View Full Version : Kissing Hank's Ass.
Dead Helmsman
2005-06-17, 20:23
This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:
John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the shit out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ass."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"
Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the shit out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary: "Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."
Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"
John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the shit out of you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."
Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."
Me: "Who's Karl?"
Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"
John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."
From the Desk of Karl:
1. Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2. Use alcohol in moderation.
3. Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
4. Eat right.
5. Hank dictated this list Himself.
6. The moon is made of green cheese.
7. Everything Hank says is right.
8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9. Don't use alcohol.
10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11. Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the shit out of you.
Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."
Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."
Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."
John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."
Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?"
Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me: "How do you figure that?"
Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"
Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."
Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"
(Mary blushes.)
John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."
Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"
John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"
(Mary looks positively stricken.)
John: (shouting). "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"
Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"
Mary: (Sticks her fingers in her ears.) "I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."
John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."
Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."
(Mary faints.)
John: (He catches Mary.) "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."
With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.
The Marksman
2005-06-17, 20:30
Yep sad but true
Dead Helmsman
2005-06-17, 20:32
A fine illustration of circular reasoning, don't you think?
Paradise Lost
2005-06-17, 20:47
Hank rocks my world.
Spic Power
2005-06-17, 20:48
Dont be a lazy atheist. Most of us long lerm MYGOD lurkers have read this before, how about you give us your input on this story? Obviously its well written and everything, but you are not even giving credit to the author or any sources, so you HAVE to provide input, or lostcause will go berserk on this thread.
Dead Helmsman
2005-06-17, 20:59
Very well. This fine parable comes from one Rev. Jim Huger (http://www.jhuger.com).
As for my input; suffice to say that I feel it's sort of rash to over-generalize in such a way, but I can't help but feel giddy at the power of it's simplicity. You know (or do you?) immediately what is being satyrized and it forces you to draw comparisons to your own experience in regard to the way fundamentalists argue their way out of logical inconsistency. It's built into their belief structure.
The Marksman
2005-06-17, 21:06
wow he rights alot of those
i particularly like
Let's suppose someone offers you the following wager: Roll a single die. If it comes up a six, they will give you ten thousand dollars. If it comes up 1 through 5, you give them one thousand dollars. Should you take the bet? The odds of winning are 1:6 and the payoff is 10:1. If you've got a thousand bucks to spare, it's a good bet. But if that money is supposed to go towards rent and utilities, then it would be irresponsible of you to make the bet.
If we atheists are right, this is the only life you have. Using it to place a risky bet is irresponsible.
only because it supports my beleifs.
[This message has been edited by The Marksman (edited 06-17-2005).]
napoleon_complex
2005-06-17, 21:18
quote:Originally posted by Dead Helmsman:
Very well. This fine parable comes from one Rev. Jim Huger (http://www.jhuger.com).
As for my input; suffice to say that I feel it's sort of rash to over-generalize in such a way, but I can't help but feel giddy at the power of it's simplicity. You know (or do you?) immediately what is being satyrized and it forces you to draw comparisons to your own experience in regard to the way fundamentalists argue their way out of logical inconsistency. It's built into their belief structure.
I'd say that it is built into everyone's belief structure, not just fundies.
It is human nature to be defensive and protective about your beliefs.
The Marksman
2005-06-17, 21:36
so im interested enough in this to search up how he came to write kissing hanks ass
and i found this
he also writes
I found a quiet place and put myself in the proper frame of mind. I reached out and invited God into my life. I felt what I took to be God's presence. I asked if I was speaking with God. I got the answer "Yes". I asked how I could know it was really God. I knew, in a way that those of you who haven't had a similar experience just can't understand. I asked if He was my Creator. I got the answer "Yes". I asked if the creation account in the Bible was correct. Have you ever heard God laugh? I did. It was a deep, good-natured laugh that made it clear that the Bible was not correct in this regard. I asked if evolution was correct. The answer was something like "It's closer" or "in part". I asked if he was a figment of my imagination, or part of my sub-conscious. The answer was "No". I asked if He existed. He said "No." Thinking I might know the answer to this paradox I asked if I should believe in him anyway. He said "No", not the answer I expected
You may think I'm joking, or mocking those who claim to talk with God, or trying to make a point but I'm being completely serious, and as genuine as I can be. I was there, in the presence of what was undeniably God being told by God that there was no God, and that I should not believe in Him.
is there no one who can accept a universe without a creator?
tell me im not the only one
[This message has been edited by The Marksman (edited 06-17-2005).]
Gen. Patton
2005-06-18, 02:26
Umm... how did we go from kissing someones ass to christanity?
xtreem5150ahm
2005-06-18, 03:13
quote:Originally posted by The Marksman:
wow he rights alot of those
i particularly like
Let's suppose someone offers you the following wager: Roll a single die. If it comes up a six, they will give you ten thousand dollars. If it comes up 1 through 5, you give them one thousand dollars. Should you take the bet? The odds of winning are 1:6 and the payoff is 10:1. If you've got a thousand bucks to spare, it's a good bet. But if that money is supposed to go towards rent and utilities, then it would be irresponsible of you to make the bet.
If we atheists are right, this is the only life you have. Using it to place a risky bet is irresponsible.
only because it supports my beleifs.
Could you explain to me, why you think an atheist viewpoint is not a risky bet?
if you are right (that there is no God of anysort), absolutely nothing has been risked by anyone including Christians, since absolutely nothing was at stake in the first place.... to paraphase Solomon, 'all is vainity under the sun'.
But if atheism is wrong, then everyone who has ever lived, or will live, has everything at risk. And that includes Christians-- because, from the logical perspective, they (myself included) too, need to know which god is the true God.
quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:
Could you explain to me, why you think an atheist viewpoint is not a risky bet?
James Huber believes the risk is that we waste our limited time on Earth and Earth's limited resources on something bogus. I'm not going to agree that religion is a waste of resources but I'll agree that it is a waste of time.
quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:
But if atheism is wrong, then everyone who has ever lived, or will live, has everything at risk.
This is irrelevant since there is more than one religion that believes that you are doomed if you don't believe in their god(s). You would be hard-pressed to find a reason why one religion should be observed over the others as all are equally ludicrous.
In comparison Athiesm is a sure bet since:
A) Its arguments are based entirely on simple logic. This was demonstrated by the original post.
B) It has no contradiction with scientific observation.
