Agnostics and Atheists

[FMCoug]

I think it's better to be agnostic than atheist. Because if you think about it, atheism requires faith in the lack of God. Agnostics are just saying they don't know if there is one or not.









































I had to get this one started for when CatBlue/SeattleUte shows up.

[Hadrian]

It's not that simple. Theism is a position on the existence of god(s) while Gnosticism is a position on knowledge.

Combining the terms can yield a more accurate description of one's belief structure:
Agnostic atheist - A person who doesn't claim to know for certain, but is inclined to not believe in any gods. Most atheists fall in to this category with varying degrees of certainty.
Gnostic atheist - A person who claims to know for certain that there is no god. I've never met anyone who claims to have a positive position on atheism, but I'm sure they exist.
Agnostic theist - A person who doesn't claim to know for certain, but is inclined to believe some god exists. Deists would be in this category.
Gnostic theist - A person who claims to know for certain that there is a god or gods. Most religious people fall into this category.

There are other ways and terms of categorizing religious belief, but I find this to be the most concise and pertinent to your statement.

[480ute]

I really wish there wasn't a need for a word for my lack of belief in a deity. I'm only referred to as an atheist, because theists exist.

[Flystripper]

Might as well recycle topics on a fresh board!!

[FMCoug]

Might as well recycle topics on a fresh board!!

Exactly. I want SU to have to push that rock up the hill yet again!

[tooblue]

I really wish there wasn't a need for a word for my lack of belief in a deity. I'm only referred to as an atheist, because theists exist.

I really wish there wasn't a need for a word for my belief in deity. I'm only referred to as a theist because atheists exist. It appears we are caught in a recursive loop!

[UtahDan]

I really wish there wasn't a need for a word for my belief in deity. I'm only referred to as a theist because atheists exist. It appears we are caught in a recursive loop!

How many other nouns can you think of that refer to the absence of belief?

[UtahDan]

FM is the huge space before the first and last sentence of the OP supposed to make us contemplate the abyss?

[480ute]

How many other nouns can you think of that refer to the absence of belief?

I really wish there wasn't a need for a word for my belief in deity. I'm only referred to as a theist because atheists exist. It appears we are caught in a recursive loop!
It's too early for this shit guys. My brain's about to explode.

[IdahoUteTroutHead]

It's too early for this shit guys. My brain's about to explode.


Time for a drink.

[480ute]

Time for a drink.
I don't know you, but I like you.

[UtahDan]

Time for a drink.

123

[NorthwestUteFan]

I really wish there wasn't a need for a word for my belief in deity. I'm only referred to as a theist because atheists exist. It appears we are caught in a recursive loop!

You are absolutely an atheist. At least you are in relation to the following Gods:
Wotan
Thor
Zeus
Krishna
Allah
Ahura Mazda
Baha
Waheguru
Vishnu
...and countless thousands of others.

The only version of atheism you reject is the disbelief in a modern definition of the Tetragrammaton. (That would be the ultimate Transformer name...)

[UtahDan]

The only version of atheism you reject is the disbelief in a modern definition of the Tetragrammaton. (That would be the ultimate Transformer name...)

tb can speak for himself, but I have seen many people attempt to address this by saying that these actually all refer to the same deity who has been understood differently by different people and maybe even revealed himself differently to different peoples. Since Mormon's don't believe that being Mormon in this life is necessary for salvation (and in fact most will concede that only a very tiny number will be) that idea works pretty well for them. Allows them a charitable, if slightly condescending view at least of non-Christian religions. Views of other Christian faiths was traditionally that they were apostate but I think that has softened a great deal too. I don't know many Mormons who think you need their sacraments and ordinances in this life if you are otherwise good.

None of which is to say you are wrong by the way. I don't think you can avoid being atheist re: Shiva if you are Mormon, for example.

[tooblue]

You are absolutely an atheist. At least you are in relation to the following Gods:
Wotan
Thor
Zeus
Krishna
Allah
Ahura Mazda
Baha
Waheguru
Vishnu
...and countless thousands of others.

