Projections And Assumptions

[BrainEatingApe]

Russell has no idea what Tracie's talking about, because he's not listening to her.

[ddbd]

tracie got nice tits

[azzy314159]

@ddbd I can see where you come from. When someone thinks, talks and behaves in an attractive manner our perception of that person’s outward appearance alters subtly to become more like our subconscious ideal. Or perhaps our inner ideal changes to correspond to that person’s appearance. There must be a million women in America who are prettier than she is. Yet Tracie to me now looks like the woman I dreamed of.

(I presume it was a complement, not meant to be a typical bigot’s rude remark.)

[Jonstern1983]

What's more arrogant? "I don't believe there is a god," or "I know there is a god and I am made in his image."

[lothrazar]

Its a 50/50 chance that gremlins killed your car. isnt it clear? stop assuming the anti-gremlin position!

[purplejugnut]

that's why i play the lottery. there are only to things that could happen either i win or i lose that means i have a 50/50 chance. lol

[C0ldking]

Aww... thats the best anaology ... I bet it would strainten some heads

[Uhlbelk]

Terrible episode, I think its pretty obvious just from what she was explaining about her email that the person in the email was trying to say was, how could a big bang happen. If its impossible for science to tell us how the big bang happened, then the belief that a god created the big bang has the same chance of being correct. Every hypothesis, being equally unprovable has an equal chance of being correct. We just tend to boil the choices down to either god or no god.

[CrimsonHearld]

You are wrong, just because all you can think of is two possibilities doesn't mean the truth is somewhere in the middle. The big bang may be closer to the truth than some magical entity that poofed everything into existence, but it is not 50/50.

[Uhlbelk]

I think you misunderstood me, yes the big bang happened. Physics is pretty good about that. But what comes before the big bang is out of the realm of space and time and thus out of the possibility for our science to tell us anything. Thus any conjecture over what happened has 0 evidence and thus is equally believable.

[CrimsonHearld]

Again, not so right. Physics can say nothing of what happened at the big bang, all the equations they have break down at Planck time. So far they have managed to describe the universe after Planck time, there is no reason to believe that someday (we may be long dead when it happens) we will have a set of equations along with a theory to figure out what may or may not of happened.

[Uhlbelk]

I believe you just proved my point, there is no scientific evidence or even indication that science will ever tell us what came before the big bang. I know you intended to put a 'not' in your sentence "there is no reason to believe that someday we will have..." but that is the truth. There is no reason to believe science will provide an answer. Don't extrapolate and say belief in a god will discourage people seeking the answers because that would be a false statement I get tired of hearing.

[CrimsonHearld]

But a belief in a god, especially a Judeo-Christian-Islamic god tends to produce people that are told they have the answers in some book written before humans before we knew the earth orbits the sun and if you are a good little Xian soldier you won't question what your god did before the universe. Science divorced from religious colored glasses (not atheism, just an open un-biased mind) is probably the most effective way to at least seek answers and not be happy with "goddit".

[Uhlbelk]

Considering the great scientists of history have all been religious, that argument has always baffled me. Scientific curiosity is not dependant on religious belief. From my experience most scientists either divorce their beliefs from their work, or look at science as a way of understanding the universe god made (ie big bang). While some scientific dishonesty may cause some to try and prove religious doctrine with scientific research, it is quickly contested and actually brings more research.

[CrimsonHearld]

Quick history lesson: until recently, in the western world there were basically 3 options. Claim to be a Christian, be prosecuted as a heretic (unbeliever), or be an outcast in sense as a member of another religion. Also argument from authority holds no sway here.

[Uhlbelk]

This isn't an argument from authority, because I'm not claiming any truth in their religious beliefs. I'm pointing out that historically, scientists were religious so atheists who suppose that belief hinders scientific discovery have no foundation for that claim. Its equal to the claim by religious people that atheist societies lead to moral degredation, its not supported by historical evidence and is just conjecture.