C) It does not require any beliefs at all and is therefore the default state of all human beings.
xtreem5150ahm
2005-06-18, 16:30
Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:
Could you explain to me, why you think an atheist viewpoint is not a risky bet?
quote:James Huber believes the risk is that we waste our limited time on Earth and Earth's limited resources on something bogus. I'm not going to agree that religion is a waste of resources but I'll agree that it is a waste of time.
i've tried to explain this before, and it seems to generate confusion (people thinking that i am "suicidal or dont think there is anything to live for"), so i'm going to try this a different way.
If there is no God (and thus, no heaven and hell i.e. eternal life or eternal punishment), what does it matter whether you or I become either mass mudering serial killers or if we discover the cure to all diseases and improve the quality of life on earth? If there is no God (or afterlife/life renewed-- as in the case of Hinduism or Buhdism... which i dont agree with, but these also fit in this explaination, because they deal with what happens after death) then after we are done with this life.. nothing mattered (for us). It only matters while we have life. So, in effect, if there is no God, nothing matters... ALL is a waste of time... both while one is alive and even more so, after death. If there is no God, then the "Hitlers" and the "Mother Theresas" are no different... they are only rearranging their environment to suite themselves and are just bide-ing (sp?) time..awaiting death.
(i'm trying to make this statement as generic as possible, but i cant help it if my Christian beliefs "color" the statement) But, if there is a God then the thing that matters, is finding out what God is the true God, and finding out what is His purpose for us and what pleases Him... this is (or rather, should be) the purpose of religion.
The only way religion is a waste of time, is if there is no God.. but then, everything is a waste of time, and it doesnt matter.
Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:
But if atheism is wrong, then everyone who has ever lived, or will live, has everything at risk.
before i answer your comments, i would like to point out that what you quoted from me, is only part of the quote, and only part of my intended meaning. Here is the more complete intention:
quote:But if atheism is wrong, then everyone who has ever lived, or will live, has everything at risk. And that includes Christians-- because, from the logical perspective, they (myself included) too, need to know which god is the true God.
quote:This is irrelevant since there is more than one religion that believes that you are doomed if you don't believe in their god(s). You would be hard-pressed to find a reason why one religion should be observed over the others as all are equally ludicrous.
Now, after the whole context, maybe you can see why it is not irrelevant, because it already answered the fact that there is more than one religion.
As far as "ludicrous", this is an opinion. To me, it is ludicrous to think that there is no God.
quote:In comparison Athiesm is a sure bet since:
A) Its arguments are based entirely on simple logic. This was demonstrated by the original post.
B) It has no contradiction with scientific observation.
C) It does not require any beliefs at all and is therefore the default state of all human beings.
A)i'm going to temporarily concede on this point, with the right to recall it.
B) Neither does origin by special creation. The (observed) facts do not speak for themselves, they must be interpreted. This is true, no matter which side of the coin. If there were no interpretation needed, ALL scientists would ALWAYS come to the same conclussion. (given the same observations--without the light of new information/observations)
C) Agnosticism, not atheism, requires no belief. Atheism, being the "sure bet" as you put it, requires not only the belief that there is no God; but also places, as the wager, that that belief is correct (so it is no different, in that reguard, to religion. And is, in those terms, a religion itself...worshiping nothingness)
stealthweasle666_no_god
2005-06-18, 17:10
True story
The other day I was mowing my lawn, when by chance I came upon an ant hill. So I started crushing the basterd's. I Stepped on them, I ran over them with the lawn mower, and that was about all I could think of doing to them then.
(this next part I based on something I read somewhere, but I'm not sure where)
What If those ants had been saying "we praise you, almighty john." What if they were worshipping me? Do you really think I give a damn? I'm infinitly supirior now to anything they could ever be, I don't really care about them, in fact, I took pleasure in whacking 10,000 of the basterd's. They're lives, future, ect. were all in my hand's, but no. I didn't nurture they're growth or help them along the evolutionary path (of course, they were in my lawn, it might of been different if they were in my neighbors, were I would help them take over). I killed them. And if god is anything like us, he would have blown us away along time ago, and if we were very different from us, he would have wacked us too.
So a quote from 2010: odyssy 2 "They were trapped between fire and ice"
xtreem5150ahm
2005-06-18, 17:38
quote:Originally posted by stealthweasle666_no_god:
True story
The other day I was mowing my lawn, when by chance I came upon an ant hill. So I started crushing the basterd's. I Stepped on them, I ran over them with the lawn mower, and that was about all I could think of doing to them then.
(this next part I based on something I read somewhere, but I'm not sure where)
What If those ants had been saying "we praise you, almighty john." What if they were worshipping me? Do you really think I give a damn? I'm infinitly supirior now to anything they could ever be, I don't really care about them, in fact, I took pleasure in whacking 10,000 of the basterd's. They're lives, future, ect. were all in my hand's, but no. I didn't nurture they're growth or help them along the evolutionary path (of course, they were in my lawn, it might of been different if they were in my neighbors, were I would help them take over). I killed them. And if god is anything like us, he would have blown us away along time ago, and if we were very different from us, he would have wacked us too.
Your conclusion: " he would have wacked us too." makes the "you/ants" being analogous to "God/us" different because you are not the Creator God and you didnt even give a hint to the ants, of your superiority; or did you give them a hint of your requirement that they worship you. Nor, since you are not the ant's creator, you didnt have a purpose for their existance, therefore, there was no love for them (that is, of course, assuming that God has a purpose for His Creation).
Your analogy would be more similar to an (advanced) alien race/being. Destroying (lawnmowing anthill) or using (taking over neighbor's lawn), based on choice/motive/pleasure.
Experimental
2005-06-18, 21:59
quote:Originally posted by stealthweasle666_no_god:
True story
The other day I was mowing my lawn, when by chance I came upon an ant hill. So I started crushing the basterd's. I Stepped on them, I ran over them with the lawn mower, and that was about all I could think of doing to them then.
(this next part I based on something I read somewhere, but I'm not sure where)
What If those ants had been saying "we praise you, almighty john." What if they were worshipping me? Do you really think I give a damn? I'm infinitly supirior now to anything they could ever be, I don't really care about them, in fact, I took pleasure in whacking 10,000 of the basterd's. They're lives, future, ect. were all in my hand's, but no. I didn't nurture they're growth or help them along the evolutionary path (of course, they were in my lawn, it might of been different if they were in my neighbors, were I would help them take over). I killed them. And if god is anything like us, he would have blown us away along time ago, and if we were very different from us, he would have wacked us too.
