mind dicussing them in the appropriate forum (oh, it's a pun!), but where does this end up? Nowhere constructive and definitely not belonging in a politics forum. I know we mutually decided to avoid addressing scriptural passages a few weeks ago because of inevitable abuse and misuse, and I feel that, like in that instance, a \n unavoidable negativity will set-in if we continue.

[Kevin Lockard]

Either side of the argument is fundamentally flawed. Pascal argued that living life as if there was a theistic God would, purely of logic, be the best idea; an individual, if unsure about this God's existence, would be guaranteed a spot in heaven if there was a God (because he lived a pious life) or else rot in a casket if there was not. Of course, a sensible theology of any brand, including that which is found in the Bible, does not condone the type of "godliness" that Pascal describes, as it is just being "good" and "godly" for the sake of selfishness.

Meanwhile, those critics like Richard Dawkins, who propose that Pascal would be correct by suggesting the inverse of the argument, are also flawed. To answer Pascal's question is to acknowledge, however theoretically you may please, that there is an omniscient, omnipotent God who controls heaven and hell. Consequently, Dawkins' suggestion that (paraphrasing) "you should live live [in this instance] like there is not a God because it is essentially inconvenient and not worth your while" is equally absurd. For if there is a Supreme Being, of whose existence is confirmed, it cannot be denied that the risk of going to a Hell far outweighs the inconvenience required to gai nentrance to a Heaven.


Also dude, just be conservative when calling Christians "typical idiotic"; I know I've been making a lot of suggestions like this lately, but regardless of faith, no one needs to be called an idiot because of a genuine conviction. While this conviction manifests itself differently in different people, the single fundamental belief of Christianity is that the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, is the Savior of Man. Let's just avoid mocking it.

I wasn't calling Christians idiots, I was referencing how the usual fear tactics that Christians use are idiotic.

[The Postmaster General]

Haha. God is like Chazz Palminteri from A Bronx Tale. That's awesome. I like this Pascal guy.

[Homyrrh]

I wasn't calling Christians idiots, I was referencing how the usual fear tactics that Christians use are idiotic.
Yes, because generalizing is superior to namecalling.

[Vong]

You can't tell me that the Christian faith isn't based on fear...I was raised Catholic, I know the shit they implant in your head to make you afraid.

[Homyrrh]

You can't tell me that the Christian faith isn't based on fear...I was raised Catholic, I know the shit they implant in your head to make you afraid.
I very well can, though I expected someone with such an established education in theology and metaphysics to realize how fundamentally different Catholicism and Protestantism are. I was also raised Catholic, but have since been a nondenominational Protestant. The entire reason that the Protestant church protested and split back in the day with Matin Luther's 95 Theses is because of this, that Catholicism places a focus on fear and intimidation and a wrong theology.

Ultimately, however, the manifestation of a religion in an individual or a physical church or denomination is inferior to that aforementioned, singular tenet of Christianity, and that is the imitation of Christ; he was neither intimidating nor a fearmongerer.

[The Postmaster General]

Based on fear? That reminds me of people saying those who believe in God are idiots.

[Homyrrh]

Based on fear? That reminds me of people saying those who believe in God are idiots.
Ditto.

[gayzilla]

Ofcourse the basic tenets of Christianity are based on fear, the fear of going to hell. Most Christians believe that without Christ you are incapable of doing good, and any seemingly good deeds are done for selfish reasons (just look up Joyce Meyer for a basis of what I'm saying, and I realize she doesn't speak for all christians but a large majority)

The whole point of Christianity is to accept Jesus as lord and savior so that you may receive grace and be allowed to enter his eternal Kingdom. Why would you want to enter his eternal kingdom? The alternative is Hell, which is evil and scary, and you spend eternity burning and shoveling coal. You must fear Hell in order to want to accept Jesus.

[gayzilla]

Oh, and i never heard of this "Pascals wager", I guess I got it confused with Pavlov and his dog. But after reading up a bit, he tries to prove god exists by making you bet on it?

We only have two things to stake, our "reason" and our "happiness". Pascal considers that there is "equal risk of loss and gain", a coin toss, since human reason is powerless to address the question of God's existence. That being the case, we then must decide it according to our happiness... by weighing the gain and loss in believing that God exists. He contends the wise decision is to wager that God exists, since "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing", meaning one can gain eternal life if God exists, but if not, one will be no worse off in death than if one had not believed.

Pascal does not realize that there are other beliefs besides the one in God who provide for eternal life.

and let me add a pet peeve here. I hate how many people, books, philosophers etc. use the term God as if they are all talking about the same entity. The Judeo/Christian God is a contradiction that does not exist irregardless of ones belief in either God.

[The Postmaster General]

The alternative is Hell, which is evil and scary, and you spend eternity burning and shoveling coal. You must fear Hell in order to want to accept Jesus.


Ironically, what you are saying would be totally true if and only if the Christian doctrine of Original Sin were true.