[verstwo2]

Historically everyone is religious. Can you name an Atheist from the 12th century? Historically the 'church' has been opposed to 'scientific' discoveries. And throughout the middle ages scientific discoveries could only be made in defiance of the 'church'. The Renaissance and the enlightenment were good examples of this historically.

[Uhlbelk]

No, historically religion has not been opposed to scientific discoveries, they have been opposed to the conclusions of those discoveries. Most of the scientists were working by means of the church, whether it be through a university founded and supported by the church, or in a monastery. This isn't a debate on whether religion has caused impediments to the scientific process, this is pointing out that religion has primarily been the source of scientific progress.

[verstwo2]

"historically religion has not been opposed to scientific discoveries, they have been opposed to the conclusions of those discoveries."

Uh...and the difference is?

Historically EVERYTHING is by means of the church since historically the church had a monopoly on everything. The church forbade the examination of cadavers for centuries impeding the advancement of medical knowledge. This is often said to be a myth, but I assure you it is not, a quick look at the history of art will reveal.

[Uhlbelk]

So you agree with my statement. Which was merely a footnote on another topic to prevent a false argument from being brought up to obscure the original point. Which ended up being posed at the beginning of the next reply ANYWAY. So I will say that I agree with CrimsonHearld "Science divorced from religious colored glasses (not atheism, just an open un-biased mind) is probably the most effective way to at least seek answers" the rest of his/her statement was unfounded.

[shadows555]

i do agree that religion has nothing to do with science but not all were religious half at least and mabe more were atheist or agnostic not to mention depending on time period were talking about they might be closet atheists in that case we would never know for sure............but ya your right about the rest all it takes is the curiosity

[Sav3TheWorld]

conservatives,theists, idiots. All they do is project their flaws onto everyone else. Its a little annoying.

[UberLogic]

"Its a little annoying."

try EXTREMELY annoying

:)

[Vindaven]

Respect is not something that should be automatic. It should be earned.

[FSMGauss]

rampant projection from the people with books of made up answers always makes me angry.

(I dig the billy squier song at the beginning by the way!)

[blasphimus]

Has anyone heard of the god called "Blasphimus"? He is a mighty and powerful one. If you want to follow in his foot steps, then whip out your wallets for a low price of $1,000

Friends don't agree with you?

Not with your new god, tell them they are going to hell!

Love life not working well?

Blame god.

Loved one die?

Don't look to science, with Blasphimus and one low payment of $1,000, facts mean nothing!

When was your last god so cheap ?

[Swidhelm]

Do we get 72 sluts in heaven? Cause Islam is offering virgins, but let's be serious . . . who wants a virgin . . :P

[zgbrotherhood]

because you don't want to catch the nasty herpes in heaven

[Swidhelm]

Hm true. How about educated virgins? Ooh, and a sex swing.

[HammandClov]

May surprise you but the Bible is self-contradictory.

[magx01]

This was the first AE clip I can say was poor.

[qanazir]

When you make a positve claim you to provide the evidence to prove it.

If you provide no evidence I am inclined to reject it, as I have done with idea of a deity and the idea of an afterlife.

[jackferwerda]

Tracie is one of my favourite hosts of this show for sure.

[Gerafix]

Tracie is god in disguise.

Think about it.

[cyberdemon107]

"armchair psychologist"

try

"chairborne commando"

[BionicDance]

The problem is that they respond to questions as if they are to-the-death challenges.

You SAY, "Explain your reasoning so that I can understand it," and they HEAR, "Have at thee, varlet! Ha-HAH!"

So defensive...is it because they know that they can't defend their position? *raised eyebrow*

[HammandClov]

Probably defensive because you refuse to go with emotions as they are doing. They are not going on reason, but what they feel and that oftentimes is bad. The bad thing about feelings is even if you argue rationally against them, people will ignore because they believe it is their gut feeling that telling them something "true."