So a quote from 2010: odyssy 2 "They were trapped between fire and ice"
That came from malcolm in the middle... dewey tryin to get his bro out of a christian school
Paradise Lost
2005-06-18, 22:11
quote:Originally posted by Experimental:
That came from malcolm in the middle... dewey tryin to get his bro out of a christian school
Hasn't the human/God and ant/human analogy been circulating for longer than that?
dragonfire
2005-06-19, 12:19
Stolen from albino blacksheep.
quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:
B) Neither does origin by special creation. The (observed) facts do not speak for themselves, they must be interpreted. This is true, no matter which side of the coin. If there were no interpretation needed, ALL scientists would ALWAYS come to the same conclussion. (given the same observations--without the light of new information/observations)
'Origin by special creation' is not a religion in itself. It is simply a theory. My statements do not apply to it, but let me add to my statement:
B) Athiesm has no contradiction with scientific observation and does not require interpretation of scientific observation.
quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:
C) Agnosticism, not atheism, requires no belief. Atheism, being the "sure bet" as you put it, requires not only the belief that there is no God; but also places, as the wager, that that belief is correct (so it is no different, in that reguard, to religion. And is, in those terms, a religion itself...worshiping nothingness)
You've got it backward. Agnosticism requires the concept of god. Athiesm does not require any knowledge. If a person has no knowledge of something, then they don't believe in it.
Athiesm is not worshiping nothingness. Athiesm is workshiping nothing. There is a difference. Athiesm is not a religion. Athiesm is the absence of religion. Athiesm can be a belief or the absence of belief.
quote:www.dictionary.com
1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.
quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:
So, in effect, if there is no God, nothing matters... ALL is a waste of time... both while one is alive and even more so, after death. If there is no God, then the "Hitlers" and the "Mother Theresas" are no different... they are only rearranging their environment to suite themselves and are just bide-ing (sp?) time..awaiting death.
'What matters' is a human construct. If there is no god then there are still humans, humans who decide what matters.
If we were all robots then you would be right in that nothing would matter to us.
Athiesm does not require the absence of morality and it does not require a nihilistic viewpoint.
quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:
But, if there is a God then the thing that matters, is finding out what God is the true God, and finding out what is His purpose for us and what pleases Him... this is (or rather, should be) the purpose of religion.
The mere existence of a god does not require worship, dedication to learning about, or even interest in the god. If an individual is curious about gods, then maybe that is what would matter to them. I wouldn't consider not satisfying a curiosity as a risk.
Humans need only a few things to live. There is no 'need' to know which of the gods is the 'true' god, it is only a want, a desire.
Theyellowdart
2005-06-21, 23:04
Is there a moral behind this story?
im confused
why dose hank want his ass kissed !!?!?!?
The Marksman
2005-06-22, 00:19
^ it shows how easily people beleive obvious lies.
morons falling subject to faulty logic.
;and now for something completly diffrent.
mormons HA, i pity them.
canadians actually outlawed their religion, putting them in jail for going door to door.
anybody who beleives that religion is unaware, desperatly unaware.
NightVision
2005-06-22, 09:02
BUN BUT NO FSCKING CONDIMENTS! <:rofl:. Only problem is that humanity has yet to explain how we got here aka the big bang and wtf was before it. So in that department religion is actually more possable than atheisum beacuse athieisum has no clue. awright im tired time to go to bed.
deptstoremook
2005-06-23, 04:18
Atheism is as much a faith as Christianity. Sorry to burst your bubble guys, but true neutrality is called 'agnosticism'.
And that story was silly.
Wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief. It requires no faith.
Paradise Lost
2005-06-23, 04:34
quote:Originally posted by Rust:
Wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief. It requires no faith.
ArgonPlasma2000
2005-06-23, 14:08
Actually it requires faith in that you are right, thats the same faith that any other religion requires...that you picked the right choice.
As for this ass kissing story...
You can safely say that you wouldnt kiss anyones ass for 1,000,000 dollars and then split town? Honestly...
EDIT: You also forgot to mention Hank loves to give allowances everyday, might not be a million, but its good enough to get you by with plenty to spare. (Think about it)
[This message has been edited by ArgonPlasma2000 (edited 06-23-2005).]
quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:
Actually it requires faith in that you are right, thats the same faith that any other religion requires...that you picked the right choice.
Right about what? You lack belief, you don't have it, so faith in what belief exactly?
Hope that your lack of belief will prove succesfull for you, does not equal belief in something without evidence, which is what faith would entail. They are not the same thing.
[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-23-2005).]
Dead Helmsman
2005-06-23, 17:43
I can not, and will not ascribe human traits to an obviously inhuman entity. It's arrogant, and ultimately misleading. You live this life right now; a shame to spend what little time we have here worrying where you will end up afterward.
God, if it exists, does so whether you believe it or not. I have dificulty thinking it would be so petty as to deny us eternity for using the brains we were born with to question the world around us. Strive for a relationship with a higher power, sure! But a personal relationship should not be bound by rules and dogma. Surely, in it's infinite wisdom, it knows how to be flexible?
If this makes no sense to anyone, I appologize. I'm running on an hour and a half of sleep.
Shaokhano
2005-06-23, 21:38
i can safely say i aon't kissing hank's ass and well life is going pretty good right now
toast_and_bananas2002
2005-06-24, 00:52
quote:Originally posted by stealthweasle666_no_god:
True story
The other day I was mowing my lawn, when by chance I came upon an ant hill. So I started crushing the basterd's. I Stepped on them, I ran over them with the lawn mower, and that was about all I could think of doing to them then.
(this next part I based on something I read somewhere, but I'm not sure where)
What If those ants had been saying "we praise you, almighty john." What if they were worshipping me? Do you really think I give a damn? I'm infinitly supirior now to anything they could ever be, I don't really care about them, in fact, I took pleasure in whacking 10,000 of the basterd's. They're lives, future, ect. were all in my hand's, but no. I didn't nurture they're growth or help them along the evolutionary path (of course, they were in my lawn, it might of been different if they were in my neighbors, were I would help them take over). I killed them. And if god is anything like us, he would have blown us away along time ago, and if we were very different from us, he would have wacked us too.
So a quote from 2010: odyssy 2 "They were trapped between fire and ice"
Yeah the thing about that though is the bible does say god loves us more than we could ever imagine so he diffinately wouldnt wipe out what he made.
xtreem5150ahm
2005-06-24, 02:46
QUOTE Originally posted by Sarter:
'Origin by special creation' is not a religion in itself.
I'm sorry. Where did i say that it was a religion?
B) ... and does not require interpretation of scientific observation.[/b]
hmmm... wow, it looks like a rock.. but what is it?