The only version of atheism you reject is the disbelief in a modern definition of the Tetragrammaton. (That would be the ultimate Transformer name...)

The only problem with your assertion is that you assume to know who or, what the nature of my Deity (or God as you call him/her/it) is. I purposely used and like the term Deity for this reason—it's definition: god, goddess, divine being, supreme being, divinity, immortal; creator, demiurge; godhead.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Good point, UD.

In fact many of the gods throughout history could be said to be far more charitable, loving, and led people to live more fulfilling lives than the god of the OT (and also much of the D&C). That guy was a petulent jerk, a cross between a spoiled child and an enraged, drunk father.

[480ute]

The only problem with your assertion is that you assume to know who or, what the nature of my Deity (or God as you call himi/her/it) is. I purposely used and like the term Deity for this reason—it's definition: god, goddess, divine being, supreme being, divinity, immortal; creator, demiurge; godhead.
Let's be honest though. There's a big difference between the God of christianity, and say, Zeus. Definitely not the same being, and I doubt you believe in both.

[NorthwestUteFan]

The only problem with your assertion is that you assume to know who or, what the nature of my Deity (or God as you call himi/her/it) is. I purposely used and like the term Deity for this reason—it's definition: god, goddess, divine being, supreme being, divinity, immortal; creator, demiurge; godhead.

You are right, and I apologize for overstepping and assuming.

I am amenable to the thought of some kind of power or force of will in the universe, but have a hard time accepting a bearded hominid beyond the clouds causing hurricanes to 'punish the sinners' while helping old ladies find their lost keys.

[tooblue]

Let's be honest though. There's a big difference between the God of christianity, and say, Zeus. Definitely not the same being, and I doubt you believe in both.

Being both honest and clear: I believe in a deity whom I refer to as God the Father. He is not, precisely, the same God as venerated by traditional Christianity. In my estimation, he is not alone, for the sheer fact that he is a parent, which typically, according to my understanding of the nature of creation come in pairs of two. That's one of the principle differences between my theology and the theology of say an Evangelical Christian. Also, I believe in a Deity who is Jesus Christ, Saviour and Redeemer of all man kind. He is not the same God as God the Father. He is my brother and the first born of said parent(s).

It's complicated. Hence, the word Deity is appropriate.

[tooblue]

You are right, and I apologize for overstepping and assuming.

I am amenable to the thought of some kind of power or force of will in the universe, but have a hard time accepting a bearded hominid beyond the clouds causing hurricanes to 'punish the sinners' while helping old ladies find their lost keys.

For me it all depends on my definition of cause or, causation in relation to punishment for sinners versus old ladies finding lost keys. I like the idea of a Deity with whom I can relate. And I can relate to a bearded hominid better than to a mystical force that may or may not be influenced by midi-chlorians or some such.

[Hadrian]

Good point, UD.

In fact many of the gods throughout history could be said to be far more charitable, loving, and led people to live more fulfilling lives than the god of the OT (and also much of the D&C). That guy was a petulent jerk, a cross between a spoiled child and an enraged, drunk father.
That's because Yahweh was originally a Caananite war god.

[NorthwestUteFan]

That's because Yahweh was originally a Caananite war god.

True. And iirc the ancient northern tribes of Judea referred to him as 'Elohim'.

[Hadrian]

True. And iirc the ancient northern tribes of Judea referred to him as 'Elohim'.
I did a little internet research (so it's by no means infallible) and this is what I gathered:
"El" and "Elohim" are just generic words for god or gods while "Yahweh" is the actual name of god supposedly revealed to Moses. "Elyon" was the master/creator god in the Caananite pantheon while "Yahweh" was a lesser known war god. It seems that over the centuries the two were somehow conflated into one monotheistic god.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Yes. Some tribes used the word Elohim in place of YHWH, because they were forbidden to speak the name. You can see this in the KJV, as the scribes translated Elohim to the word 'God' and YHWH was translated as 'Lord'. This is also a way to tell which tribe contributed which portion to the Torah. The portions of the first five books of the bible containing phrases with the word 'God' (or Gods) came from the oral traditions of the Northern tribes while those containing 'Lord' come from other oral traditions. These oral traditions predate written Judaic history by between several centuries and a thousand years or more. (I believe other peoples had writing at the time) .