[BionicDance]

Well, I realize that this might shock theist types, but...I don't THINK with my gut. ;)

[Anekantavad]

Is there anyone who can successfully defend their position, assuming they have the desire to assert one?

[HammandClov]

Actually, NO. lol Aside from definitive things like 2 and 2 is 4, people are NOT very open-minded. Because the idea of god is so vague and NOT definite in terms, then people can make excuses for it or can use it as an excuse for the explanation of the world. As a kid, I build a dog house by myself. My father told me to thank god for it. And I thought about all the things it took to build that house and was like "Where does god come in all this?" People do not examine their beliefs at all.

[Anekantavad]

I would say that plenty of non-theists (myself included) take an awful lot on faith, such as the idea that all religious people believe that god (whatever that may mean) created the world, and this is quite certainly not the case, even within the written mythology. The Hindu Rig Veda says that maybe even god doesn't know where the universe came from. I wonder what Mr Dawkins & co would have to say to that? :-)

[godlessmessiah]

its doubtful that even the majority of religious followers actually REALLY believe what they are supposed to...

When ever I talk to theists face to face and lay out direct questions of absolute belief in heaven,hell,god,holy books....I RARELY get an immediate yes, almost always a "kind of" or "not too sure".

If people were protected from fanatics and the definitions of deist,agnostic and atheist were more well known, i think 40% of theists would leave instantly.

[Anekantavad]

I would say that it is impossible to know what anyone else believes. We cannot see the world from their point of view, as that involves crawling into their 'soul' and taking into account every experience they have ever had (this is the stuff that has created their beliefs). I have enough on my own plate, and I think that everyone else does, to prevent me from being able to do that.

[HammandClov]

Well, they would say that god is not a god then. If god does not know the beginning then he could not be a god as we all have come to believe that a god is all-knowing, all-powerful by definition. However, a god can have limitations and still be a god, such as in regards to our freedom of choice. Even so, because god is so impossible to define and the texts, all of them, are so unreliable, the idea of god then is just an idea.

[Anekantavad]

I would say that omnipotence and omniscience are pretty much meaningless terms, even when applied to god. Again, some Hindus believe in more than one god. How does this multiplicity affect omniscnence and omnipotence? Are Krishna and Kali gods, as they can't both be omnipotent, can they? Or is it just that our definition of 'god' is an incomplete and unreliable one? IMO any answer to that one is - and can only be - a matter of opinion and definition. Words.

[HammandClov]

Very true. But you can always say that those many gods act as a part of a whole god like the trinity of Christian god. We can never know god because our definition of it is what we make god our to be. A woman may think that god is a goddess and hates men. What we can say is the evolution of god has come down to the death of god b/c of it being so distant, so cold, and so irrational in that we are to worship them or him but WHAT are we praising exactly? Maybe faith needs to be stronger.

[Anekantavad]

As far as many gods being part of a whole, one could apply that to everything and anything that ever existed and was dreamed to exist (or dreamed to not exist, for the matter of that). Non-dualist theism (monism, advaita, holism) seems to assume that 'god' is the sum total of all the above, including dreams, ideas, thoughts, perceptions, speculations ad infinitum. The FSM might be a good parody of one idea of god, but it's a pretty weak caricature of the One of Aristotle or the Upanishads.

[HammandClov]

Well, yes but this galaxy has many parts of it that act on their own and yet work together to make this galaxy. Still, there are other galaxies out. Again, it is tough to define a god that really could care less about you. And in that, seems like god is a figment of the religious' imagination. However, a quote I remember is that god is the biggest thing you can imagine.

[Anekantavad]

Quite. And I wonder what Mr Dawkins & co would make of that quote ...

:-)

[HammandClov]

Problem with faith is that faith is either plain ignorance and knowing it is, or waiting for nothing to be something.