All ovservations need an interpretation.
You've got it backward. Agnosticism requires the concept of god. Athiesm does not require any knowledge. If a person has no knowledge of something, then they don't believe in it.
Then why do (many) agnostics say, "i dont know and i dont care"?
While atheists say, "there is no God"?
Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary
agnostic..
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate of ultimate knowledge in some area of study
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism
4. assering the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge
atheist..
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.{1565-75; <Gk 'athe(os) godless + ist}
__Syn. Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
atheism
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Do i still have it backwards?
Both require a concept of god(s) but atheists have to make a conscious decision to their belief (that there is no god).
Athiesm is not worshiping nothingness. Athiesm is workshiping nothing. There is a difference. Athiesm is not a religion. Athiesm is the absence of religion. Athiesm can be a belief or the absence of belief.
IF what you say is true; then, again, there is no (sure) bet. But atheism IS 'betting' that there is no god(s). This makes it just like a 'religion', in that it is 'betting' on something to be true or false.
quote::www.dictionary.com
1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.
How can there be 'immorality' if atheists say that morality is subjective?
Also, from R.H. W. Unabridged Dict...
godless adj. 1. having or acknowledging no god or deity; atheistic. 2. wicked;evil;sinful. [1520-30; God + less]==godlessly, adv. --godlessness, n.
It seems as though, 'godless' would be more a term used by a believer to describe an action or person/thing that is anti-god. Not an atheist, describing "absence of belief".
xtreem5150ahm
2005-06-24, 03:52
QUOTE Originally posted by Sarter:
'What matters' is a human construct. If there is no god then there are still humans, humans who decide what matters.
Again, my point is mistook. But atleast it wasnt mistaken as a "wish to die", so maybe we are progressing.
If there is no god, then you are right, 'what matters' IS a human construct, BUT this too, does not matter, because, in the end, all die...end of story. Any legacy matters nothing to the dead (if there is no god). Using the ant/lawnmower analogy, nothing matters to the ants that die. The living ants may say, "that was a greataunt..err great ant" or maybe "boy, he/she sure did some great things for the colony" ... but so what, it's dead. But if there is an "ant heaven and ant hell", then what matters is, if it did what mattered to God and thus, which 'direction' it went.
If we were all robots then you would be right in that nothing would matter to us.
Why 'robots'?... Because they are already "dead". Exactly!!
If there is no god, then we are just biding time. Nothing before, nothing after. If there is no god, a life really has no meaning.
(ok, i can see why this gets misconstrued, but if you think about it...)
Athiesm does not require the absence of morality and it does not require a nihilistic viewpoint.
This was not my point or purpose. This really isnt a statement ABOUT atheism. It is a statement of the only two possibilities: either:
God is
or
is not.
The mere existence of a god does not require worship, dedication to learning about, or even interest in the god. If an individual is curious about gods, then maybe that is what would matter to them. I wouldn't consider not satisfying a curiosity as a risk.
Somewhat true. What i said 'that mattered', does require that, that something matters to God and He has revealed some of His Will. If god is a deistic god (a god that is indifferent to His creation.. which might be self-contradictory.. why would it create in the first place?), then again, nothing matters-- refer to preceding parenthesis--
Humans need only a few things to live. There is no 'need' to know which of the gods is the 'true' god, it is only a want, a desire.
this is an assumption that there either is 'no god' or a 'deistic god'.
if there was a purpose for His creation, then what humans need, is what ever God has determined what humans need.
xtreem5150ahm
2005-06-24, 03:56
quote:Originally posted by Rust:
Wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief. It requires no faith.
I disagree, Rust. By determining that ones-self is an atheist, that person is having faith that his own belief is right.. or atleast not wrong.
Otherwise, it could not be the "sure bet".
quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:
I disagree, Rust. By determining that ones-self is an atheist, that person is having faith that his own belief is right.. or atleast not wrong.
Otherwise, it could not be the "sure bet".
No. You're assuming that I am basing my lack of belief on the possible repercussions in the future.
I can certainly have a lack of faith without even bothering to consider if it will be beneficial or not in the future.
xtreem5150ahm
2005-06-24, 04:35
quote:Originally posted by Rust:
No. You're assuming that I am basing my lack of belief on the possible repercussions in the future.
I can certainly have a lack of faith without even bothering to consider if it will be beneficial or not in the future.
If you are an atheist, what you call, "my lack of belief" really is a belief. And that belief is the belief that there is no god. (based on, in your case--from what you've indicated in totse-- , lack of evidence)
In the other post, I was not assuming what the basis of that "lack" consists of or ommits.
By determining in your own mind, that there is no god, you are, in effect, betting that your belief is correct.. or atleast not wrong.
God's existence or non-existence is not determined by our beliefs.. either He is or He is not.
QUOTE Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:
I'm sorry. Where did i say (special creation) was a religion?
The point is that since special creation is not a religion it is not relevant as an example and so your response to claim (B) must be retracted. You were going off on a tangent anyway.
B) ... and does not require interpretation of scientific observation.
hmmm... wow, it looks like a rock.. but what is it?
All ovservations need an interpretation.
This is irrelevant. Athiesm does not require observation, period, by definition. But we are about to debate this:
You've got it backward. Agnosticism requires the concept of god. Athiesm does not require any knowledge. If a person has no knowledge of something, then they don't believe in it.
Then why do (many) agnostics say, "i dont know and i dont care"?
While atheists say, "there is no God"?
The agnostic knows of Hank, but does not know the answer to the question of Hank's existance.
If you were to ask somebody with no knowledge about Hank whether they believe Hank exists, then that somebody could only honestly answer 'no'.
Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary
Do i still have it backwards?
Both require a concept of god(s) but atheists have to make a conscious decision to their belief (that there is no god).
I will retract my statement that agnosticism requires knowledge of a god but consider the following:
There are two types of athiests: athiests who know of the concept 'Hank' and don't buy into it, and those who don't know of the Hank concept and so have no belief in Hank. Both types don't believe Hank exists but this second type is agnostic as well if we define agnostic as not knowing whether Hank exists or not. So to recap: when a person has no knowledge of Hank they neither believe in Hank nor know whether Hank exists.
Athiesm is not worshiping nothingness. Athiesm is workshiping nothing. There is a difference. Athiesm is not a religion. Athiesm is the absence of religion. Athiesm can be a belief or the absence of belief.
IF what you say is true; then, again, there is no (sure) bet. But atheism IS 'betting' that there is no god(s). This makes it just like a 'religion', in that it is 'betting' on something to be true or false.[b]
That is a very weak analogy. Gambling is not the essence of a religion.