I am not as familiar with the Canaanite history. Thanks for the info!

[Ma'ake]

I wonder what the Neanderthals called their "god", what attributes did they assign to "him", etc. Wouldn't be surprised if other primates and dolphins have some sort of religion, too. They're smart, smart enough to know there will come a day when they're not around.

All these gods and religions are natural outgrowths of the anxiety of mortality, especially the level of detail that gets assigned to them. One thing you have to admit about religion - human beings are amazing in how much ideological baggage they can attach to what should be a fairly simple concept.

But at the same time, the yearning to know or have comfort that there is something beyond this may be the spark that whatever higher power that's out there intentionally gives us. I'll be damned if I can answer that question.

I tend to share the much of the critique of religion that atheists bring to the table, but I recognize that Thor or Zeus or Allah is just a manifestation of faith. I have my own faith, so who am I to dismiss all these other versions?

On the question of being an atheist or an agnostic, logically it makes sense to be an agnostic. We don't know with certainty whether something exists beyond this, but there's really no reason to not be optimistic (or at least open) about the question, assuming people have the capacity to choose and shape their own attitudes about things. Believers enjoy a fair number of benefits, all things being equal.

I choose to think there's something beyond this, but I steer clear of religions and the details and human imprint they bring.

[IdahoUteTroutHead]

I choose to think there's something beyond this, but I steer clear of religions and the details and human imprint they bring.


Something I try to incorporate in my day to day living......sometimes easier said than done.

[LA Ute]

Atheists, defend yourselves! ;)

How atheists became the most colossally smug and annoying people on the planet (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100230985/how-atheists-became-the-most-colossally-smug-and-annoying-people-on-the-planet/)

Note: This was written by an atheist. And -- I don't think anyone who posts here is colossally smug and annoying. Especially SU. He's simply adorable.

[jrj84105]

Atheists, defend yourselves! ;)

How atheists became the most colossally smug and annoying people on the planet (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100230985/how-atheists-became-the-most-colossally-smug-and-annoying-people-on-the-planet/)

Note: This was written by an atheist. And -- I don't think anyone who posts here is colossally smug and annoying. Especially SU. He's simply adorable.
My most blue-starred post on the other board was saying that atheists are generally douchebags. I stick by this appraisal as an atheist.

[480ute]

My most blue-starred post on the other board was saying that atheists are generally douchebags. I stick by this appraisal as an atheist.
I think atheists are like any group in that the most vocal tend to be the most extreme. Most of us atheists simply don't believe, and don't care what or who others choose to worship. The only time you're likely to hear from many of us, myself included, is when religion infringes on our rights.

Dawkins, Hitchens, and Bill Maher have garnered huge followings by being anti-religion. While I agree with some of what each of them say, I think much of what they preach is blown way out of proportion, especially when you consider the fact that religion is on the decline in most civilized societies. There are crazies in every religion, and the faith didn't make them nuts.

On top of that they tend to come off as super arrogant dickwads (not so much Dawkins, but Maher and the late Christopher Hitchens) which certainly won't endear people on the fence.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I agree 480ute. The most vocal get the attention, for better or worse(and mostly for the worst)

[LA Ute]

For the record, all the atheist friends and acquaintances I have are very classy about their views. Most are really closer to being agnostics.

[cald22well]

I feel that whether devoutly religious or atheist, some people simply feel the need to defend their beliefs or convert people to their beliefs. I understand this on the part of Christians and any religion in which missionary work is a big part of the religion. As an atheist though, I never understood why other agnostics or atheists felt this need. When being attacked on my beliefs, I will most certainly defend them. But what does it change in my life if others are atheist?

[LA Ute]

I feel that whether devoutly religious or atheist, some people simply feel the need to defend their beliefs or convert people to their beliefs. I understand this on the part of Christians and any religion in which missionary work is a big part of the religion. As an atheist though, I never understood why other agnostics or atheists felt this need. When being attacked on my beliefs, I will most certainly defend them. But what does it change in my life if others are atheist?