[Anekantavad]

Ah yes .... "plain ignorance and knowing it is" is IMO what wisdom is. Socrates was accounted the wisest of men because he alone knew that he knew nothing etc etc. I am (I suppose) a non-theist (again, whatever a 'theist' is supposed to be), but I am not sure enough of my info to say that I am an atheist. I don't know what I am, and on more levels than mere belief.

[HammandClov]

True, but it is a battle of reason vs faith. Should reason govern every part of your life? No, it should not and cannot, but in matters of religions, should it? You cannot have reason and religion in the same sentence therefore you just have to believe if you want to, but you know that you are playing the ignorant fool.

[Anekantavad]

I think that 'reason vs faith' may be a false dichotomy, in that we have a very hard time deciding what we mean by either term in the first place. To have a 'reason' to believe something doesn't make it true. And 'faith' is something we all take a leap of, every time we ever do anything. I am writing - I assume you understand, but I don't really know. I am alive, but I don't know what that means. The world 'exists', but I don't know on what level, nor what it actually means or even is

[HammandClov]

By reason, I mean things that definitive such as the mounting evidence against god's existence. It does not prove that god does not exist, but it proves that there are reasons to believe he doesn't and for you to say otherwise would be you arguing against definitive logic. This refusal is faith which is blind faith because you cannot just say there is no possibility when all possibilities have not been explored which gives BLIND faith a chance. Yet, blind faith goes against reason.

[Anekantavad]

I do not disagree. But I wonder if anyone has ever believed anything without any evidence. If they have no evidence, why (or in what way) do they believe it? The 'religious' kind of person might say that intuition, speculation, hope, faith etc are evidence, after all. One man's hallucination is another's solid fact, and we have no way of adjudicating between the two positions.

[HammandClov]

Of course but we say they are lunatics. There is no standard by which faith can be defined. Some people believe too literal, others not enough. I remember David Icke accidentally said he was the son of god and people laughed at him. Can you imagine if Christ came back and said that? Same responses. There is NO ONE who truly believes...rationally. If any god comes, he must prove it which makes believing pointless b/c EVERYONE will go "Oh, I believe now." Faith was not set up like that.

[Anekantavad]

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

[HammandClov]

lol. Perhaps, but possibilities are endless. Yet the idea of heaven and hell are ridiculous as if I am in hell, I am bound to get used to it. People, some, live in misery all their lives and it conditions them to form their own view of life. Heaven is foolish as hell. Happiness in being a slave? Even if I were happy all the time, what would it mean? Would that be the only mood I am in? There are a lot of problems with the idea of god and punishment/rewards.

[Anekantavad]

I agree. And now stop and take a look around you and how far 'out on the plank' you are. Aren't we straying into territory that will inevitably lead us to question Good and Evil themselves? IMO we are, and now we are starting to understand why the Wise Man once said "If god did not exist it would be necessary to invent him".

[HammandClov]

Wise atheist: "The idea of god is the biggest cow cash in the history of the world." We are always on the edge of the plank which is why we question the whole god thing, even though you will believe what you will and I as well. Good and Evil lies in us all. And humans are naturally evil due ignorance and good is subjective. So what is the nature of god? Is he both good and evil or is he only half of a duality concept? And if so, can either the good or the bad do the opposite of their nature?

[Anekantavad]

This is, of course, why I question the certainties of both the religious and the positively non-religious. Each side is just looking at a much larger issue from one limited point of view. the entire 'atheist debate' gets hopelessly muddled, with logical arguments against god's existence drawing in irrelevancies like whether or not religion is a bad thing, or why atheism is an undesirable ideology. What has that got to do with it all?

[HammandClov]

That is the thing. There is no true way. Atheism could be wrong as Christianity can, but you choose to believe what you want. This is why there is no definite way to understand life's questions. Atheism is more realistic, but then again evidence does not mean certainty. Religion is too imaginative and can be twisted however you want, but wouldn't you like some comfort in something more concrete instead of fairy tales.