[b](www.dictionary.com definition) How can there be 'immorality' if atheists say that morality is subjective?
The defintion refers to the idea of natural or inherent immorality. Immorality can still exist in the mind, but not in nature as thiests believe.
Also, from R.H. W. Unabridged Dict...
godless adj. 1. having or acknowledging no god or deity; atheistic. 2. wicked;evil;sinful. [1520-30; God + less]==godlessly, adv. --godlessness, n.
It seems as though, 'godless' would be more a term used by a believer to describe an action or person/thing that is anti-god. Not an atheist, describing "absence of belief".
I don't know anybody who uses the term athiesm to mean 'sinner' so I don't use that definition. Besides, there are plenty of words believers use to describe a non-believer, but athiesm is the perfect word to describe somebody who does not believe in a god.
QUOTE Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:
If there is no god, then you are right, 'what matters' IS a human construct, BUT this too, does not matter, because, in the end, all die...end of story.
You are confusing athiesm with pessimism, or maybe apathy.
...some stuff about robots being dead and the meaning of life...
I've already covered this but you can ascribe meaning to life yourself without there actually being Hank or without there even being an inherent meaning to life. In fact, the whole idea that life has an inherent meaning is fundamentally flawed. It is like saying the number one is red. Numbers don't have colors; why would life have a meaning?
I wouldn't consider not satisfying a curiosity as a risk.
Somewhat true. What i said 'that mattered', does require that, that something matters to God and He has revealed some of His Will. If god is a deistic god (a god that is indifferent to His creation.. which might be self-contradictory.. why would it create in the first place?), then again, nothing matters-- refer to preceding parenthesis--
Why would you listen to Hank - even if Hank revealed some of his will. What about Fred, George, and Marty? They all have wills, promise a lot, and deny each other's existence. In fact, what about Martha, Janice, and Margaret? What about the variations of Hank that nobody has thought of yet? There are an infinite number of them and so the probability of each, all things being equal (and equal they are since none have evidence), is zero. If nobody is right then everybody is wrong. This means the only other alternative, that Hank and his clones alike are imaginary, has a 100% probability. In other words, a sure bet.
Humans need only a few things to live. There is no 'need' to know which of the gods is the 'true' god, it is only a want, a desire.
this is an assumption that there either is 'no god' or a 'deistic god'.
I'd like to hear your argument explaining why theism creates a need to know.
if there was a purpose for His creation, then what humans need, is what ever God has determined what humans need.
Who died and made Hank the thought-police? Even if Hank did give us purpose, why should that be the same purpose i give to myself? If your parents wanted you to be a garbageman then do you have to be a garbageman? No you do not.
[This message has been edited by Sarter (edited 06-24-2005).]
xtreem5150ahm
2005-06-24, 06:27
QUOTE Originally posted by Sarter:
The point is that since special creation is not a religion it is not relevant as an example and so your response to claim (B) must be retracted. You were going off on a tangent anyway.
Ya, i do take a tangent route often, but you said that atheism fits with scientific obsevation, and i gave an alternative answer and gave the reason i feel that way, to save explaination... which doesnt seem to have happened.. oh well.
So, many people say that atheism is not a religion. Since neither are religions... ah, i'll retract just because it was a tangent.
This is irrelevant. Athiesm does not require observation, period, by definition.
But we are about to debate this:
In light of "two types of atheism", then ya, irrelevant.
If you were to ask somebody with no knowledge about Hank whether they believe Hank exists, then that somebody could only honestly answer 'no'.
but that is outside the dictionary definition that a person denies or disbelieves the existence. It does not say "ignorant of", so if you asked that person about belief in 'hank', to be honest, he would have to say, "hank who? tell me alittle about hank so i can answer your question"
There are two types of athiests: athiests who know of the concept 'Hank' and don't buy into it, and those who don't know of the Hank concept and so have no belief in Hank.
I'm not sure i buy into the "ignorant of hank" answer. Until he has heard and has had the opportunity to come to a conclusion/opinion of hank, he cant be an atheist (denying or disbelieving in 'hanks' existance). And we dont know if he has a different 'hank' concept.
That is a very weak analogy. Gambling is not the essence of a religion.
I agree. But i was not the one to say atheism was the sure 'bet'. I was only using this analogy because it was in the thread. With only a quick check (getting late, almost bedtime), it was Marksman who pointed out that Rev.Jim Huger was the one that used "sure bet" in the first place. And i had asked how atheism was not a risky bet.
I don't know anybody who uses the term athiesm to mean 'sinner' so I don't use that definition. Besides, there are plenty of words believers use to describe a non-believer, but athiesm is the perfect word to describe somebody who does not believe in a god.
I was trying to point out the use of 'godless' by www.dictionary.com, (http://www.dictionary.com,) was probably not used as "ignorance of god", but more than likely as a term to describe an atheist (in those terms)... nevermind, you said the same thing.
Wife is in bed, which means it is time for me to go... good night.
xtreem5150ahm
2005-06-24, 13:16
i'm going to try to address a couple of these before work..
QUOTE Originally posted by Sarter:
You are confusing athiesm with pessimism, or maybe apathy.
No. Everyone dies.
I've already covered this but you can ascribe meaning to life yourself without there actually being Hank or without there even being an inherent meaning to life. In fact, the whole idea that life has an inherent meaning is fundamentally flawed. It is like saying the number one is red. Numbers don't have colors; why would life have a meaning?
Your presupposition is that there is no god. There is no way to prove that "meaning of life can be ascribed without the existence of god", without knowing whether god exists or not.
Why would you listen to Hank - even if Hank revealed some of his will. What about Fred, George, and Marty? They all have wills, promise a lot, and deny each other's existence. In fact, what about Martha, Janice, and Margaret? What about the variations of Hank that nobody has thought of yet?
i realize that i dont always worry about capitolizing letters. but when i write God (with a big 'G'), i am always intending it as as judeo-christian God.
when i type god, with small 'g', i am using it in generic terms.
So, Hank,Fred, George, and Marty etc. is moot.
There are an infinite number of them and so the probability of each, all things being equal (and equal they are since none have evidence), is zero.
You say "none have evidence", i say there is evidence.
If nobody is right then everybody is wrong. This means the only other alternative, that Hank and his clones alike are imaginary, has a 100% probability. In other words, a sure bet.
you havent proven "sure bet" because you havent proven that everybody is wrong. You jumped from "if" to "the other alternative".. (which i already said anyway.. either God (god) is or He is not... i know, i had to refine it for clarity)
******************
gotta leave for work, didnt realize how late it is....gonna leave the rest of this here so i know where i left off
****************
if there was a purpose for His creation, then what humans need, is what ever God has determined what humans need.