Explanation:

732

:D

[NorthwestUteFan]

Atheists, defend yourselves! ;)

How atheists became the most colossally smug and annoying people on the planet (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100230985/how-atheists-became-the-most-colossally-smug-and-annoying-people-on-the-planet/)

Note: This was written by an atheist. And -- I don't think anyone who posts here is colossally smug and annoying. Especially SU. He's simply adorable.

Here is an interesting response to that article by Noah Lugeons ("No Illusions") who is a professional juggler, musician, and opinion-sharer, who hosts a weekly podcast titled 'The Scathing Atheist'. He is the product of a Mormon father and a Catholic mother, so he is at least tangentially relevant to this board...(though he rarely mentions Mormons).

He is a funny guy, so long as the language and the utter disrespect for organized religion do not offend you. However funny and useful his opinions may or not be in the estimation of those on this board, he makes salient points in response to this article:


O’Neill is an atheist who titled his column “How Atheists Became the Most Colossally Smug and Annoying People on the Planet” and then backs it up by spending the entire column being colossally smug and annoying....

He starts the article by lamenting a time when atheists weren’t such smug pains in the ass. When one could say one was an atheist without people assuming that they were (quote) “a smug, self-righteous loather of dumb hicks”. Apparently he longs for the good old days when people would just burn you alive.
Why, it’s gotten so bad that when people ask him, he doesn’t even use the “A” word; he says he’s a very lapsed Catholic. And think about how smug and annoying we had to get before somebody would rather associate themselves with a group that actively campaigns against the rights of women, the rights of gays and the rights of children not to have unsolicited penises inserted into them.




And what horrible crimes did we commit to make Brendan ashamed of his non-belief? Well, for starters, we make pseudo-clever statements. The example he gives is “Did you know that Leviticus also frowns on having unkempt hair?” How dare some atheist point out the ridiculous shit in Leviticus! What kind of asshole would try to diffuse the exact portion of the bible that is used to justify bigotry against gays?! What kind of asshole would point out the inconsistency of using the book to justify discrimination while ignoring the parts about shellfish?...

The biggest flaw in his reasoning, of course, is that he seems to think that people’s beliefs deserve respect. He seems to believe that people should have carte blanche to spread whatever nonsensical and demonstrably false notions about the world they care to and nobody should ever point out that they’re wrong. Because that would be smug. Or annoying. And it’s way better to be ignorant. It’s way better to live in a world surrounded by ignorance. One where scientific advancement is stifled, women are institutionally discriminated against, gays are flatly denied rights, children are physically and psychologically abused and looming environmental disasters are ignored on the authority of a book that can be proved fallacious by a ten year old.


So in conclusion to Brendan O’Neill, a man too cowardly to publicly embrace his own atheism, a man that would rather endorse the stereotype than prove it wrong, a man that would spend a whole column writing about how superior he is to all of those atheists with their superiority complexes, I want to say that we’d also rather you identify yourself as a Catholic.


Full text below (http://scathingatheist.com/2013/08/22/episode-27-partial-transcript/) (http://scathingatheist.com/2013/08/22/episode-27-partial-transcript/):
It seems that if you want to get an op-ed about atheism published in a British paper, you have two choices when it comes to your subject. You could either write about what a bunch of assholes atheists are or you could write about what a bunch of racists atheists are.

Take for example a recent op-ed that appeared in Telegraph by one Brendan O’Neill. O’Neill is an atheist who titled his column “How Atheists Became the Most Colossally Smug and Annoying People on the Planet” and then backs it up by spending the entire column being colossally smug and annoying.
I made it as far as the headline before I decided to start writing a refutation of his points for this week’s diatribe and when I finished I looked back over my notes and discovered that I’d simply written “fuck you, fuck you, fuck you” for three pages, and while that perfectly captured my sentiment after reading this crap I felt I owed our listeners a bit more specificity than that.