[Anekantavad]

Depends upon how one reads the fairy tales, I suppose. The Bhagavad Gita is a favourite read of mine, because I read it as a giant parable - a means of expressing truths that can only be gotten at parabolically. I don't see it as anything 'real' per se, but I see the ideas nehind it as a lot more 'real' than the laws of physics, as it can help me figure out what I am. The laws of physics can't explain consciousness, existence, dreams, hopes, experiences, etc, and so are of limited use to me.

[HammandClov]

As a writer, I love fairy tales and they are some truths within them, but in regards to understanding those truth, there is no one real answer. Parables are problematic b/c I can say this and you say that because of ambiguity. The laws of physics are limited but they are definite; however, the question is whether we should rely on Science to explain everything and call it "unexplained" when they can't do so because deities are what we make them out to be.

[Anekantavad]

That's the thing about "Truth". If one could just talk about it, we wouldn't have any confusion at all as humans, as Reality would be laid bare for all to see. We can't; such are the limitations of human language. And I agree that whatever meaning is attributed to parables comes from the reader, not the book.

Science is a tool, nothing more, and even it ends up going off the map ebentually. Time, space, life, matter and consciousness are 'science', but we don't know what any of them are.

[HammandClov]

Truth is subjective outside of Science. 2 and 2 is 4. You cannot change that at all. It is a fact. God exist. This is a subjective truth that you may believe that I may not. Truth is within the individual and is up to him to define. Of course, the majority of people will be sheep and follow Science or religion at face value because "it's the thing to do."

[campbellanderson]

Science does not disprove God, it just disproves what he can do and how he does it.

[HammandClov]

I never said it did.

[Borostiliont]

Although one makes much more sense to follow, don't you think? >_>

[HammandClov]

Not everything that make sense is good to "follow." That sounds like sheep-grazing and not thinking for yourself. If I give you a difficult math problem, sure it makes sense to use a calculator for quicker results but you can do it on your own with a pencil and paper.

[Borostiliont]

I'm not saying that this is what I do, but you should feel more comfortable believing when scientists say Saturn is closer to the sun than Jupiter because I know that this has been conclusively proven and observed. Have I ever attempted taken measurements? No.

One uses evidence; the other uses ... faith.

[HammandClov]

True, but I don;t. That is a problem I have with most people is that whatever Science says, they say it is true. They do not try to understand it themselves, and I am not saying I understand everything, but I want to know it for myself.. If god had evidence of his existence, believing in him would be pointless b/c he would be a fact. We do not believe facts; know facts. This is the point of faith. If god existed, EVERYONE would follow him, thus cornerstone of god - faith - pointless.

[Borostiliont]

Does it not seem nonsene to you that God requests us to believe in him, purposefully not providing us with evidence?

Faith seems more of an excuse than a reason.

[HammandClov]

True, but again, if you have evidence, then EVERYONE would follow suit like sheep. The fact that any atheist argue against god is stupid because belief in god is the suspend of rationality. You usually do not believe in anything that is not there, right? Most believers are stupid or intentionally ignore reason for faith. Even so, science adds more contradictions for it.

The world is not govern by reason alone, you have plenty of instances where you were left with faith in some uncertainty.

[Borostiliont]

Don't want to have to squeeze this into 500 character limits. Mind adding me as a friend so I can temporarily bypass the friend lock on your email?

[godlessmessiah]

"if god existed, everyone would follow him"

not true, it depends entirely on the characteristics...

If a god did exist and turned out to be a word for word version of the old testament or Koran, I wouldnt follow it, I would be against it.

If it doesnt control us like puppets, many would not feel the need to follow, some may not believe its telling the truth , some might want to take a chance that the devil is the good guy or gives them more to offer, some may continue to believe in other gods

[godlessmessiah]

the simple fact is that it creates a paradox if it were the god of the bible, no person in the bible needed faith, everyone knew, everyone saw god,jesus,miracles,events ,even the denyers like thomas, the bible also claims god is unchanging...

so by not showing himself, its a contradiction, however if he does now and hasnt for the past 2000 years , then he also hasnt lived upto his word therefor a liar and/or imperfect and/or the bible isnt truthful.