Who died and made Hank the thought-police? Even if Hank did give us purpose, why should that be the same purpose i give to myself? If your parents wanted you to be a garbageman then do you have to be a garbageman? No you do not.
[/B][/QUOTE]
quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:
If you are an atheist, what you call, "my lack of belief" really is a belief. And that belief is the belief that there is no god. (based on, in your case--from what you've indicated in totse-- , lack of evidence)
In the other post, I was not assuming what the basis of that "lack" consists of or ommits.
By determining in your own mind, that there is no god, you are, in effect, betting that your belief is correct.. or atleast not wrong.
God's existence or non-existence is not determined by our beliefs.. either He is or He is not.
That's quite simply incorrect. Lack of a belief in a god does not equal believing that a god does not exist. They are two different things.
As such, I am not betting anything.
Moreover, even it they were the same thing, which they are certainly not, that in no way means I must have hope that my belief is correct. I can have a belief without concerning myself on whether or not it will prove good to me or not. So you fail on both counts.
[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-24-2005).]
xtreem5150ahm
2005-06-25, 02:30
quote:Originally posted by Rust:
That's quite simply incorrect. Lack of a belief in a god does not equal believing that a god does not exist. They are two different things.
As such, I am not betting anything.
Moreover, even it they were the same thing, which they are certainly not, that in no way means I must have hope that my belief is correct. I can have a belief without concerning myself on whether or not it will prove good to me or not. So you fail on both counts.
http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)
QUOTE Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:
You are confusing athiesm with pessimism, or maybe apathy.
No. Everyone dies.
How true. Most athiests can get over this fact and live normal, healthy lives. There is no rule that states that if you don't believe in an inherent purpose then you must give yourself no purpose other than to languish.
... Numbers don't have colors; why would life have a meaning?
Your presupposition is that there is no god. There is no way to prove that "meaning of life can be ascribed without the existence of god", without knowing whether god exists or not.
I don't have to prove it. It is reasonable to presume Hank don't exist if I cannot in any way sense Hank, even with the aid of technological augmentation. It is unreasonable, however to assume all the indetectable possibilities that we can imagine are true. Why then would it be reasonable to assume that one of those possibilities is true? But you provide (an empty) answer why:
There are an infinite number of them and so the probability of each, all things being equal (and equal they are since none have evidence), is zero.
You say "none have evidence", i say there is evidence.
Evidence as in scientifically observable - the only kind that counts, or is it all anectodal evidence and conjecture? Is it cause-and-effect, or is it correlation? Is it logic, or is it intuition?
Admit it, you can't provide a single piece of real evidence that there is a god out there who created us, has a plan for us, requires us to go to church, has eternal bliss all lined up for us as long as we give into his vanities, and all the rest of the bells and whistles that go with the convoluted religion called Christianity that you somehow think has a snowball's chance in a firey furnace of being true.
If nobody is right then everybody is wrong. This means the only other alternative, that Hank and his clones alike are imaginary, has a 100% probability. In other words, a sure bet.
you havent proven "sure bet" because you havent proven that everybody is wrong. You jumped from "if" to "the other alternative".. (which i already said anyway.. either God (god) is or He is not... i know, i had to refine it for clarity)
I think you need to read up on why other possible gods or variations on the same god have an impact on 'the bet':
http://tinyurl.com/7engo
Digital_Savior
2005-06-25, 10:02
quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:
http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)
*Laughs*
Don't I know, hon...don't I know.
Tentacle rape
2005-06-25, 11:22
For a million dollars Id suck the shit out of Hank's Asshole.
quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:
http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)
Great. So you want people to take you serously when your reply consists of an emoticon? Brilliant.
You're making Christians proud.
xtreem5150ahm
2005-06-26, 15:59
quote: Originally posted by Sarter:
If nobody is right then everybody is wrong. This means the only other alternative, that Hank and his clones alike are imaginary, has a 100% probability. In other words, a sure bet.
you havent proven "sure bet" because you havent proven that everybody is wrong. You jumped from "if" to "the other alternative".. (which i already said anyway.. either God (god) is or He is not... i know, i had to refine it for clarity)
I think you need to read up on why other possible gods or variations on the same god have an impact on 'the bet':
http://tinyurl.com/7engo
I'm hoping this might clear up some of our quibbling. Although there is more that i want to respond to, and this is slightly off on a tangent (even though my statements above apply also to "other" gods-- little "g"). Right now i'm just going to mention something from the link because i think there is some confusion about when "matters" or "matters not" occurs:
"Statistical arguments
...It is also argued that belief incurs a cost by not allowing the believing person to participate in and enjoy actions forbidden by dogma. Many devout people make more noticeable sacrifices for their religious beliefs. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept blood transfusions. If a Jehovah's Witness's death could have been prevented by a blood transfusion, and there is no God, then the Jehovah's Witness has lost his or her life needlessly..."
Just for the record, i am not a JW; so i am not defending or disagreeing with JW beliefs, here.
This statistical arguement against Pascal's Wager says that there "incurs a cost by not allowing the believing person to participate in and enjoy actions forbidden by dogma".
This "incurred cost" is implied as an incurred cost during the lifetimeif the belief of that religion is wrong.
But my intention was to say the "incurred cost" does not matter (both, during life and after death), if God/god(s) do not exist.
In the example of the JW's death:
"If a Jehovah's Witness's death could have been prevented by a blood transfusion, and there is no God, then the Jehovah's Witness has lost his or her life needlessly..."
His death could not be prevented. It might only have been prolonged. In the example, it is specified "if there is no God", so the JW's life AND death was needless.
I'm going to repeat part of my first post in this thread and part of your reply (i'm not going to re-tag the emphasis, but if you go back, you can see what was tagged).:
<me>if you are right (that there is no God of anysort), absolutely nothing has been risked by anyone including Christians, since absolutely nothing was at stake in the first place.... to paraphase Solomon, 'all is vainity under the sun'.
But if atheism is wrong, then everyone who has ever lived, or will live, has everything at risk. And that includes Christians-- because, from the logical perspective, they (myself included) too, need to know which god is the true God.
<you>This is irrelevant since there is more than one religion that believes that you are doomed if you don't believe in their god(s). You would be hard-pressed to find a reason why one religion should be observed over the others as all are equally ludicrous.