So let’s look at the specific points he made, and don’t worry, there aren’t many. O’Neill isn’t so much a “facts and data” guy as he is a “anecdotal assertions and hand-waving dismissals” guy, so there isn’t much to refute.

He starts the article by lamenting a time when atheists weren’t such smug pains in the ass. When one could say one was an atheist without people assuming that they were (quote) “a smug, self-righteous loather of dumb hicks”. Apparently he longs for the good old days when people would just burn you alive.
Why, it’s gotten so bad that when people ask him, he doesn’t even use the “A” word; he says he’s a very lapsed Catholic. And think about how smug and annoying we had to get before somebody would rather associate themselves with a group that actively campaigns against the rights of women, the rights of gays and the rights of children not to have unsolicited penises inserted into them.

And what horrible crimes did we commit to make Brendan ashamed of his non-belief? Well, for starters, we make pseudo-clever statements. The example he gives is “Did you know that Leviticus also frowns on having unkempt hair?” How dare some atheist point out the ridiculous shit in Leviticus! What kind of asshole would try to diffuse the exact portion of the bible that is used to justify bigotry against gays?! What kind of asshole would point out the inconsistency of using the book to justify discrimination while ignoring the parts about shellfish?

But don’t worry, that’s not all we did wrong. We also had the audacity to be smarter than theists and recognize that. He takes his atheist Facebook friends to task for sharing the recent meta-analysis we discussed last week that once again showed the correlation between intelligence and atheism. O’Neill dismisses the whole study as being “Not scientific, not research” and is, in fact, (quote) “a pre-existing belief dolled up in rags snatched from various reports and stories.”

This is a meta-analysis of scores of studies weighted by the scientific rigor with which the studies were conducted. While one can still argue causation if one wishes, the fact that atheists are, on the average, more intelligent than believers is undeniably true. Mountains of data back up this assertion. But that doesn’t stop O’Neill from pretending it was some flyer a crazy guy on the subway was handing out… Pre-existing beliefs, he says. Well, yeah, because we already knew that shit long before they did this particular study you puddle of anal sweat.

To give you a true idea about what a bunch of brain feces he was throwing against the wall, he actually says at one point that Richard Dawkins’ Twitter followers (quote) “make those Kool-Aid-drinking Jonestown folks seem level headed in comparison”. And he says this while lamenting other people being smug and pseudo-clever.

The biggest flaw in his reasoning, of course, is that he seems to think that people’s beliefs deserve respect. He seems to believe that people should have carte blanche to spread whatever nonsensical and demonstrably false notions about the world they care to and nobody should ever point out that they’re wrong. Because that would be smug. Or annoying. And it’s way better to be ignorant. It’s way better to live in a world surrounded by ignorance. One where scientific advancement is stifled, women are institutionally discriminated against, gays are flatly denied rights, children are physically and psychologically abused and looming environmental disasters are ignored on the authority of a book that can be proved fallacious by a ten year old.

So in conclusion to Brendan O’Neill, a man too cowardly to publicly embrace his own atheism, a man that would rather endorse the stereotype than prove it wrong, a man that would spend a whole column writing about how superior he is to all of those atheists with their superiority complexes, I want to say that we’d also rather you identify yourself as a Catholic.

[LA Ute]

Of interest to this thread:


The U.S. Justice Department says in a legal filing leaders of an atheist group qualify for the same housing tax exemption priests receive.

The paradoxical position comes in response to a lawsuit by the Freedom from Religion Foundation in Madison, Wis., which seeks to end the parsonage tax break granted to priests, ministers, rabbis and other clergy by the U.S. government. The tax break allows them to claim part of their income as a tax-free housing allowance.

Annie Laurie Gaylor, who receives a $15,000 housing stipend from the Freedom from Religion Foundation, is suing the federal government because she has to pay taxes on that money while "ministers of the gospel," as the law defines priests, do not.

In response, the federal government said rather than agree to end the parsonage exemption it could be extended to Gaylor because she is the leader of a religious movement -- albeit one that does not believe in God.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/08/26/Atheists-seek-end-to-clergy-home-tax-break/UPI-83281377548616/#ixzz2dYRKczJ2



"It's men in shorts."