[HammandClov]

I have to agree, but I meant the sheep. I personally would not follow him/her if I found them to be hypocritical, selective, etc. But if there was evidence of god, the majority of people INCLUDING atheists would jump right on the boat. I think there are only a few freethinking atheists out.

[Anekantavad]

2+2=4, does it? Two of what? What's a 2 anyway? What if it's 2 halves we are adding together? Wouldn't that be a case of 2+2=1?

2 is a concept, and concepts have no existence outside the human mind.

Just like god :-)

[HammandClov]

Now you are sounding like Ray Comfort and his banana theory. 2 and 2 is 4 is an absolute fact that cannot be twisted. It is not a concept as concepts are abstract. I give a 5 for $3 soda, you give me 2 back, that is addition of which numbers are a part of. But god is anything you want him to be. When I believed, I pictured god to be a strict god who could NOT be questioned. You may think god has a sense of humor. Who knows. God is a concept, thus, does not exist outside U.

[Anekantavad]

I disagree that 2 and 2 is 4 is an absolute, because 2 does not phenomenally exist (nor does a dollar, for the matter of that). Concepts only exist because we agree they do.

[HammandClov]

Well, you have to go beyond that because that is reasonably established as a law. There are laws of nature, science etc, and there are things that rely on the senses that we believe to be true because it is just there. If you felt down and out, you would want to understand why, thus there is a believed reason even though feeling down and out is just a feeling. Nothing more. Much like god, he is an idea, but to go beyond that is up to you but does not make it true.

[Anekantavad]

There may be 'laws' of nature, physics, etc, but they will only get you so far. The reason we even call them 'laws' is that we don't really know what or why they are. They are laws Because God Said So, just like mosaic law.

Besides, as I said, they talk about all kinds of things, but the things they describe (space, time, matter, life etc) are complete mysteries to us. We have no idea what they really are. The 'laws' describe them, but they don't tell us what they actually are, or why.

[HammandClov]

Because god said so? Which one?

"Mosaic law" you mean the biblical laws, etc? Those laws are basically written up by man, not god. Sure you can say INSPIRED but then again, most of the old testament plagiarizes other sources. And any morality therein is rather common sense. The laws are so simple that most societies have those same unspoken laws.

[Anekantavad]

I wasn't saying that I agree with it; I was just saying that that's why they were originally called 'laws' and not rules or suchlike. When you say the 'law of gravity', the next logical question is 'why?', and of course there is no answer. Thus Because God Made a Law.

Law, at the time when the 'laws' of physics, etc were being 'discovered' meant something religiously-, not rationally-based.

Use 'law' in today's sense, and the next time we have a vote, the apple falls back into the tree.

[Swidhelm]

Whoah! I see your point, but some of those laws in the old testament are down right psycotic. Yes agreed most of the old testement, and much of the new and many of the traditions of modern christianity were hijacked from other religions, but no one wants those old laws. Hell you can't cut your hair above your shoulder or its stoning to death. I guess though you are reffereing to the ten commandments?

[HammandClov]

Yes, some of the commandments are pretty obvious and sensible like honor your parents, don't kill, don't covet (I like this because just get what you want for yourself)

[Swidhelm]

True enough. It's the other laws that I don't like. I do find it amusing though that the ten commandments say do not kill, yet Exodus, Leviticus, Deutoronomy and so on all condone killing.

[utukkuxul]

Because the commandment was not to murder, not not to kill. There's a difference.

[Swidhelm]

True enough. But personally I think stoning someone to death for wearing a fabric of two different threads is a smidge harsh. Same goes for cutting hair shorter than shoulder length. Me, I shave my head with a razor. By christain and jewish law I should be stoned to death.