As you can see, my statement of "if you are right (that there is no God of anysort)" includes the lack of any god (and really, this also includes beliefs like Buddhism).
And my second statement, "But if atheism is wrong" also includes beliefs like Buddhism, because if atheism is wrong, then we need to find out which belief is right (again, with the exception of a deistic god. But also again, with a deistic god, if that god created, but cares not of his creation AND has not revealed how we should conduct ourselves, then this too falls into the "nothing matters" category)
Back to the link:
"Assumes God rewards Belief
Pascal's wager suffers from the logical fallacy of the false dilemma, relying on the assumption that the only possibilities are:
1. the Christian God exists and punishes or rewards as stated in Christian theology, or
2. no God exists.
The wager does not account for the possibility that there is a God who, rather than behaving as stated in certain parts of the Bible, instead rewards skepticism and punishes blind faith, or rewards honest reasoning and punishes feigned faith."
Since i was not talking about only the Christian God as one of the possibilities, then the only question of whether my statements were "false dilemmas" is punishment/reward vs. "nothing matters". And since i think it's been shown that the exception of a deistic god falls into the "nothing matters" category, the only possibilities left are: punishment/reward vs. "nothing matters". If i'm wrong, show me another possibility (and an example).
"Assumes a Christian God"
as i've pointed out, my statements do not "Assumes a Christian God", so i dont think this arguement against Pascal's Wager applies.
Back to the "Statistical arguments" section.
Since my arguement was directed against atheism-- the belief that there is no god-- "opportunity costs" are irrelevant when veiwed from the perspective of: "either god exists or does not exist".
Where "opportunity costs" do become relevant is, if a god or gods exists, the "opportunity costs" are based on the correctness of the belief in reguard to that god or gods. Not in terms of having fun or discovering the cure for cancer (unless those are part of the "required worship" of that god(s) )...
What i'm saying here is, there is only an "opportunity costs" IF a god exists BUT the person is not following that god's requirements.
"Many way tie
... Given that the choice of wagering has an infinite return, then under a mixed strategy the return is also infinite. Flipping a coin and taking the wager based on the result would then have an infinite return, as would the chance that after rejecting the wager you end up taking it after all. The choice would then not be between zero reward (or negative infinite) and infinite reward, but rather between different infinite rewards."
I'm not sure if i am understanding this correctly, but i think it is saying that if atheism is correct, there is a different "infinite reward".
If there is no god, then how can there be an infinite reward after death?.. (except if your life infinitely sucks. And if we are finite beings, that seems to be impossible)
"Assumes one can choose belief
..There is also the argument that one could "game" the wager in a scenario where the deathbed conversion is possible — as is the case in some streams of Christianity."
Although this is really irrelevant to my arguement, i would like to toss out a defense of this for Pascal's Wager (even though your link says the same thing)...
according to Jesus, it doesnt matter when in one's lifetime they come to accept the Truth (He had a parable of a landowner paying the same wage to the workers without lessening the wage to the latecomers).
So, a deathbed conversion has the outcome (Heaven).
But the problem of "waiting until late in life" is the fact that no one knows when they will die... so, 19 years old may be very late in life for some people, while 50 might not even be 'middle aged' for others...kinda hard to plan.
xtreem5150ahm
2005-06-26, 16:05
quote:Originally posted by Rust:
Great. So you want people to take you serously when your reply consists of an emoticon? Brilliant.
You're making Christians proud.
It was your words, Rust. That was why i put quotation marks around them.
quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:
It was your words, Rust. That was why i put quotation marks around them.
I know... read what I said again please. I said:
"So you want people to take you serously when your reply consists of an emoticon? Brilliant".
"emoticon" = http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)
Which is the onlything that you provided in the post.
xtreem5150ahm
2005-06-27, 04:32
quote:Originally posted by Rust:
I know... read what I said again please. I said:
"So you want people to take you serously when your reply consists of an emoticon? Brilliant".
Which is the onlything that you provided in the post.
Yes, i know what you said, why you said it, what an emoticon is, and that that was the only thing in that post.
And in light of my reply about the quotation marks, i'm pretty sure you understood what i meant.
quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:
And in light of my reply about the quotation marks, i'm pretty sure you understood what i meant.
Err no, I don't. I can't even understand what you're trying to accomplish.
To explain why I can even being to comprehend you:
- You replied with " http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) "
- I, to that (i.e. the http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) ) reply with, " Great. So you want people to take you serously when your reply consists of an emoticon? Brilliant."
In other words, that your replied amounted to nothing, since it was an emoticon.
- You then reply with "It was your words, Rust. That was why i put quotation marks around them."
And this is where I cannot even begin to comprehend what you mean.
1. Where did I say that what you quoted wasn't "my words"?
2. What do "my words" have to do with your lack of a meaningful reply (i.e. your lack of a reply that doesn't just consist of " http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) " ) ?
[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-27-2005).]
xtreem5150ahm
2005-06-28, 03:25
I rolled my eyes because i had just said the same thing to sarter with the whole dictionary thing (that lack of belief is not the same as declaring that a god doesnt exist)-- in otherwords, on that basis we were on the same page. So, when i replied with:
quote:If you are an atheist, what you call, "my lack of belief" really is a belief. And that belief is the belief that there is no god. (based on, in your case--from what you've indicated in totse-- , lack of evidence)
In the other post, I was not assuming what the basis of that "lack" consists of or ommits.
By determining in your own mind, that there is no god, you are, in effect, betting that your belief is correct.. or atleast not wrong.
God's existence or non-existence is not determined by our beliefs.. either He is or He is not.
I used your words ("my lack of belief") to try to show that it is, in fact, a belief itself.
The only way "lack of belief" is not a belief, is if it has not even been considered
i.e. ignorant of the concept of God.
But if your "lack of belief" is from ignorance, then (according to the dictionary) you can not be an atheist (i think you've said that you are an atheist- thus, declaring there is no god):
atheist..
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.{1565-75; <Gk 'athe(os) godless + ist}
__Syn. Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
atheism
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings
quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:
I rolled my eyes because i had just said the same thing to sarter with the whole dictionary thing (that lack of belief is not the same as declaring that a god doesnt exist)-- in otherwords, on that basis we were on the same page. So, when i replied with:
I don't have to read your replies to Sarter, do I?
quote:
I used your words ("my lack of belief") to try to show that it is, in fact, a belief itself.
The only way "lack of belief" is not a belief, is if it has not even been considered
i.e. ignorant of the concept of God.