-- Rick Majerus

[NorthwestUteFan]

So basically Noah goes all in on embracing the stereotype that O'Neill lamented. He even makes vocal disrespect a litmus test for "pure" atheism. If you're not a jerk, we don't want you!

When somebody throws a stereotype at a large (and rapidly growing) group of people and backs it up with thin assertions that disregard the better part of two millenia of institutionalized murder and abuse against said group for the mere fact that they either believe in a different magical sky being, or believe that the notion of a magical sky being who creates hurricanes out of rage while he helps old ladies find their keys, it is best to own the stereotype while obliterating his assertions.

[Mormon Red Death]

Of interest to this thread:




"It's men in shorts."

-- Rick Majerus
Say you work for the church can you claim the sane parsonage exemption as those priest do?

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

[LA Ute]

Say you work for the church can you claim the sane parsonage exemption as those priest do?

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

I'm sure the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations contain the answer.


"It's men in shorts."

-- Rick Majerus

[Devildog]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhtaXzu2kto

[cald22well]

So basically Noah goes all in on embracing the stereotype that O'Neill lamented. He even makes vocal disrespect a litmus test for "pure" atheism. If you're not a jerk, we don't want you!

That's not how I took it. From what I read, he is basically saying, If speaking out against flaws in logic makes one smug and annoying, then so be it. It's not always the actions of atheists that make people hate them, just the simply fact that people hate their religion being called into question. People of every belief system can be smug and annoying.

[UtahDan]

For the record, all the atheist friends and acquaintances I have are very classy about their views. Most are really closer to being agnostics.

Oh, shut up.

[UtahDan]

I feel that whether devoutly religious or atheist, some people simply feel the need to defend their beliefs or convert people to their beliefs. I understand this on the part of Christians and any religion in which missionary work is a big part of the religion. As an atheist though, I never understood why other agnostics or atheists felt this need. When being attacked on my beliefs, I will most certainly defend them. But what does it change in my life if others are atheist?

The answer is that religious belief drives public policy. That said, as much as I enjoy the neo-atheists, bludgeoning theists with rhetoric is demonstrably ineffective.

[LA Ute]

The answer is that religious belief drives public policy. That said, as much as I enjoy the neo-atheists, bludgeoning theists with rhetoric is demonstrably ineffective.

Besides, you like many of us. (Don't you?)

[UtahDan]

Besides, you like many of us. (Don't you?)

A few of you anyway.

[LA Ute]

A few of you anyway.

http://www.orkugifs.com/en/images/smiley-sticking-tongue-out_1843.gif

[GarthUte]

There are no atheists in foxholes!

[DanielLaRusso]

There are no atheists in foxholes!

Come again?
769

[UtahDan]

Come again?
769

http://www.salon.com/2011/09/15/roger_ebert/

Anyone who has not read Ebert's thoughts about his own demise should consider them.

[NorthwestUteFan]

There are nice ways to point out logical flaws, and there are smug, annoying, and condescending ways as well. It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice? Besides, logic is only one path to truth, and it is certainly not a flawless path.



Certainly true. I cross the line too frequently.

I think we all know atheists who we love to be around, but I wouldn't want to have lunch with the angry atheists who rip everything to shreds on internet comment boards. Seems like that's all the first guy was saying.

Most of the time a calm and mutually respectful discussion the best way to go. But sometimes when the attack is particularly thick headed, an acerbic "Eff You!" is required.

The response I posted was very acerbic, but was effective in balancing out the drivel in O'Neill's op ed.

We shouldn't forget that this back-and-forth discussion about whether a supreme being exists is STILL largely a First World opportunity. Just this year a number of people in Bangladesh were rounded up and murdered for crimes as big as running a skeptical blog, starting an Atheist Facebook page, and participating in online discussions regarding the existence of a God, or even to simply question whether the locally accepted God is the only one to worship.

[NorthwestUteFan]

There are no atheists in foxholes!