[gayzilla]

Ironically, what you are saying would be totally true if and only if the Christian doctrine of Original Sin were true.

Original Sin is also an important tenet of the Christian faith. If one is a Christian, then don't they also believe in Original Sin?

[The Postmaster General]

Original Sin is also an important tenet of the Christian faith. If one is a Christian, then don't they also believe in Original Sin?


I'm confused because I thought doctrine and tenet mean pretty much the same thing. :confused:

The point I was trying to make, gayzilla, is that your cynical remark (takes a cynic to know a cynic... :) ) implies that people have no choice in the matter. I would liken it saying that the only reason people don't break the law is because they fear going to jail, or the only reason someone may say they like a movie is to avoid being ridiculed by fans.

You can say the Christian faith is based on fear, but that is only if you believe that man is really meant to sin (as proposed by the concept of OS) There is also the notion that people choose to follow Christian ideology because they really believe in it, and don't fear that they will go to Hell, but believe that following those rules are the right thing to do.

Of course there are people who are only in it for the free pass into Heaven, such as there are people who say they like movies just to fit in, or people who obey the law because they have a bad tendency to be arrested.

As cynical as I am, and I really am a cynical fuck, I can't look past the reality that everyone is different with their own sets of motivations and beliefs. Part of my cynicism also leads me to fell that if the shoe fits, I better also make sure the wearer isn't balling up their toes.

[gayzilla]

I'm confused because I thought doctrine and tenet mean pretty much the same thing. :confused:

The point I was trying to make, gayzilla, is that your cynical remark (takes a cynic to know a cynic... :) ) implies that people have no choice in the matter. I would liken it saying that the only reason people don't break the law is because they fear going to jail, or the only reason someone may say they like a movie is to avoid being ridiculed by fans.

You can say the Christian faith is based on fear, but that is only if you believe that man is really meant to sin (as proposed by the concept of OS) There is also the notion that people choose to follow Christian ideology because they really believe in it, and don't fear that they will go to Hell, but believe that following those rules are the right thing to do.

Of course there are people who are only in it for the free pass into Heaven, such as there are people who say they like movies just to fit in, or people who obey the law because they have a bad tendency to be arrested.

As cynical as I am, and I really am a cynical fuck, I can't look past the reality that everyone is different with their own sets of motivations and beliefs. Part of my cynicism also leads me to fell that if the shoe fits, I better also make sure the wearer isn't balling up their toes.

First the grammar part. My "also" was not referring to it being a tenet and a doctrine, as they are the same. I thought in my first post I had mentioned another specific tenet/doctrine, but I just said Tenets plural.

But your right, I guess I have become too cynical that I had not even considered...
There is also the notion that people choose to follow Christian ideology because they really believe in it, and don't fear that they will go to Hell, but believe that following those rules are the right thing to do.


But it's mainly because of the argument presented by vocal christians when I mention a righteous jew vs a repentant pedophile. How somebody Jewish who is the most saintly person on earth will go to hell for not recieving christ yet a murderous pedophile will be granted grace for being sorry and accepting Jesus as his savior. The argument I usually get back is that right or wrong, good or bad really have nothing to do with it. It's about the rules.

But those who preach Christianity, reverends, pastors, priests etc...usually stick to the fear. Be good so god will accept you and you can avoid hell as opposed to be good for goodness sake.

[Kevin Lockard]

Yes, because generalizing is superior to namecalling.

I don't think it can be called "generalizing" when pretty much every christian, online and offline, has told me that non-christians cannot reach heaven simply because they don't follow/accept "Christ" as their "Savior." That's what the Christian belief system teaches, after all.

As for the name-calling, who cares. If someone does or says something that I think is idiotic, then I will not cease to call them an idiot. Doing otherwise isn't something I consider to be respectful. I consider that to be superficially dishonest. By being honest, I am being respectful to my principles. I do look down on religion (ALL religion), because I fail to see belief in God, Christ, or Satan is any different or more relevent than belief in unicorns, goblins, dragons, gnomes, lepruchans, fairies, Zeus, Thor, Ra, Batman, The Jersey Devil, the Spirits of the Native Americans, Hercules, The Minotaur, Atlantis, or any other strange, once believable mysticism, and so I will treat it accordingly.

[The Postmaster General]

I think that sort of name-calling based from generalizing sort of steps on the right to choose by people who want to call themselves Christians without so much of the hoodoo that they too don't subscribe too. There's always been varying degrees of people who go to church. Apparently a lot of you guys here went to church and you probably weren't ass holes because of it. Yes, let's compare it to believing in fictional characters or doing things based on that. I'm not going to get all bent out of shape for someone learning Klingon. Yes, I know it's deeply personal to some people and a man in a priest's robe tried to rape some people with a crucifix, but people should be judged by what they do according to what they do and by their gender, race, religion, or whatever else those civil rights thingermerjingermers say.