[utukkuxul]

Oh I'm not defending the Bible, simply stating that the commandment was not to murder. I do consider stoning someone to death for stupid shit murder, but I wasn't even thinking about that when I replied to you. My mistake.

[Swidhelm]

No worries. Got your point. I just think its funny how stoning someone to death for something as rediculous as cutting your hair above shoulder length is not considered murder. :P Heh.

[ARedButtonThatSaysDo]

I almost obeyed Jesus' commandment to cut off my right hand, right foot, and right eye.

[HammandClov]

Well, that is you, But me, a rational person, only like the SENSIBLE and rational commandments. Plus, that just sound absolutely stupid as some of that stuff is not meant to be taken literally.

[ARedButtonThatSaysDo]

What way is there to take things beside literally? None.

[HammandClov]

You're telling me if you say you are so hungry you could eat a horse, you are going to go find a horse and eat it?

Oh and figuratively, metaphorically, maybe?

[ARedButtonThatSaysDo]

I see that, but we're talking about the bible and eating a horse thing isn't a commandment.

[HammandClov]

Okay, okay. I see where you are going with this and I do not know whether or not you intentionally acting stupid or probably are, but whatever dude, you are making silly Creationists sound smarter than you.

[ARedButtonThatSaysDo]

Your making me sound smarter than you because your not arguing anymore. You gave up. I win.

[HammandClov]

I doubt I am making you sound smarter as your bad spelling reveals your stupidity more so than your intelligence.

[ARedButtonThatSaysDo]

It takes a true idiot to not think when led to in an argument just because of a spelling error. I would agree that spelling errors are bad if it caused you to not understand. But your instead of you're, come on.

[HammandClov]

This is not an argument. It is just you acting stupid.

[ARedButtonThatSaysDo]

You're stupid for implying that I like the commandment that I almost obeyed.

[HammandClov]

Once again, you confess your own stupidity. If you took all of the Bible literally, you are truly an easily led fool. Even so called Christians can distinguish the literal from the figurative.

[ARedButtonThatSaysDo]

Yes, I WAS an easily led fool AND stupid.

[PeteD85]

"honor your parents"

What if you parents are homicidal maniacs?

[HammandClov]

Honor means respect. You do not have to LIKE them or agree with them. My parents are devout Christians and would freak out if they find out I am an atheist no matter how old I am.

[TheMisterEX]

The laws that have been described by science will get you a hell of a lot further than the so-called laws of your fantasy god.

Stop projecting your ignorance of the universe on people that both know and understand more than you do. You aren't the end all of knowledge, you are just a fool.

[Anekantavad]

Whose 'fantasy god' are you referring to?

And who is projecting? I am not promoting theism or Xianity or anything, and if you would be so kind as to read what I write prior to hurling insults, you would have seen that.

[TheMisterEX]

I didn't reply to you, youtube had a brain fart.

[gtg309v]

It's illusion.

[Anekantavad]

Prove it

:-)

[gtg309v]

Existence defined by logical absolutes, which relies on pluralism and dichotomies. For existence itself to exist, it must also rely on pluralism and dichotomy. This creates illogical logic, noncontradictory contradiction, etc. In other words, the idea of existence itself could never account for all that there is, since it would be self-contradictory.

It is similar to determining whether the statement "This is a false statement" is true or false; it can't be done.

[Anekantavad]

And I do not disagree. I might have phrased it all in a different way, but that's just because you and I inhabit different 'universes'. This is why I wondered why you would say that something is an illusion .... just another statement, I suppose.

:-)

[Katalyzt]

Indeed ★★★★★

[Anekantavad]

Well, this all seems to say that atheism is all about what you don't know. This IMO is a very good start.

Is atheism an essentially negative thing? Is it just a position that says 'prove it'? If so, I think that the title it has given itself (atheism) is a bit of a misnomer, since you can apply that skepticism to absolutely everything. This is fair ball, but 'atheism' says as much about that position as having a bank account says about the ultimate nature of greed.

[Gerafix]

Atheism is all about what you DO know that is backed up by empirical evidence. Atheism is a misnomer. Using atheism used to identify yourself is like saying you're a non-stamp collector for a hobby. When somebody tries to tie only believing in things which are backed up by empirical evidence to morals - you know they are truly misguided and in need of a proper education.

[Anekantavad]

Well, is anything 'backed up by empirical evidence'?

And as for people who are 'truly misguided and in need of a proper education', this leaves open the chilling question of what form that education should take, and who should be tasked with providing it.

[phocjame]

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, don't try to assign different meanings to it.

[Anekantavad]

Why do you think I am trying to do any such thing? I don't think I am. In fact , I would just say that I am asking for clarification.

Atheism (like any other -ism) ought to be analyzed as critically as possible. That's how we get to the truth, no?

[FluidwithinStrife]

Anekantavad: "Atheism ought to be analyzed as criticially as possible."

That's like saying that non-Christianity or non-Islam ought to be analyzed as critically as possible. If by "ism" you mean a belief system, then Atheism isn't an "ism." You can't really break down or analyze atheism because it isn't consisted of different parts. It's just a lack of belief in all gods, that's it.

[Anekantavad]

That may be your definition of atheism, but plenty of self-defined atheists might not agree. To Lenin (a self-identified atheist), it went a bit further than mere disbelief:

"Every religious idea, every little god, even flirting with a little god, is unutterable vileness...vileness of the most dangerous kind, a plague of the most abominable kind. A million sins, filthy deeds, acts of violence and physical plagues are much less dangerous."

You see, there's more to it than postage stamps.

[apocalypseap]

Agnosticism is not the lack of belief, genius. Agnosticism is a stance on the absolute certainty of knowledge. Moronic creationists and cowardly atheists mis-labeled agnosticism because they were afraid to use the word "atheist."

[phocjame]

Atheism doesn't need to be analysed at all.

It is as clear as you could possibly make it - the lack of belief in a god.

Exactly how do you analyse the statement "I don't believe in God" to get to the truth of whether or not there is a god?

The answer is that you can't, instead you analyse and research the evidence or lack thereof with regard to claims of divine presence.

[Anekantavad]

I disagree. If atheism is just non-stamp-collecting, one assumes that god and stamps are equally easily-defined things, and they are quite definitely not.

To say that "atheists don't believe in god" assumes there is agreement on what is meant by "god", otherwise it's meaningless. There is no equation (or creed) devoid of content, and it's the content that needs to be analyzed.

If I say I don't believe in quertko's, does this mean that anyone can really grasp what my point of view is?

[dunndudebemelol]

who cares about Daniel Radcliffe?

[meloveanna]

Harry Potter is an Atheist (daniel radcliffe)

[ArgoSG]

A result of him being born in England as opposed to Saudi Arabia.

[Gerafix]

Everybody is an atheist, he just takes it one fairy tale further.

[Anekantavad]

Everybody is an atheist? Hmm ... Do you think you (or anyone) have the capacity to be that categorical? I am sure there are at least a few people out there who do not consider themselves atheists. Are you saying that you know their minds and beliefs better than you do?

[phocjame]

He appears to be trying to repeat something earlier stated by Richard Dawkins:

"Everybody is an atheist with respect to every god but their own, we just take it one god further."

I know this is not Dawkins' exact statement, but you get the idea.

[Anekantavad]

I do. But I might disagree with the good Mr Dawkins. He seems to have (and admit to have) only one view of what 'god' is. I agree that each of us has our own view on the matter, but that ultimately pertains to everything. We don't ourselves really know what we believe, so it's a bit presumptuous to think that we know what someone else believes.

[Trisnowda]

coool