You know I love you Garth, but wouldn't your premise inevitably lead one to WANT to die when the bombs rain down? If we can spend forever in paradise with our loved ones, will it really matter in ten thousand years whether we die in a foxhole at age 19, or on our bed surrounded by loving family members at 102 yrs of age? I recognize that faith is a great comfort. But if we truly believe in paradise after this life, wouldn't we prefer to die to get there sooner? Shouldn't a funeral be exclusively a joyful event?

An argument can be made that there are no THEISTS in foxholes.

:D

[LA Ute]

Oh, shut up.

Well, OK, most of them.


"It's men in shorts."

-- Rick Majerus

[DrumNFeather]

http://www.salon.com/2011/09/15/roger_ebert/

Anyone who has not read Ebert's thoughts about his own demise should consider them.

I wonder though if it is easier to get there being terminal, versus walking through daily life not knowing when it will all end.

[LA Ute]

http://www.salon.com/2011/09/15/roger_ebert/

Anyone who has not read Ebert's thoughts about his own demise should consider them.

Beautifully written, but I think he doth protest too much.


"It's men in shorts."

-- Rick Majerus

[mUUser]

...if we truly believe in paradise after this life, wouldn't we prefer to die to get there sooner?...

:D


Maybe for some. As for me, I wouldn't want to skip Little League, even if I knew one day I'd be playing in the Bigs.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Maybe for some. As for me, I wouldn't want to skip Little League, even if I knew one day I'd be playing in the Bigs.

And THAT my friend is a great answer, and indicative of a person who enjoys living life to its fullest. (Or "it's fullest" if you are from Montana)

[LA Ute]

Maybe for some. As for me, I wouldn't want to skip Little League, even if I knew one day I'd be playing in the Bigs.

:clap:


"It's men in shorts."

-- Rick Majerus

[Devildog]

You know I love you Garth, but wouldn't your premise inevitably lead one to WANT to die when the bombs rain down? If we can spend forever in paradise with our loved ones, will it really matter in ten thousand years whether we die in a foxhole at age 19, or on our bed surrounded by loving family members at 102 yrs of age? I recognize that faith is a great comfort. But if we truly believe in paradise after this life, wouldn't we prefer to die to get there sooner? Shouldn't a funeral be exclusively a joyful event?

An argument can be made that there are no THEISTS in foxholes.

:D

I suspect you've never seen artillery shells explode.

It's not the being dead that bothers ya... it's the getting dead that sucks.

[GarthUte]

Come again?
769

Are you saying that Tillman hid in foxholes? :)

[GarthUte]

You know I love you Garth, but wouldn't your premise inevitably lead one to WANT to die when the bombs rain down? If we can spend forever in paradise with our loved ones, will it really matter in ten thousand years whether we die in a foxhole at age 19, or on our bed surrounded by loving family members at 102 yrs of age? I recognize that faith is a great comfort. But if we truly believe in paradise after this life, wouldn't we prefer to die to get there sooner? Shouldn't a funeral be exclusively a joyful event?

An argument can be made that there are no THEISTS in foxholes.

:D

I can only speak for myself, but I'd rather stick around as long as I can.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I can only speak for myself, but I'd rather stick around as long as I can.

Ditto, because I am not at all confident of anything beyond the grave.

[LA Ute]

Ditto, because I am not at all confident of anything beyond the grave.

"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?"

[LA Ute]

Steve Martin has written a hymn for "hymn-deprived atheists."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFWA1A9XFi8#t=38

[concerned]

Steve Martin has written a hymn for "hymn-deprived atheists."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFWA1A9XFi8#t=38

was that the Red Butte performance? He sang that song at Red Butte last summer, and it got a huge response. Sounds like this audience might have been that one, although he threw in a reference to Mormons in the refrain, and I didn't hear it here.

[jrj84105]

I wonder how many times the notion of theism was brought up before it caught on. I imagine the first few guys who tried to pull it off got a club upside the head. Invisioning myself as a prehistoric man introduced to novel explanations of a largely incomprehensible world, I wonder what I would have bought into.