But if your "lack of belief" is from ignorance, then (according to the dictionary) you can not be an atheist (i think you've said that you are an atheist- thus, declaring there is no god):
You keep saying it is a belief yet never show how!
If someone that "lacks a belief in god" must necessarilly believe that he doesn't exist, then he didn't lack a belief in the first place! You're using circular logic.
"Lack of belief" equals "I don't know". It most certainly does not equal "believing he doesn't exist", nor does it entail ignorance of what a god is.
quote:
atheist..
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
[...]
Those definitios are lacking.
"Weak atheism, also known as implicit atheism and negative atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. A weak atheist may consider the nonexistence of deities likely, on the basis that there is insufficient evidence. An argument commonly associated with weak atheism is that of rationalism: one should believe only what one has reason to believe. Theists claim that a single deity and/or group of deities exist. Weak atheists do not assert the contrary; instead, they refrain from assenting to theistic claims. Because of a lack of consideration, or because the arguments and evidence provided by both sides are equally unpersuasive, some weak atheists are without opinion regarding the existence of deities. Having considered the evidence for and against the existence of deities, others may doubt the existence of deities while not asserting that deities do not exist. They may feel that it is impossible to prove a negative, or that the strong atheist has not been relieved of the burden of proof, which is also required of the theist, or that faith is required to assert or deny theism, making both theism and strong atheism untenable. Agnosticism is the epistemological position that the existence or nonexistence of deities is unknown and possibly unknowable. Agnostic theism regards understanding that the existence of deities is unprovable and continuing to hold theistic beliefs. Similarly, agnostic atheism concerns understanding that the existence of deities is unprovable while being without theistic beliefs. For a discussion of agnosticism and its variants, see: agnosticism, weak agnosticism, strong agnosticism, agnostic atheism.
* Strong atheism, also known as explicit atheism and positive atheism, is the belief that no deities exist. This may be based on the view that there is insufficient evidence or grounds to justify belief in deities, on grounds such as the problem of evil, on arguments that the concept of a deity is self-contradictory and therefore impossible, or on the assertion that any belief in the supernatural is not rationally justifiable. It may also be based on an appreciation of the psychological characteristics of faith and belief (see True-believer syndrome, for example), and of a subsequent critical attitude towards any system that encourages faith, belief, and acceptance, rather than critical thinking, from its adherents.
Under the broader definition of atheism (that is, the "condition of being without theistic beliefs"), which is characteristic of "weak atheism", nonbelief, disbelief or doubt of the existence of deities are forms of atheism. However, many strong atheists, agnostics, and theists use a narrower definition of atheism, according to which it is the active "denial of the existence of God or gods". Adherents of this definition would not recognize mere absence of belief in deities (that is, "weak atheism") as a type of atheism at all, and would tend to use other terms, such as "skeptic" or "agnostic" for this position.
Antitheism, the position that religion is destructive, is held by those who are opposed to religion on the basis that it promotes conflict among those who do not share the same beliefs."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Moreover, just like your dictionary sources say, atheism comes from the word "Atheos" meaning "godless". It has nothing to do with believing a god doesn't exist, but with having no god.
xtreem5150ahm
2005-06-28, 04:39
I don't have to read your replies to Sarter, do I?
no, i spoze not
You keep saying it is a belief yet never show how!
by declaring that there is no god, it is a belief.
If someone that "lacks a belief in god" must necessarilly believe that he doesn't exist, then he didn't lack a belief in the first place! You're using circular logic.
"Lack of belief" equals "I don't know". It most certainly does not equal "believing he doesn't exist",
ok, are you saying that you are agnostic?
i was pretty sure that, somewhere along the line, you had said "there is no god" or "i am an atheist".
[...]
Those definitios are lacking.
if they are lacking, talk to webster's. Damn, $50 for 2230 pages and over 315,000 entries and i got robbed of definitions.
quote:"Weak atheism, also known as implicit atheism and negative atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. A weak atheist may consider the nonexistence of deities likely, on the basis that there is insufficient evidence. An argument commonly associated with weak atheism is that of rationalism: one should believe only what one has reason to believe. Theists claim that a single deity and/or group of deities exist. Weak atheists do not assert the contrary; instead, they refrain from assenting to theistic claims. Because of a lack of consideration, or because the arguments and evidence provided by both sides are equally unpersuasive, some weak atheists are without opinion regarding the existence of deities. Having considered the evidence for and against the existence of deities, others may doubt the existence of deities while not asserting that deities do not exist. They may feel that it is impossible to prove a negative, or that the strong atheist has not been relieved of the burden of proof, which is also required of the theist, or that faith is required to assert or deny theism, making both theism and strong atheism untenable. Agnosticism is the epistemological position that the existence or nonexistence of deities is unknown and possibly unknowable. Agnostic theism regards understanding that the existence of deities is unprovable and continuing to hold theistic beliefs. Similarly, agnostic atheism concerns understanding that the existence of deities is unprovable while being without theistic beliefs. For a discussion of agnosticism and its variants, see: agnosticism, weak agnosticism, strong agnosticism, agnostic atheism.
* Strong atheism, also known as explicit atheism and positive atheism, is the belief that no deities exist. This may be based on the view that there is insufficient evidence or grounds to justify belief in deities, on grounds such as the problem of evil, on arguments that the concept of a deity is self-contradictory and therefore impossible, or on the assertion that any belief in the supernatural is not rationally justifiable. It may also be based on an appreciation of the psychological characteristics of faith and belief (see True-believer syndrome, for example), and of a subsequent critical attitude towards any system that encourages faith, belief, and acceptance, rather than critical thinking, from its adherents.
Under the broader definition of atheism (that is, the "condition of being without theistic beliefs"), which is characteristic of "weak atheism", nonbelief, disbelief or doubt of the existence of deities are forms of atheism. However, many strong atheists, agnostics, and theists use a narrower definition of atheism, according to which it is the active "denial of the existence of God or gods". Adherents of this definition would not recognize mere absence of belief in deities (that is, "weak atheism") as a type of atheism at all, and would tend to use other terms, such as "skeptic" or "agnostic" for this position.
ok, except for what i bolded, you are right. I guess i fit into the bolded category (with the narrower definition). My ex-wife had about ten pairs of "white" shoes. I asked her why she needed so many "white" shoes and she said, "they're not all white.. some are off-white, bone, etc".
Antitheism, the position that religion is destructive, is held by those who are opposed to religion on the basis that it promotes conflict among those who do not share the same beliefs."
i'm not sure how this fits into a "lack of belief in God(gods)"