LUCK: I think I would have jumped at "luck" the first time it was brought up. Any alternative to a completely random punitive world would have been welcome.
SUPERSTITIOUS ACTIONS/TALISMANS: Once you believe some people have luck and others don't, you'd naturally want to get some of that luck. I think I totally would have adopted prevalent superstitions/talismans. In your limited sample size of observations, some would look very convincing.
CURSES: Other people messing with my luck? That sounds a little suspect, but might have covered my bases anyway.
SHAMANISM: So I give you something valuable and in return you do the superstitions better than me? Nope- and don't try and sell that BS to my clan.
THEISM: So I give you something valuable and in return you speak on my behalf to an all-powerful unseen being? That guy gets clubbed for trying to pull one over on me.

[wuapinmon]

I wonder how many times the notion of theism was brought up before it caught on. I imagine the first few guys who tried to pull it off got a club upside the head. Invisioning myself as a prehistoric man introduced to novel explanations of a largely incomprehensible world, I wonder what I would have bought into.

LUCK: I think I would have jumped at "luck" the first time it was brought up. Any alternative to a completely random punitive world would have been welcome.
SUPERSTITIOUS ACTIONS/TALISMANS: Once you believe some people have luck and others don't, you'd naturally want to get some of that luck. I think I totally would have adopted prevalent superstitions/talismans. In your limited sample size of observations, some would look very convincing.
CURSES: Other people messing with my luck? That sounds a little suspect, but might have covered my bases anyway.
SHAMANISM: So I give you something valuable and in return you do the superstitions better than me? Nope- and don't try and sell that BS to my clan.
THEISM: So I give you something valuable and in return you speak on my behalf to an all-powerful unseen being? That guy gets clubbed for trying to pull one over on me.

The Sumerians had Meni, the Latins...Fortuna. Luck has been deified for millenia. I'm not sure which came first, but I see all as able to occur in any agricultural society concurrently.

[LA Ute]

The Sumerians had Meni, the Latins...Fortuna. Luck has been deified for millenia. I'm not sure which came first, but I see all as able to occur in any agricultural society concurrently.

But what about Steve Martin's hymn? Wasn't it awesome?

[jrj84105]

The Sumerians had Meni, the Latins...Fortuna. Luck has been deified for millenia. I'm not sure which came first, but I see all as able to occur in any agricultural society concurrently.

To me luck is intuitive (but false), and superstition a logical extension. The latter things I don't think are intuitive. If you have any degree of specialization (as allowed in agricultural societies) you would probably expect to see shamanism emerge as a pretty natural extension. Being a shaman though would be intrinsically very dangerous, because you're promising things that you can't deliver. Hence you need a plausible excuse for when things don't go well. Powerful, but unpredictable gods each with differening motives seem to have filled a scapegoat role pretty nicely in ancient religions. I have to think that the concept of faith must have been intrinsic to arriving at monotheism. It's the only way you can have a singular god with singular intent where worship can still have inconsistent results. A requirement of faith and role of divine testing of faith place the onus of failure back on the adherent rather than on the shaman/clerical intermediate. Faith is really an incredibly brilliant concept for keeping a clergy class in power without having final responsibility for outcomes.

[Freaky Girl]

Steve Martin has written a hymn for "hymn-deprived atheists."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFWA1A9XFi8#t=38


The atheists in our congregation used Steve Martin's song for the closing performance at 'church' during the summer, the week they did the service. The service was very interesting and I loved the song.

[mUUser]

My dad is agnostic. He left the LDS church some 50 years ago. He's now 87. I was talking to him the other day about his diabetes and asked him why he wasn't taking the meds the doctor prescribed, and he said he just had a "feeling" the meds would screw him up.

I told him "You're atheist! Atheists don't make decisions based on gut feelings. Atheists make decisions based on facts, logic and science. This medicine has been scientifically proven to help people just like you!" He was quiet for a moments….then I said, "it sucks that I just destroyed the last 50 years of your life's philosophy in one sentence, doesn't it?" He just laughed, said goodbye and hung up.

Such a great guy, and a great dad. Hope I'm half the dad he is.

[LA Ute]

This is for SeattleUte:

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/01/09/4f08eb315d730ed68716b691cb38cf49.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk