Fuck them.

In America, saying you're a Christian is the true "cop out" seeing as it is the non-controversial and most popular religion in the country.

But I'm constantly having these Christians tell me that my agnostic beliefs are "on the fence" or "taking the high road." But why is standing up for your beliefs when they are unpopular considered being an indecisive?

If I don't want to associate myself with a religion, then why should I have to? It's an invention of man anyway. I could go my entire life without talking about religion (or hearing about it).

My fellow non-believers, how do you respond to this criticism?

Agnosticism is a cop out.

..I had to

Time for a mean-spirited sweeping generalization.

Christians are dipshit assholes.

"On the fence"? What the fuck? I suppose in the same way you're "on the fence" about fairies in your garden or that good 'ole teapot orbiting Jupiter. They DEMAND you make in irrational assertion! Do it! DO IT!

People label themselves Christians way to easily nowadays. I bet more than half of the xians of the world don't strive to follow the example and teachings of christ.
This is why so many people have little respect for xianity.

It is a cop out. Or are you honestly unable to determine which of the following is more valid?

1. Viewing the universe with reason and an analytical eye.

2. The belief that an invisable sky wizard willed the universe into being from his magical space fortress, and if you don;t do EVERYTHING he told you to do (via illiterate desert nomads who died thousands of years ago) he will make you suffer for all of eternity.

Agnosticism is basically looking at those two choices, and hiding behind "unknown unknowns".

If you have even a spec of intellect, you'll lie. You have nothing to gain by telling them the truth

Fuck them.

In America, saying you're a Christian is the true "cop out" seeing as it is the non-controversial and most popular religion in the country.

But I'm constantly having these Christians tell me that my agnostic beliefs are "on the fence" or "taking the high road." But why is standing up for your beliefs when they are unpopular considered being an indecisive?

If I don't want to associate myself with a religion, then why should I have to? It's an invention of man anyway. I could go my entire life without talking about religion (or hearing about it).

My fellow non-believers, how do you respond to this criticism?

Nothing wrong with admitting you're not in the know. You're at least one step ahead of both blind faith and utter doubt when you can face the bit of insecurity that arises from knowing you don't know. I say kudos for sitting on the fence...I'm there right with ya. I'm certainly not going to hop off and join a side when I think they're both 100% bullshit. Much like my stance on US policies right now...'us or them'...how 'bout I'm anti-terror AND anti-fascism?

It is a cop out. Or are you honestly unable to determine which of the following is more valid?

1. Viewing the universe with reason and an analytical eye.

2. The belief that an invisable sky wizard willed the universe into being from his magical space fortress, and if you don;t do EVERYTHING he told you to do (via illiterate desert nomads who died thousands of years ago) he will make you suffer for all of eternity.

Agnosticism is basically looking at those two choices, and hiding behind "unknown unknowns".

Unless of course the God in subject is completely different. Your choices are too black and white.

Why can't we believe in a much more reasonable version of 'God', which helps in understanding reality, and also believe that proof of that concept is non-existent?

At least from our perspective...

The only thing "bad" about agnostics I can think of is that they often lack the mental faculties to prevent their own assimilation by religious assholes. As such, they tend to provide a kind of food source for religion to thrive on.

"Why can't we believe in a much more reasonable version of 'God', which helps in understanding reality, and also believe that proof of that concept is non-existent?"

"Why shouldn't I pull an idea out of my ass, and then believe in it when there's no proof whatsoever to back it up?"

Do you see how foolish you sound? This is what you sound like. Creating a "god" doesn't help anyone "understand" reality. It makes up a fake explaination so the person can feel better about themselves without actually searching for a solution.

Two hands at work are more useful than a thousand clasped in prayer.

i think you are using a folk understanding of agnosticism here.

you can be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist. agnosticism just says that it is impossible to know anything about god.

what you believe is an entirely different matter than what you know and do not know.

so really, most people are agnostic in that they acknowledge god can be known through the eyes of faith alone, and they either have a belief or lack a belief in god.

if you are saying agnostic = i don't know what i believe, then yes it is a weak position that shows you haven't put much thought into the matter.

"Why shouldn't I pull an idea out of my ass, and then believe in it when there's no proof whatsoever to back it up?"


Grow up mate.
In respect of the contemporary "Believer" it's hardly an idea pulled out of their ass. The belief in God (In it's various guises) spans the whole world and goes back thousands of years. If the concept of God is so powerful then it's at least good enough reason for people to explore the concept and come to their own conclusions based on their current understandings of life.

"Why shouldn't I pull an idea out of my ass, and then believe in it when there's no proof whatsoever to back it up?"

Do you see how foolish you sound? This is what you sound like. Creating a "god" doesn't help anyone "understand" reality. It makes up a fake explaination so the person can feel better about themselves without actually searching for a solution.

Unless...its not a fake explanation.

:eek:

But I guess that depends on which concept we're talking about.

Christianity is the true cop out. Your parents are Christian, your friends are Christian, and so you are Christian. You haven't thought about your beliefs and made a decision. You went along with the flow.

If you're agnostic, at least you're cerebral about your faith.

But there are always exceptions. My math teacher is a Christian, but his father was an atheist.

"Agnosticism" translation with anti bs filter-> "Atheist with an open mind."

Grow up mate.
In respect of the contemporary "Believer" it's hardly an idea pulled out of their ass. The belief in God (In it's various guises) spans the whole world and goes back thousands of years. If the concept of God is so powerful then it's at least good enough reason for people to explore the concept and come to their own conclusions based on their current understandings of life.

BZZZ! Wrong!

You're right on one count though. They aren't eating their own shit, they are gobbling down the turds of the (Roman Empire)'s Ministry of Information.

()=insert prehistoric government.

Because it is impossible for the majority of people to be wrong on something! Can you say "election of 04"? If you're from the other side of the fence, can you say "approval polls"?

In other news, iPods are good for humanity because a shit load of people have them.

Do you see how foolish you sound?

No, and don't hold your breath. Next question!

"Agnosticism" translation with anti bs filter-> "Atheist with an open mind."

"Wishful Thinker" also comes to mind.

"Agnosticism" translation with anti bs filter-> "Atheist with an open mind."

Except that many agnostics are theists as well. Perhaps your anti-bs filter needs a tune-up?

I'm agnostic in this: I can't know, with any degree of certainty, something that is defined as supernatural; it is beyond this world.

I find both faithful and empirical presumptions regarding the supernatural as lacking. If it is 'supernatural', then neither faith nor empirical systems can create any sort of understanding on the matter: faith being blind; empirical systems being bound to the natural world.

You can call yourself whatever you want, but there is the belief in something, or there is the lack of belief in something.

Agnosticism is trying to dodge the question and run a circle around the "with us or against us" mentalitity.

OK, you're open minded, but that wasn't the question. "Do you have a specific belief or not?" is the question, and the answer is seemingly "no."

"Agnosticism" translation with anti bs filter-> "Atheist with an open mind."

Are you also agnostic about unicorns? Any atheist who's not a jackass will admit that there's always a chance that they are wrong. But looking at the evidence, it's about the same chance that I'll wake up tommorrow morning to find a unicorn in my room, AND unicorn insurance in case anything happens to my unicorn.

I.E. Not worth dealing with, or even spending too much time looking into until there is even a single piece of reliable information suggesting such a thing were true.

You can call yourself whatever you want, but there is the belief in something, or there is the lack of belief in something.

Agnosticism is trying to dodge the question and run a circle around the "with us or against us" mentalitity.

OK, you're open minded, but that wasn't the question. "Do you have a specific belief or not?" is the question, and the answer is seemingly "no."

Go look at a flower. You'll notice that rather than 'black and white', there are colors, shades of these colors, tints of these colors, blending of colors, and so on. Now, the issue of faith/doubt.

Imagine a flower that is in a place that none of your senses can reach. Are you going to make a presupposed view on this flower? Are you going to say it is a beautiful rose when it may be a wilted lily? Are you going to deny it even exists just because you can't physically experience it?

That's how I see the issue of the supernatural. Yes, it exists. But I cannot examine it. I don't know if it's a god, an extra planar link between all matter and energy, an unconscious being, a conscious being, magic, self-induced hallucination, or anything else. All that can be certain regarding the issue is that something exists which isn't restricted by natural law. Whether or not it's a god is an argument best left to the kind of folk who argue whether Star Trek or Star Wars is more realistic.

There is no cop-out involved, just an opening of eyes.

Who said anything about me being open minded? If god himself popped out of the bushes one day and poofed me into bed with Angelina Jolie I would think I was on the best candid camera show ever.

"Grow up mate.
In respect of the contemporary "Believer" it's hardly an idea pulled out of their ass. The belief in God (In it's various guises) spans the whole world and goes back thousands of years. If the concept of God is so powerful then it's at least good enough reason for people to explore the concept and come to their own conclusions based on their current understandings of life."

Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal to Common Practice). Just because many people think it's a good idea does not make it so. The idea behind Star Trek was powerful enough to spawn 40 years of television, movies and other fiction (although it stopped being good around the 30 year mark, I digress), that does not mean that Captain Kirk is real and the Starship Enterprise is his god's chariot.

Just because an idea has been around awhile doesn't make it a valid or correct one. People that simply decide "Well, this sounds good therefore it is true" are the ones that need to grow up. There's plenty of wonder and beauty and "meaning" in the real world without having to add crazy shit like fairies or gods to it.

Go look at a flower. You'll notice that rather than 'black and white', there are colors, shades of these colors, tints of these colors, blending of colors, and so on. Now, the issue of faith/doubt.

Imagine a flower that is in a place that none of your senses can reach. Are you going to make a presupposed view on this flower? Are you going to say it is a beautiful rose when it may be a wilted lily? Are you going to deny it even exists just because you can't physically experience it?

That's how I see the issue of the supernatural. Yes, it exists. But I cannot examine it. I don't know if it's a god, an extra planar link between all matter and energy, an unconscious being, a conscious being, magic, self-induced hallucination, or anything else. All that can be certain regarding the issue is that something exists which isn't restricted by natural law. Whether or not it's a god is an argument best left to the kind of folk who argue whether Star Trek or Star Wars is more realistic.

There is no cop-out involved, just an opening of eyes.


I didn't say there wasn't a full spectrum. Atheist is without a belief in a higher power. It is linguistically impossible to not be on one side or the other of that line.

If you want to, call yourself a theist. It's the best agnostic answer I've ever heard. Faith without commitment to specifics.

I'm not trying to paint you in my team colors. I'm just saying agnostic is not a team. It's a refusal to give a straight answer.

No, it is not a refusal to give a straight answer. It's admitting you don't know the answer. Am I resting my feet on a stool right now? It's a yes/no question. So, what is it...yes, or no? Or are you going to cop-out and say "I don't know" like those pussy ass agnostics, with their god damned honesty!

Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal to Common Practice). Just because many people think it's a good idea does not make it so. The idea behind Star Trek was powerful enough to spawn 40 years of television, movies and other fiction (although it stopped being good around the 30 year mark, I digress), that does not mean that Captain Kirk is real and the Starship Enterprise is his god's chariot.

Just because an idea has been around awhile doesn't make it a valid or correct one. People that simply decide "Well, this sounds good therefore it is true" are the ones that need to grow up. There's plenty of wonder and beauty and "meaning" in the real world without having to add crazy shit like fairies or gods to it.

I think this is the first time I've come to agreement with you.

Imagine a flower that is in a place that none of your senses can reach. Are you going to make a presupposed view on this flower? Are you going to say it is a beautiful rose when it may be a wilted lily? Are you going to deny it even exists just because you can't physically experience it?

It's easy to imagine a flower. We've seen other flowers in "action". But if there is something I can't see, can't taste, can't smell, can't experience "in this plane", can't be examined due to lack of evidence, isn't something that my peers can testify to WITH evidence of their own and can't be beneficial to my existence - then for all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist to me. That is how I view the supernatural.

That's how I see the issue of the supernatural. Yes, it exists. But I cannot examine it. I don't know if it's a god, an extra planar link between all matter and energy, an unconscious being, a conscious being, magic, self-induced hallucination, or anything else. All that can be certain regarding the issue is that something exists which isn't restricted by natural law.

You could apply the "does too exist! Just isn't restricted by natural law!" argument to any number of ridiculous ideas. There could be gnats breakdancing and beat-boxing all around you, invisible gnats that are out of reach to your senses and not bound by any natural laws, so science can't observe it either. A willingness to believe this would serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever, even in the event that these gnats DID exist - as they would not alter or benefit or bring harm to you in any way, shape or form. It just seems like a futile exercise, and a great way to clutter up the imagination.

There is no cop-out involved, just an opening of eyes.

I would venture to say that it is more of an opening of the imagination. "Opening of eyes" usually means that after much examination, the result you were looking for becomes clear, observable, believeable and prone to existence. Choosing to believe in something that even your senses deny, that even the lack of evidence is inconsequential to, or that could not benefit you from believing in to begin with ... is just an overactive, wishful imagination.

It's believing in something for no good reason, without benefit... just 'cause you have the capability to say "I want to believe".

No, it is not a refusal to give a straight answer. It's admitting you don't know the answer. Am I resting my feet on a stool right now? It's a yes/no question. So, what is it...yes, or no? Or are you going to cop-out and say "I don't know" like those pussy ass agnostics, with their god damned honesty!

Let's see. Stools exist. Feet exists. It's very possible that you own both a stool, and feet. Not too far of a stretch of the imagination to consider that there is a very good possibility that the stool and feet are touching, especially since you asserted that they are. Here we've got loads of possibilities to consider, the kind of possibilities that are tangible, and quite possible.

Agnostics are choosing to believe in something that they are pretty certain doesn't exist, else why wouldn't they be diving headfirst into the whole gamut with much enthusiasm?

I know a preacher who once said something to the effect of: Agnostics just want to have the benefit of saying "I could have believed!" ... without ever having to actually bend to any of the rules or bylaws associated with believing 100%.

Hex, do you fear that you would be missing out on something, something BIG, if you dared turned your beliefs in either direction? What would be the downfalls of choosing one side or another? The benefits of staying neutral? I'm curious, because I've witnessed your thinking exercises on here textually, and I feel that I know for certain that you're just not one of these lazy intellectuals who are being neutral just for the sake of politics. I'm genuinely curious as to what you see the benefits/downfalls would be to choosing one side or another.

No, it is not a refusal to give a straight answer. It's admitting you don't know the answer. Am I resting my feet on a stool right now? It's a yes/no question. So, what is it...yes, or no? Or are you going to cop-out and say "I don't know" like those pussy ass agnostics, with their god damned honesty!


Nice try. A better analogy is: "There is a stool in the room with me right now. Do you believe me or not?"

There is no reason to believe there is a stool in my room other than my assurances of it's existence. You can choose to believe me, or you can choose not to.

Saying "I believe it's impossible to say if you're lying or not." doesn't answer the question.

You either believe I'm telling the truth, or you don't.

AFAIK, it's obvious to everyone involved that there is no way of knowing one way or another. Assertions of fact on unprovable issues are not worth attention. Everyone with a brain knows that. The question is one of belief in a higher power. You either have it, or you don't.

I'll start, AngryFemme, by saying I just love your posts. They're not perfect, but mine aren't either, so I let that slide. ;)

It's easy to imagine a flower. We've seen other flowers in "action". But if there is something I can't see, can't taste, can't smell, can't experience "in this plane", can't be examined due to lack of evidence, isn't something that my peers can testify to WITH evidence of their own and can't be beneficial to my existence - then for all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist to me. That is how I view the supernatural.

I'm going to present an idea that necessitates the supernatural. This being defined solely as anything that is not bound by natural law.

For the universe to have always existed, it mustn't be bound by causality. For it to have been caused, it mustn't be bound by conservation. Both causality and conservation can be demonstrated in absolutely every single incident ever known. The system we call the universe is supernatural by definition because it is master to the natural laws that control every last natural interaction within it.

You could apply the "does too exist! Just isn't restricted by natural law!" argument to any number of ridiculous ideas. There could be gnats breakdancing and beat-boxing all around you, invisible gnats that are out of reach to your senses and not bound by any natural laws, so science can't observe it either. A willingness to believe this would serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever, even in the event that these gnats DID exist - as they would not alter or benefit or bring harm to you in any way, shape or form. It just seems like a futile exercise, and a great way to clutter up the imagination.

Not quite. I'm demonstrating the existence of the attribute 'supernatural' being a real and necessary attribute of one thing. Certainly the posited gnats are supernatural, but they do not exist as a necessity for anything natural. Thus there is no rationale for believing them to exist.

I would venture to say that it is more of an opening of the imagination. "Opening of eyes" usually means that after much examination, the result you were looking for becomes clear, observable, believeable and prone to existence. Choosing to believe in something that even your senses deny, that even the lack of evidence is inconsequential to, or that could not benefit you from believing in to begin with ... is just an overactive, wishful imagination.

Belief has nothing to do with my position on the supernatural. It exists out of pure necessity. Awareness of that necessity and the awareness that we can not study that necessity further are what I was describing with 'opening of eyes'. Anything more or less is imagination or down-right ign'ance.

On to your 2nd post:

Let's see. Stools exist. Feet exists. It's very possible that you own both a stool, and feet. Not too far of a stretch of the imagination to consider that there is a very good possibility that the stool and feet are touching, especially since you asserted that they are. Here we've got loads of possibilities to consider, the kind of possibilities that are tangible, and quite possible.

Indeed, but both yes and no are unwise answers considering you have no ability to observe me, are they not? That was the sole point I was making. My hope, is that with my response to your first post, you'll see the whole position I hold and understand why I hold it.

Agnostics are choosing to believe in something that they are pretty certain doesn't exist, else why wouldn't they be diving headfirst into the whole gamut with much enthusiasm?

On the contrary, I'm aware of something I'm absolutely certain exists. I differ from the theist in that I make no attempt whatsoever to play the supernatural as a god, or anything else for that matter. I differ from the atheist in that I didn't quit making considerations on the supernatural after I first rejected the notions of a god.

The supernatural exists, of that I am sure. Taking that into consideration, the idea of pantheism has as much evidential validity as complete rejection of a god. Due to their equal validity, I make no claim to one being superior to the other, nor one being more likely. They are 50/50 to me.

I know a preacher who once said something to the effect of: Agnostics just want to have the benefit of saying "I could have believed!" ... without ever having to actually bend to any of the rules or bylaws associated with believing 100%.

I've heard much the same many times. If there is a god who judges, it would be well aware that I would never 'believe' unless I saw it face-to-whateverthefuckgod'sfacewouldbecalled. It would also be well aware that I don't follow any rule that I personally don't want to.

Hex, do you fear that you would be missing out on something, something BIG, if you dared turned your beliefs in either direction?

With atheism, I miss the comfort of delusion. With theism, I miss the comfort of argumentative superiority. With agnosticism, I miss the peace of mind that both theism and atheism bring. Ignorance is not bliss if you are aware of your ignorance and your inability to educate yourself further.

What would be the downfalls of choosing one side or another?

When my mind leans towards atheism, I feel as though something very important is missing from the picture. Which is odd, because even as a youth I was never particularly strong in faith. Hell, all I remember from my indoctrination was singing and dancing with friends. It was like the whole issue of belief took second place to just enjoying life. When leaning towards atheism, I remember all that and I miss it like hell.

When I lean towards theism, I'm at war over a particular issue: It feels so god damned good to believe, but it makes no fucking sense whatsoever. When entertaining theism, I am constantly teetering on whether or not I should value reason or comfort more...that's how damned good it feels to me.

The benefits of staying neutral? I'm curious, because I've witnessed your thinking exercises on here textually, and I feel that I know for certain that you're just not one of these lazy intellectuals who are being neutral just for the sake of politics.

Benefits of neutrality? Well, looking at history, there is no benefit in neutrality. Even if you ally with a side, they end up selling you out and eating you up after the opposition is gone. To be entirely honest, I hate being agnostic. I hate not knowing whether to bow down or to deny deny deny. I hate not knowing whether I'm going to be worm-food or rejoin with some deity. I hate the ambiguity. But I can't bring myself to form religious delusions, nor can I bring myself to deny supernatural consciousness. They both ring 'wrong' through my ears.

The only notion other than 'I don't know' that I have come across which doesn't blast 'wrong' through my skull is this simple phrase: I Am. Which to me, is extremely funny, being that 'I Am' is the rough informal translation of the Abrahmaic God's name: IHVH.

I'm genuinely curious as to what you see the benefits/downfalls would be to choosing one side or another.

I suppose I don't choose one because I see them both as the same side of the coin. On the other side, are people like me: laughers. We just sit back and laugh at people taking life so serious. I first came to this view when I asked myself, "As an atheist, why take life so damned serious? When you die, it all goes away. As a theist, the same? When you die, you don't even really die." I just can't bring myself to make a decision that has two wrong answers. If there is a god for me, its name is Hardy McFuckin-Har and stand-ups are its prophets. "Ahhh, New York! Bang! Bang!"

You get what I'm sayin'? And if so, do you get what I'm REALLY sayin'?

I doubt you got the core of it, but that's okay. So long as you get the surface message, you'll at least understand why I can act like a Harvard professor one minute and a total drunken frat boy the next.

There is no such thing as an agnostic.

Of course you know.

You're just too afraid to say.

There is no such thing as an agnostic.

Of course you know.

You're just too afraid to say.

Fear doesn't stay my tongue. Time, is another matter.

Keep burning bright, Rizzo. It's good to be reminded of some things. :)

Fear doesn't stay my tongue. Time, is another matter.

Keep burning bright, Rizzo. It's good to be reminded of some things. :)

I'm glad to know that I can still brighten someones day. :)

Nice try. A better analogy is: "There is a stool in the room with me right now. Do you believe me or not?"

There is no reason to believe there is a stool in my room other than my assurances of it's existence. You can choose to believe me, or you can choose not to.

Saying "I believe it's impossible to say if you're lying or not." doesn't answer the question.

You either believe I'm telling the truth, or you don't.

Or I've reserved the ability to not render judgment?

AFAIK, it's obvious to everyone involved that there is no way of knowing one way or another. Assertions of fact on unprovable issues are not worth attention. Everyone with a brain knows that. The question is one of belief in a higher power. You either have it, or you don't.

Or you've not rendered judgment? What is so hard to grasp about choosing not to choose?

I'm glad to know that I can still brighten someones day. :)

My days are about as bright as they can get, but it never hurts to be able to pick out individual flames.

Isn’t everyone looking at this a little black and whitely? There’s atheism, theism, agnosticism, agnostic-atheism and agnostic-theism. I don’t know how many agnostics are truly purely agnostic, but most I’ve talked to tend to turn out to be agnostic-atheists.

"Agnosticism" translation with anti bs filter-> "Atheist with an open mind."

I personally think you've hit the nail on the head for most cases.

Well, if you are logically debating something can either be BLACK - illogical or WHITE - logical.

Which is why at some point you must abandon logic.

When you have finished building a house, do you not put your hammer down?

So then, look! Look at your house! Is it sturdy? Is it built well? Does it have a solid foundation?

Jesus was a master carpenter. Are you?

Nice try. A better analogy is: "There is a stool in the room with me right now. Do you believe me or not?"

There is no reason to believe there is a stool in my room other than my assurances of it's existence. You can choose to believe me, or you can choose not to.

Saying "I believe it's impossible to say if you're lying or not." doesn't answer the question.

You either believe I'm telling the truth, or you don't.

Or I've reserved the ability to not render judgment?

AFAIK, it's obvious to everyone involved that there is no way of knowing one way or another. Assertions of fact on unprovable issues are not worth attention. Everyone with a brain knows that. The question is one of belief in a higher power. You either have it, or you don't.

Or you've not rendered judgment? What is so hard to grasp about choosing not to choose?

But once again: you have either chosen to believe, or you don't believe but might choose to eventually. I'm not saying you have to choose to believe or not to believe. I'm saying that anyone that has not yet made the choice to believe, is by definition an atheist until they have made that choice. You can have chosen to believe but not chosen specifics making you a theist.

It's pretty simple. You don't believe until you do. If you do, you're a theist of one sort or another. Otherwise, you are an atheist of one sort of another. You can call either side agnosticism but that is dodging the question.

I'll start, AngryFemme, by saying I just love your posts. They're not perfect, but mine aren't either, so I let that slide. ;)

Why thank you for grading me on such a generous curve! :D

For the universe to have always existed, it mustn't be bound by causality. For it to have been caused, it mustn't be bound by conservation. Both causality and conservation can be demonstrated in absolutely every single incident ever known. The system we call the universe is supernatural by definition because it is master to the natural laws that control every last natural interaction within it.

The laws that we have been able to observe thus far in the Universe during man's plight to *know everything* can definitely make it appear as though there are those supernatural outposts that we just won't ever be able to grasp fully because - well, we're natural beings, and we tend to group everything that is unknowable into a compact little supernatural package. It makes us feel not so ig'nant, as you put it - and I'm sure the early civilizations of stargazers, scientists and philosophers attributed many things we know today to have been "supernatural" and "unknowable" in the yesteryears.

In ancient times, there was no foreseen causality to earthquakes or volcanoes. Ancient men must have felt pretty secure in being certain that supernatural causes were at work. If it were possible to go back in time and try to explain a bit of geology to these men, I'm certain they'd club us over the head and go right back to believing in the supernatural causes they've dreamed up. Anything less would be admitting to their own ignorance. I kind of feel as though that's the boat we're in today - at the cutting-edge of knowing most everything we can possibly venture interest in, having cut through a lot of the once-supernatural explanations for more viable ones ... and still of the belief that the things just out of our grasp is to forever remain on the outposts of the unreachable, something we just cannot ever come to know, as it is currently beyond our intelligence.

I don't fault people for believing in the supernatural - I just wish they'd muster up a lil' mo' patience and not be afraid to play the ignorance card. To me, defining something as "supernatural" just means "I don't know yet, but I will dare not attribute that to my civilization's ignorance. Our ignorance is justified because it's not FOR us to know". I'd rather just claim right up front that consciousness is kinda creepy, dreams are weird and random and we don't know why they surface when/how they do ... but it's in the process of being worked out. Just sit chilly, and it will work itself out with time and understanding."

<whatta mouthful! i could have worded that better, but impatience strikes again!>


Belief has nothing to do with my position on the supernatural. It exists out of pure necessity. Awareness of that necessity and the awareness that we can not study that necessity further are what I was describing with 'opening of eyes'. Anything more or less is imagination or down-right ign'ance.

I still maintain that the only necessity for the supernatural to exist is to squelch the embarrassment of us not automatically knowing, or not having figured out yet. Why resign to the belief that we can't study it? Just because it hasn't been successfully laid out in a neat thesis yet? O ye of little faith! Let's hope we harness all that is worth knowing at some point, shall we? That makes for both optimism and clarity of thought. It doesn't necessitate an excuse for the supernatural to reign supreme over all that cannot be known, to date. I'm perfectly okay with that big question mark perpetually hanging over my head. It gives me the drive to continue to learn things. I feel as though if I were to resign to believing in the supernatural, that I would cop out of several learning activities that I could easily write off as "not within my reach".

Part II:

Indeed, but both yes and no are unwise answers considering you have no ability to observe me, are they not? That was the sole point I was making. My hope, is that with my response to your first post, you'll see the whole position I hold and understand why I hold it.

I cannot observe a thousand eggs cultivating in China, but I can have faith that the chinaman who reports "I have an egg. It sits in a nest" as having 50/50 odds of being truthful. The gamble I take in saying "yes, there's an egg in the nest!" versus "no, there is no egg in the nest!" is just me playing the odds of there being eggs, nests and a chinaman who could be telling the truth (50%) or could be lying through his teeth (50%).

Applying that to the supernatural, my wager tends to steer away from the longshots, and plays out with what I have available at hand to weigh the odds on - my experience, the observable experiences of those around me, and the possibility of unlikelihoods occuring in a Universe that doesn't really seem so prone to unlikelihoods thus far.

On the contrary, I'm aware of something I'm absolutely certain exists. I differ from the theist in that I make no attempt whatsoever to play the supernatural as a god, or anything else for that matter. I differ from the atheist in that I didn't quit making considerations on the supernatural after I first rejected the notions of a god.

Clearly, all atheists do not reject the supernatural. I know a few who actually believe in the paranormal! That of course would not be my shared viewpoint, but I can certainly vouch for the fact that not believing in a higher power doesn't necessarily stamp out beliefs in, say - hauntings, or telepathy.

With atheism, I miss the comfort of delusion.

How unabashedly honest of you. I appreciate that more than you can ever know.

With theism, I miss the comfort of argumentative superiority.

I'm pretty sure you really mean "refusal to see both sides", right? ;)

With agnosticism, I miss the peace of mind that both theism and atheism bring. Ignorance is not bliss if you are aware of your ignorance and your inability to educate yourself further.

I can't speak for all atheists, but I can honestly say that atheism has never brought me peace of mind. Peace of mind, for me, is knowing that I made a clear choice. Regardless of what that choice was, the actions and philosophical musings that led me to it is what brings me peace of mind. I guess you could say the ability to THINK COHERENTLY is what brings me peace of mind. Whether that coherence is accepted by or approved of by other people is irrelevant. Knowing that I can assert my mind to go in either direction is what butters my buns.

When my mind leans towards atheism, I feel as though something very important is missing from the picture. Which is odd, because even as a youth I was never particularly strong in faith. Hell, all I remember from my indoctrination was singing and dancing with friends. It was like the whole issue of belief took second place to just enjoying life. When leaning towards atheism, I remember all that and I miss it like hell.

Yet another honest explanation out of you! You didn't quite come right out and say "I want to believe" - but by gosh, you came close enough in my book, and still saved a bit of face on your own behalf. Bravo!


But I can't bring myself to form religious delusions, nor can I bring myself to deny supernatural consciousness. They both ring 'wrong' through my ears.

Again, atheism is not exclusive to NOT believing in the supernatural. You can still hang onto the supernatural and not believe in a theist God. Truly. I swear. I wouldn't lie to you on this one. Just like an atheist can believe in the supernatural, a supernatural skeptic can still believe in God (usually on the same "i just feel comforted believing" grounds that we discussed earlier).

I first came to this view when I asked myself, "As an atheist, why take life so damned serious?"

That is peculiar, because when I "converted" from theism, I began to take life a little bit less seriously. It opened my eyes, so to speak, to a whole world of absurdities that I had absolutely no control over. In fact, I can attribute my dropping of theism cold-turkey to: gaining a sense of humor, a greater respect of myself, and the ability to love people of all different walks of life ... even on this madhouse anonymity-based amusement park ride we call the internet! :)

You get what I'm sayin'? And if so, do you get what I'm REALLY sayin'?

I doubt you got the core of it, but that's okay. So long as you get the surface message, you'll at least understand why I can act like a Harvard professor one minute and a total drunken frat boy the next.

I'm getting there, don't you think? Baby steps.

But once again: you have either chosen to believe, or you don't believe but might choose to eventually. I'm not saying you have to choose to believe or not to believe. I'm saying that anyone that has not yet made the choice to believe, is by definition an atheist until they have made that choice. You can have chosen to believe but not chosen specifics making you a theist.

It's pretty simple. You don't believe until you do. If you do, you're a theist of one sort or another. Otherwise, you are an atheist of one sort of another. You can call either side agnosticism but that is dodging the question.

Weren't you just arguing a moment ago that an assertion better fits the scenario? If so, then what question am I dodging? :P

Oday, as useful as logic is, is doesn't play the lead role when it comes to questions. I'm at a point where I am no longer faced with an external assertion, but an internal question.

With an external assertion, you are correct in that the default position is disbelief until you've received adequate persuasion. However, with internal questions, your default position is ignorance until you've gathered adequate information to render judgment. Prior stances have no bearing on this state of mind.

I was last an atheist before I asked myself the question I am still trying to answer; but the second I asked this question, I was no longer an atheist, and I am not a theist. I am an agnostic - I've yet to experience anything that would allow me to answer the question, so I remain ignorant and refuse to render a judgment. I am not with or without belief, I am with a tangential question.

Why thank you for grading me on such a generous curve! :D

If you can cook some swedish pancakes, pack them in dry ice, and mail them to me, I'll let you set the curve on every thread I visit. ;)

The laws that we have been able to observe thus far in the Universe during man's plight to *know everything* can definitely make it appear as though there are...

No argument with that.

In ancient times, there was no foreseen causality to earthquakes or volcanoes....

I stand where I do on this possibly because of my mind's limitations. I've tried to imagine a single scenario in which the very existence of matter doesn't require the violation of natural law. I can't do it. To me, it's a matter of this: Natural law doesn't allow existence. I tried to explain it the best I could, but I'd probably have to write 50+ pages to get every thought I've put into it on paper.

I don't fault people for believing in the supernatural - I just wish they'd muster up a lil' mo' patience and not be afraid to play the ignorance card...

Patience is indeed useful when it comes to the pursuit of knowledge. In regards to supernatural meaning 'I don't know yet': I define existence/the universe as supernatural because I can not imagine, let alone show as possible, a single scenario in which natural law is not violated.

<whatta mouthful! i could have worded that better, but impatience strikes again!>

No worries. So long as the idea gets through.

...Why resign to the belief that we can't study it?

It's a matter of perspective. Can you imagine a scenario in which we can travel back to the beginning and see how the universe came to be?

...That makes for both optimism and clarity of thought.

I should note that I don't place value on the formality of an idea. If anyone could think of a way to study the very nature of existence, I would love to even hear the brainstorming. And also, I try to be optimistic...but clear thinking is something I take drugs so I *don't* do. ;)

It doesn't necessitate an excuse for the supernatural to reign supreme over all that cannot be known, to date.

I agree.

I'm perfectly okay with that big question mark perpetually hanging over my head. It gives me the drive to continue to learn things. I feel as though if I were to resign to believing in the supernatural, that I would cop out of several learning activities that I could easily write off as "not within my reach".

I hate that damned question mark, but I also have noticed that it is the source of my drive to learn. Also, the supernatural doesn't erase a single bit of the questions available.

...Applying that to the supernatural, my wager tends to steer away from the longshots, and plays out with what I have available at hand to weigh the odds on - my experience, the observable experiences of those around me, and the possibility of unlikelihoods occuring in a Universe that doesn't really seem so prone to unlikelihoods thus far.

Being a self-taught arithmetician, physicist, and gambling man, I have one thing to say about odds: they don't exist. Odds are the illusion of chance when you're unable to account for all pertinent data. Much how I see the issue of God.

Clearly, all atheists do not reject the supernatural. I know a few who actually believe in the paranormal! That of course would not be my shared viewpoint, but I can certainly vouch for the fact that not believing in a higher power doesn't necessarily stamp out beliefs in, say - hauntings, or telepathy.

Ah, but I can easily imagine scenarios in which natural law governs these things. Existence itself, I cannot.

How unabashedly honest of you. I appreciate that more than you can ever know.

I try not to lie. It's a disservice to myself and anyone who heard me.

I'm pretty sure you really mean "refusal to see both sides", right? ;)

Kind of. It's just that non-falsifiability is a great boon to the atheist argument.

Yet another honest explanation out of you! You didn't quite come right out and say "I want to believe" - but by gosh, you came close enough in my book, and still saved a bit of face on your own behalf. Bravo!

Hehe...yeah. Suave, I am.

I'm getting there, don't you think? Baby steps.

Yeah.

It is a cop out. Or are you honestly unable to determine which of the following is more valid?

The validity of atheism and belief and any comparison of validity between the two is irrelevant.

1. Viewing the universe with reason and an analytical eye.

To my way of thinking, a statement that there is no god is foolishness and a massive failure in analysis and reason. Not because believers have any sort of credibility whatsoever, but because atheists are ceding ground to the believers by pretending that their statement of believe warrants claims to the contrary.

It is the burden of the person making a claim to prove it.
The believer asserts there is a God. However, they can't prove it (but that doesn't matter to them, because they have faith). The atheist then asserts that there is no God. There is absolutely no reason they should make this assertion, because it relieves the believer of actually being forced to prove their own stance, forces the atheist to prove their own claim (prove the negative of a claim that has a thousand years of magical "protections"? have fun) and puts the atheist on the defensive. The believer's claim is unproven and unsupported, and as such deserves no consideration.

If some nut on the street claims there's an Invisible Sky Wizard Monster controlling everything, do I waste my time arguing with him as to why that's not true? No, they have no credibility whatsoever, and the Bible simply doesn't constitute proof. I simply walk away and let them believe what they want to believe.

That's the essence of my agnosticism, and the stance of accepting either possibility as potentially true isn't much different when you don't assign them a position of fact.

I'm not going to argue that there is no God, because there's no reason to. Arguing with faith is a waste of time and IMO, an insult to the "logic, reason and analysis" some atheists claim to uphold.

Seriously, I look at some of the atheists spewing their stuff out there and what I see comes nowhere near that description - they come across instead as angry and bitter anti-believers with an agenda. Maybe they have a reason to be that way, but in the meantime, those atheists that act that way sound exactly like some of the morons they have a problem with.


2. The belief that an invisable sky wizard willed the universe into being from his magical space fortress, and if you don;t do EVERYTHING he told you to do (via illiterate desert nomads who died thousands of years ago) he will make you suffer for all of eternity.

Agnosticism is basically looking at those two choices, and hiding behind "unknown unknowns".[/QUOTE]

Alright Femme, I got some more time, so I'll finish replying to parts I left out.

...I'd rather just claim right up front that consciousness is kinda creepy, dreams are weird and random and we don't know why they surface when/how they do ... but it's in the process of being worked out. Just sit chilly, and it will work itself out with time and understanding."

Consciousness is creepy, and dreams certainly are weird and random (Just last night, I beat a knife wielding thief to death with the bike he was trying to steal...odd). The only reason I can't place 'faith' into the notion that with time and understanding these things will be worked out is this: every new piece of data creates at least one new question. As we learn more, we start to see that the big questions are just getting bigger, and further away. I chuckle to myself whenever someone says we're eventually going to figure out how the universe came about...or anything along those lines. It's the same kind of laugh I have when someone claims that Armageddon is going to be upon us.

Applying that to the supernatural, my wager tends to steer away from the longshots, and plays out with what I have available at hand to weigh the odds on - my experience, the observable experiences of those around me, and the possibility of unlikelihoods occuring in a Universe that doesn't really seem so prone to unlikelihoods thus far.

The difficulty on this for me, is that I don't see the universe possessing some form of consciousness as an outrageous, or even unlikely, idea. I mean, we humans aren't shit but basic elements and we have consciousness...I don't think it's even a small stretch to think the universe, in its vast and limitless reaches, to have some level of awareness. (With this, I often think of how gravity may be the universal equivalent of electric pulses within our nervous system)

I can't speak for all atheists, but I can honestly say that atheism has never brought me peace of mind. Peace of mind, for me, is knowing that I made a clear choice. Regardless of what that choice was, the actions and philosophical musings that led me to it is what brings me peace of mind. I guess you could say the ability to THINK COHERENTLY is what brings me peace of mind.

Atheism brings me peace of mind, as does theism, in that choosing either one ends this one internal debate that seems to be a very large focus in my life. Of course, I can be brought to peace of mind a variety of other ways, but on this particular matter, choosing a side is the only thing that ever does it for me.

Whether that coherence is accepted by or approved of by other people is irrelevant. Knowing that I can assert my mind to go in either direction is what butters my buns.

This, I am in 100% agreement with you on. I don't care whether folk think I'm insane or right on the money with my thoughts, so long as I can see for myself where they came from, what supports them, and why exactly I hold them as true.

Yet another honest explanation out of you! You didn't quite come right out and say "I want to believe" - but by gosh, you came close enough in my book, and still saved a bit of face on your own behalf. Bravo!

I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to believe. It's kind of like seeing a beautiful woman but you know she has an STD. Of course, as a male, you still *want* to fuck her, because it'd feel good, be an ego boost, and be fun as hell...but you just can't let yourself do it because you don't want pus seeping out of your cock.

Again, atheism is not exclusive to NOT believing in the supernatural. You can still hang onto the supernatural and not believe in a theist God. Truly. I swear. I wouldn't lie to you on this one. Just like an atheist can believe in the supernatural, a supernatural skeptic can still believe in God (usually on the same "i just feel comforted believing" grounds that we discussed earlier).

Ah, so I could believe in a god and then still make fun of 'vampires', 'witches', Santeria, ghost-hunters, and so on? I wasn't aware I had that option. ;) I know atheism is not exclusive from the supernatural, but I find certain patterns in existence indicative of a strong probability that atheism is wrong.

That is peculiar, because when I "converted" from theism, I began to take life a little bit less seriously. It opened my eyes, so to speak, to a whole world of absurdities that I had absolutely no control over. In fact, I can attribute my dropping of theism cold-turkey to: gaining a sense of humor, a greater respect of myself, and the ability to love people of all different walks of life ... even on this madhouse anonymity-based amusement park ride we call the internet! :)

Aye, when I first left religion, my sense of humor increased a great deal. When I crafted a personal dwelling away from atheism, my sense of humor leaped and bound to heights I didn't know existed as either a theist or atheist.

To illustrate a very poor point:

Say these three things: "There is a god." "There is no god." "I don't know."

Alright, now apply a silly accent to those three phrases. I guarantee that "I don't know," sounds the silliest and brings forth the best laughter. :D

There's a million different ways to make fun of your own ignorance. It's damned near impossible to make fun of your own personal faith, or your own disbelief. In those positions, you can only make fun of the opposing view...and well, that just makes you a bloody arsehole. ;)

I don't see the universe possessing some form of consciousness as an outrageous, or even unlikely, idea. I mean, we humans aren't shit but basic elements and we have consciousness...I don't think it's even a small stretch to think the universe, in its vast and limitless reaches, to have some level of awareness. (With this, I often think of how gravity may be the universal equivalent of electric pulses within our nervous system)

Do you think this level of awareness that the Universe may possess would matter one iota were it not to be observed by us shitty, basic elements? I also subscribe to the idea of Universal Consciousness, but I believe it is set in motion by our own sense of awareness, as the Universe would likely not have much use for such philosophical banter with Itself. My idea of Universal Consciousness can easily be examined through the understanding of Memetics, which I'm prepared expound more on if it so pleases the Hex. Another day, another thread ... Word.

Sure, gravity could be the pulse. If we want to metaphorically compare it to a model of ourselves, then I could think of a dozen different comparisons to the basic elements in relation to our human form. It won't amount to a hill a beans, but would certainly be a fun exercise in creativity. In fact, I may do this on the commute home today, versus listening to NPR and wearing my middle finger out on other motorists. :D

To illustrate a very poor point:

Say these three things: "There is a god." "There is no god." "I don't know."

Alright, now apply a silly accent to those three phrases. I guarantee that "I don't know," sounds the silliest and brings forth the best laughter.

I can't help but apply a silly accent to those phrases. I already sound like a cross between Chef Justin Wilson and Ellie Mae Clampett, on sedatives. (Deep south creole in case you're wondering, cher) ;)

I draw upon memories of my old 8th grade Earth Sciences teacher, Mrs. Funk (swear to all that is unholy, that was her name). Every time we were having an outloud Q&A session, she'd always scold the kids who gave the "Ionno?" answer. She was quick to add that it wasn't their ignorance that disappointed her, but their willingness to not even make a guess and try to get the answer right. She'd cajole them into a yes or no answer no matter what, prompting them with: "If you had to bet a quarter, what would you guess?" and "Pick whichever one is most likely - there's only an A or a B answer. Go with what feels right in your gut!"

What we've been discussing here is one of those A or B answers, except the question is much more difficult. I'd still prefer going with my gut, my intuition and everything I've managed to soak up so far to lead me to A or B, rather than cop out with the IONNO option. It's not so much about forcing myself to make a stance either way, but rather, a desire to participate in the mother-of-all Pop Quizzes with educated guesstimate answers, versus not answering at all. On the report card of life, I'd much prefer getting straight F's (If indeed I am wrong) than straight I's (for incomplete). Hey - at least I can say I bothered to fill in the multiple choices rather than leave them blank.


There's a million different ways to make fun of your own ignorance. It's damned near impossible to make fun of your own personal faith, or your own disbelief. In those positions, you can only make fun of the opposing view...and well, that just makes you a bloody arsehole. ;)

I agree with your first sentence. I make it a point each day to find new things about myself to poke fun of, lest I take myself too seriously and ruin all the joy to be had from discovering absurdities.

Where divine spirituality is concerned, there's three different main characters to contend with: Faith, Outright Disbelief, and the IONNO option. In my opinion, the bigger, bloodier arsehole would be the IONNO making fun of the TWO opposing views, without even drumming up his own for the others to contend with. How are we to make fun of you if you don't offer up a strong opinion either way? We could take potshots at your indecisiveness, but that's no fun! Give us something concrete to throw our sticks and stones at! :D

Take the comedian who rips on multiple ethnicities, for laughs. It wouldn't be really that funny if he was hiding behind a box and not offering up his own ethnicity as a possible butt of a joke, would it? The mixed audience is comfortable taking the insults from their own kind, or even their ethnic opposites. But taking humorous insults from someone they can't rip on themselves would surely illicit groans, uncomfortable shifting and quite a bit of heckling to the comedian who won't offer up his own self for jabs and jeers.

I'll leave you with a set of relevant quotes from Bertrand Russell that may put us on a similiar "middle" ground. This may actually satisfy us both, in the end:

"Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality."

"When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others."

I'll not only admit to what I feel is "much more nearly certain", but I'll make damned sure not to step away from the podium until I have made it quite clear to myself and to others which direction I'm leaning in. Peer approval be damned! This is for my own good.

People label themselves Christians way to easily nowadays. I bet more than half of the xians of the world don't strive to follow the example and teachings of christ.
This is why so many people have little respect for xianity.

Bout fucking time someone else said it.

Everyone is an agnostic. No one knows for sure about stuff that is beyond our own perspective reality. For anyone to say they are definite either way is really pretentious, arrogant, and a flat out lie. It is reasonable to label oneself as a certain belief on the issue, but to claim the belief is definite and without err is complete bullshit. Just by the very definition of perspective, no one can realistically know this stuff.

"People label themselves Christians way to easily nowadays. I bet more than half of the xians of the world don't strive to follow the example and teachings of christ.
This is why so many people have little respect for xianity."

Bullshit. If more people followed the teachings of Christ, we'd be in a shitstorm not seen since the Crusades.

It would certainly help if you fucking morons would actually READ your own holy book.

Bullshit. If more people followed the teachings of Christ, we'd be in a shitstorm not seen since the Crusades.

It would certainly help if you fucking morons would actually READ your own holy book.

People don't read it, that's the catch. They only preach things like being benevolent and loving thy neighbor. Following those couldn't possibly hurt

And if they preach bad things like Jesus hates fags, people already eat it all up so it'd change nothing. Hah

Do you think this level of awareness that the Universe may possess would matter one iota were it not to be observed by us shitty, basic elements? I also subscribe to the idea of Universal Consciousness, but I believe it is set in motion by our own sense of awareness, as the Universe would likely not have much use for such philosophical banter with Itself. My idea of Universal Consciousness can easily be examined through the understanding of Memetics, which I'm prepared expound more on if it so pleases the Hex. Another day, another thread ... Word.

Well, if this awareness or consciousness will someday bring an asteroid into the path of the Earth, why yes, I think it would matter even if we can't observe it as an aware entity. Sure thing on the expansion of your idea...craft another thread to spread like a virus through the deep reaches of intarweb.

Sure, gravity could be the pulse. If we want to metaphorically compare it to a model of ourselves, then I could think of a dozen different comparisons to the basic elements in relation to our human form. It won't amount to a hill a beans, but would certainly be a fun exercise in creativity. In fact, I may do this on the commute home today, versus listening to NPR and wearing my middle finger out on other motorists. :D

You just reminded me of something there. My creative and messy emotional brain functions as highly as my cold, heartless, critical brain...I think that may be a strong source of my indecision and confusion on an issue that generally is decided by an affinity for logic or an affinity for imagination.

I can't help but apply a silly accent to those phrases. I already sound like a cross between Chef Justin Wilson and Ellie Mae Clampett, on sedatives. (Deep south creole in case you're wondering, cher) ;)

Can you cook crawdads well?

I draw upon memories of my old 8th grade Earth Sciences teacher, Mrs. Funk (swear to all that is unholy, that was her name). Every time we were having an outloud Q&A session, she'd always scold the kids who gave the "Ionno?" answer. She was quick to add that it wasn't their ignorance that disappointed her, but their willingness to not even make a guess and try to get the answer right. She'd cajole them into a yes or no answer no matter what, prompting them with: "If you had to bet a quarter, what would you guess?" and "Pick whichever one is most likely - there's only an A or a B answer. Go with what feels right in your gut!"

My gut tells me to 'believe'. When I ask it why, it tells me to shut the fuck up, cook it a steak, and then go out into the world to party like an animal, spreading good will and tidings of joy and peace. It sounds fun and all, it really does...maybe I will.

What we've been discussing here is one of those A or B answers, except the question is much more difficult. I'd still prefer going with my gut, my intuition and everything I've managed to soak up so far to lead me to A or B, rather than cop out with the IONNO option. It's not so much about forcing myself to make a stance either way, but rather, a desire to participate in the mother-of-all Pop Quizzes with educated guesstimate answers, versus not answering at all. On the report card of life, I'd much prefer getting straight F's (If indeed I am wrong) than straight I's (for incomplete). Hey - at least I can say I bothered to fill in the multiple choices rather than leave them blank.

Whenever I get to a really tough question on a quiz, I take solace knowing that I can breeze through any other questions in a matter of minutes. This gives me time to sit there, pondering all the information I have to make sure I get the answer as close to 'right' as I can. It's not that I will never make a decision...I just have years left to finish this quiz, and I've already answered most other questions on it.

I agree with your first sentence. I make it a point each day to find new things about myself to poke fun of, lest I take myself too seriously and ruin all the joy to be had from discovering absurdities.

I like to joke around about the curvature of my penis sometimes. I say it hooks like a hockey stick...that usually drives people away, but they can go fuck themselves. I love that joke. And for the sake of all that is unholy, if a man can laugh at his own deformed penis, shouldn't someone else be able to?

Where divine spirituality is concerned, there's three different main characters to contend with: Faith, Outright Disbelief, and the IONNO option. In my opinion, the bigger, bloodier arsehole would be the IONNO making fun of the TWO opposing views, without even drumming up his own for the others to contend with. How are we to make fun of you if you don't offer up a strong opinion either way? We could take potshots at your indecisiveness, but that's no fun! Give us something concrete to throw our sticks and stones at! :D

Should I join up with the Spaghetti Monster folks? Or should I just say 'I think it's very likely the universe is alive and willful.' I'll go with B. There Femme, I've made a decision. Universal Will and Consciousness. Throw thy sticks, and thy stones...my shield will be crafted from your loved one's bones. MUAHAHAHA. ;)

Take the comedian who rips on multiple ethnicities, for laughs. It wouldn't be really that funny if he was hiding behind a box and not offering up his own ethnicity as a possible butt of a joke, would it? The mixed audience is comfortable taking the insults from their own kind, or even their ethnic opposites. But taking humorous insults from someone they can't rip on themselves would surely illicit groans, uncomfortable shifting and quite a bit of heckling to the comedian who won't offer up his own self for jabs and jeers.

I'd call that comedian either a pussy, or a genius for the added level of humor he might have been intending for the rare mad man in the back of the comedy club, who is not viewing himself as part of 'the audience', but himself as the REAL audience.

I'll leave you with a set of relevant quotes from Bertrand Russell that may put us on a similiar "middle" ground. This may actually satisfy us both, in the end:

Cool, I'll respond to them with a couple quotes that have always inspired me. And I'll try to make them somewhat relevant.

"Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality."

"Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck." -George Carlin

"When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others."

"Every time I go and shave, I assume there's someone else on the planet shaving. So I say, 'I'm gonna go shave, too.'" -Mitchell Hedberg

I'll not only admit to what I feel is "much more nearly certain", but I'll make damned sure not to step away from the podium until I have made it quite clear to myself and to others which direction I'm leaning in. Peer approval be damned! This is for my own good.

I believe in the all mighty joke. It's a tragedy filled joke, humorous to few. I believe when I first wrote this down, I was laughing for about an hour and a half. God Bless You, divine sage!

I penned this after a most splendid salvia divinorin trip:

The Cosmic Joke
Every last things we humans do is aimed, in no small part, towards continuing our survival as an individual, and as a race. This is a foolish attempt. No matter what we do in order to escape death, no matter how safe and carefully we choose our cards in life, we can be whisked away without notice. Our entire race could be erased in a matter of minutes with the right natural catastrophe. We strive and strive to survive, survive, survive when everything we do brings us neither closer nor further from our end.

Bullshit. If more people followed the teachings of Christ, we'd be in a shitstorm not seen since the Crusades.

It would certainly help if you fucking morons would actually READ your own holy book.

What exactly are you implying, please continue on why you think this...

What exactly are you implying, please continue on why you think this...

You still haven't answered my questions from the other day Sammy. You know...

"A bus full of small children falls off of a cliff into icy water where the majority of the children experience a painful death by drowning. This action can either be indended or unintended by god. If it is unintended, god is not all-powerful. If it is intended, god is not all loving. Let's assume that none of the kids personally angered god to invoke its destruction, and lets also assume that satan wasn't involved (if he was, then god is not all powerful or is using the deaths of the children as a lesson (divine plan). Divine plan: Lets assume that one child lived. Did he alone deserve to? Lets also assume the same child went on to be a drug addict and eventually committed suicide (I am assuming quite a lot, but it is my sceanario and god should have no problem, right?). If his survival justified? was it unintentional or intentional?"

Your answer to this was "The question is irrelevant because either you believe magic happened that cause nothing turning into something or energy being around forever or you believe an allpowerful God has always been there the most logical choice is a god which is why i find atheism completely outrageous for claiming they are soooo logical and yet believing in magic."


"I have a question. How was god himself created? I asked a preacher when I was younger once and he simply said he was always there or the bible just says that or something.
I don't understand how one thing can just be there or has always been there.
How can god himself create but something else not create him?
I have always wondered this and i thought I'd ask someone who believes in the god himself."

and your answer to this was "You can make anything sound horrible when you add ignorance, not knowing what your talking about, and a little pompousness, sadly it can also convince people who are the same way."

followed by "The question is unfair and was pompous and it deserved the same kind of answer. The fact is i dont have to answer the question and i wont until you have done what i have asked of you but you will not bring yourselves to read the Bible so i will not bring myself to answer the question.
"
Will you answer them now, or just ignore them as usual?

"What exactly are you implying, please continue on why you think this..."

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

http://www.evilbible.com/

But I know you won't figure it out, even if you do look at it. It's too complex a puzzle for your faith to handle, so you'll shut it out and make some bizzare comment about how I'm "taking it out of context", or something equally ludicrous.

You still haven't answered my questions from the other day Sammy. You know...

"A bus full of small children falls off of a cliff into icy water where the majority of the children experience a painful death by drowning. This action can either be indended or unintended by god. If it is unintended, god is not all-powerful. If it is intended, god is not all loving. Let's assume that none of the kids personally angered god to invoke its destruction, and lets also assume that satan wasn't involved (if he was, then god is not all powerful or is using the deaths of the children as a lesson (divine plan). Divine plan: Lets assume that one child lived. Did he alone deserve to? Lets also assume the same child went on to be a drug addict and eventually committed suicide (I am assuming quite a lot, but it is my sceanario and god should have no problem, right?). If his survival justified? was it unintentional or intentional?"

Your answer to this was "The question is irrelevant because either you believe magic happened that cause nothing turning into something or energy being around forever or you believe an allpowerful God has always been there the most logical choice is a god which is why i find atheism completely outrageous for claiming they are soooo logical and yet believing in magic."


"I have a question. How was god himself created? I asked a preacher when I was younger once and he simply said he was always there or the bible just says that or something.
I don't understand how one thing can just be there or has always been there.
How can god himself create but something else not create him?
I have always wondered this and i thought I'd ask someone who believes in the god himself."

and your answer to this was "You can make anything sound horrible when you add ignorance, not knowing what your talking about, and a little pompousness, sadly it can also convince people who are the same way."

followed by "The question is unfair and was pompous and it deserved the same kind of answer. The fact is i dont have to answer the question and i wont until you have done what i have asked of you but you will not bring yourselves to read the Bible so i will not bring myself to answer the question.
"
Will you answer them now, or just ignore them as usual?

You have everything I said mixed up go run along somewhere else.

As for that propaganda ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda ) Surak posted it is just that propaganda it hates logic and reason when interpreting things and dont make some stupid comment like "if your dealing with logic and reason dont bring the Bible into this" its childish and unnecessary.

BTW How bout you say things yourself without leaving it up to missleading propaganda site to do it for you READ THE BOOK FOR YOURSELF THEN YOU CAN COMPLAIN ABOUT IT.

"Surak posted it is just that propaganda it hates logic and reason when interpreting things"

What? Explain, you dumb motherfucker. How is blatant shit like Jesus saying "I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.", and "a man's foes shall be they of his own household." a good thing? How?

Explain to me, what the fuck that means. If the Bible is the word of God, then what the fuck does it mean? Because it's pretty clear to me, you douchefuck.

"and dont make some stupid comment like "if your dealing with logic and reason dont bring the Bible into this" its childish and unnecessary."

You don't get to talk to people about being "childish and unnecessary." You are the very definition of that phrase.

"BTW How bout you say things yourself without leaving it up to missleading propaganda site to do it for you READ THE BOOK FOR YOURSELF THEN YOU CAN COMPLAIN ABOUT IT."

Propaganda? All it has is what's written in your fucking book, which by the way I have read personally; you're an idiot if you believe any of that shit is true.

"Propaganda? All it has is what's written in your fucking book, which by the way I have read personally; you're an idiot if you believe any of that shit is true."

Its not in my book, get a new translation.

"Because it's pretty clear to me, you douchefuck."

Go on....

BTW thumbing through the Bible dosnt count as reading it. :rolleyes:

Ok, what "version" of the Bible do you read? And yes, asshole I have read the entire goddamn thing. I had a lot of time off in the summer a few years ago.

Ok, what "version" of the Bible do you read? And yes, asshole I have read the entire goddamn thing. I had a lot of time off in the summer a few years ago.

KJV because i know the historys of the Bible and that one is the best one you can get without learning a new language.

KJV because i know the historys of the Bible and that one is the best one you can get without learning a new language.

Again you refuse to answer my questions above. As well as Suraks. As well as everyone elses.

You insist on posting crap about how well read you are on the bible, and how none of us have read it before. Well, I have read it too. Your interpretations are your churches interpretations. My interpretations are not swayed by a bunch of other peoples interpretations, so I think I got a whole lot more understanding out of it.

Just go and troll some other forum.

Again you refuse to answer my questions above. As well as Suraks. As well as everyone elses.

You insist on posting crap about how well read you are on the bible, and how none of us have read it before. Well, I have read it too. Your interpretations are your churches interpretations. My interpretations are not swayed by a bunch of other peoples interpretations, so I think I got a whole lot more understanding out of it.

Just go and troll some other forum.

You dont know what the fuck your talking about "your churches interpretations" you have no clue how I arrive at my interpretations yet you claim you do and by doing so you are slandering me and in this case you are making this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda .

You dont know what the fuck your talking about "your churches interpretations" you have no clue how I arrive at my interpretations yet you claim you do and by doing so you are slandering me and in this case you are making this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda .

No, I'm not. I have read a lot of your posts, and know enough to say your views are the same as your churches views. You refuse to answer simple questions, and abuse anyone that dares to question you. You have no knowledge of sex education, what goes on in normal schools, evolution, or anything other than your own religion.

If your views were your own, and you had arrived at your own conclusions, you would be able to discuss things as a normal human being. But instead, you assume you are the expert, and we know nothing.

Just grow up, and realise how the rest of Totse views you.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felching

What? Explain, you dumb motherfucker. How is blatant shit like Jesus saying "I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.", and "a man's foes shall be they of his own household." a good thing? How?

Explain to me, what the fuck that means. If the Bible is the word of God, then what the fuck does it mean? Because it's pretty clear to me, you douchefuck.

What chapter and verse of the Bible is that? I don't recognize it at all.

"No, I'm not. I have read a lot of your posts, and know enough to say your views are the same as your churches views."

This is yet another case of "you dont know what the fuck your talking about" you dont know my churches views and you certainly dont understand where i get my views.

"You refuse to answer simple questions, and abuse anyone that dares to question you."

That is false.

"You have no knowledge of sex education,"

That is irrelevant.

"on in normal schools,"

Also irrelevant.

"or anything other than your own religion."

That is an absolute lie.

"If your views were your own, and you had arrived at your own conclusions, you would be able to discuss things as a normal human being."

I see you have nothing to back up your point, as usual.BTW this is totse good luck on finding "a normal human being".

"But instead, you assume you are the expert, and we know nothing."

1.Your one to talk about assuming things.
2.In this case you dont know anything because you are constantly spewing bullshit and propaganda just for you to feel right without knowing what the fuck your talking about.

Sammy - are you male or female?

What chapter and verse of the Bible is that? I don't recognize it at all.

Matthew 10:34 to 39

34 Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35 For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36 and a man's foes'shall be they of his own household.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38 And he that doth not take his cross and follow after me, is not worthy of me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.


I tell you what - this god of yours is such a peaceful guy!!!

Matthew 10:34 to 39

34 Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35 For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36 and a man's foes'shall be they of his own household.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38 And he that doth not take his cross and follow after me, is not worthy of me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.


I tell you what - this god of yours is such a peaceful guy!!!

Your a moron he was talking about how what He was doing would divide households due to the fact some Jews did not want to follow him and others did religious matter can easily divide households and thats all he was pointing out and he was also saying if you dont like it tough.

Matthew 10:34 to 39

34 Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35 For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36 and a man's foes'shall be they of his own household.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38 And he that doth not take his cross and follow after me, is not worthy of me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.


I tell you what - this god of yours is such a peaceful guy!!!

I'll tell YOU what - two things, in fact...
1> It ain't my God. I'm agnostic and don't worship.

2> I hate to agree with the Troll, but you've ripped those verses straight out of the context of the chapter in which they were written. The greater context refers to the forces set against the disciples that are tasked to deliver the word of god, and the conflict that will arise against them. The "sword" is entirely metaphorical - it isn't talking about actual blood & violence conflict, but rather than divisiveness. God isn't going to accept what he considers a bunch of wretched little sinners just to keep the family happy and intact. It may not be peace, but it's still not the same thing as real war.

*Slaps self and looks at Iehova's post again*

Your a moron he was talking about how what He was doing would divide households due to the fact some Jews did not want to follow him and others did religious matter can easily divide households and thats all he was pointing out and he was also saying if you dont like it tough.

No, moron. Jesus was telling his disciples that his intention was to pit son and father against each other, and to deliberately cause violence.

That whole "I came not to send peace, but a sword" kinda blows your argument away....

Look - heres the whole damned thing so people can read it. Lets see what other posters have to say:

And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus, Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. And when ye come into an house, salute it.
And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;
And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.
It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?
Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

My statement still stands but if you have a specific verse from all that which you feel nullifies my statement please put it up so i can address it.

I'll tell YOU what - two things, in fact...
1> It ain't my God. I'm agnostic and don't worship.

2> I hate to agree with the Troll, but you've ripped those verses straight out of the context of the chapter in which they were written. The greater context refers to the forces set against the disciples that are tasked to deliver the word of god, and the conflict that will arise against them. The "sword" is entirely metaphorical - it isn't talking about actual blood & violence conflict, but rather than divisiveness. God isn't going to accept what he considers a bunch of wretched little sinners just to keep the family happy and intact. It may not be peace, but it's still not the same thing as real war.

Sorry about that - that quip about it being your god wasn't aimed directly at you - more of a general statement.

I've posted the whole chapter up above, at it seems Jesus was saying to his disciples his aim was to cause violence. I've read it, and re-read it, and the whole feeling I get is that people are to follow jesus, or suffer the consequences...

I've posted the whole chapter up above, at it seems Jesus was saying to his disciples his aim was to cause violence. I've read it, and re-read it, and the whole feeling I get is that people are to follow jesus, or suffer the consequences...

Like I said specific verse.

My statement still stands but if you have a specific verse from all that which you feel nullifies my statement please put it up so i can address it.

Dude, it says plain as day:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

He doesn't say his presence might cause some trouble between family members. It says his aim is to pit son against father, daughter against mother etc... Theres no way this violence is unintentional!

Sorry about that - that quip about it being your god wasn't aimed directly at you - more of a general statement.

I've posted the whole chapter up above, at it seems Jesus was saying to his disciples his aim was to cause violence. I've read it, and re-read it, and the whole feeling I get is that people are to follow jesus, or suffer the consequences...

You understand what metaphor is, right?

If so, then you understand that someone that preaches intolerance and separationism is not a man of peace? That their words are a "sword" that cuts ties apart where they should be bound the closest together? That's not peace, but it sure as hell isn't violence either. That's a God of Ego.

Remember that Jesus also preaches to love the enemy and to turn the other cheek. You might say then that this is hypocrisy and that he's preaching two different messages. You'd be right.... IF your interpretation of his message about peace and violence were correct. It isn't and the reason the two can exist together is that it is possible (under a God that condemns his beloved children to Hell) to love your family, while distancing yourself from them, knowing they'll suffer for eternity.

Jesus wasn't a warmonger, or it would likely have been someone else up on the cross. Given his message, though, it's hard to call him a prince of peace.

You understand what metaphor is, right?

If so, then you understand that someone that preaches intolerance and separationism is not a man of peace? That their words are a "sword" that cuts ties apart where they should be bound the closest together? That's not peace, but it sure as hell isn't violence either. That's a God of Ego.

Remember that Jesus also preaches to love the enemy and to turn the other cheek. You might say then that this is hypocrisy and that he's preaching two different messages. You'd be right.... IF your interpretation of his message about peace and violence were correct. It isn't and the reason the two can exist together is that it is possible (under a God that condemns his beloved children to Hell) to love your family, while distancing yourself from them, knowing they'll suffer for eternity.

Jesus wasn't a warmonger, or it would likely have been someone else up on the cross. Given his message, though, it's hard to call him a prince of peace.

I see what you are saying.

The trouble I have with all this is that everyone has a different interpretation. I can see that sometimes he is peaceful and loving, but in the text above he is clearly showing a violent side.

I mean, even using the sword as a metaphor - who's to say it is a metaphor? He could actually be saying to his disciples go and spread the word, and anyone that doesn't turn to me will be slain? Hell, it's my intention to pit son against father!

I see what you are saying.

The trouble I have with all this is that everyone has a different interpretation. I can see that sometimes he is peaceful and loving, but in the text above he is clearly showing a violent side.

I mean, even using the sword as a metaphor - who's to say it is a metaphor? He could actually be saying to his disciples go and spread the word, and anyone that doesn't turn to me will be slain? Hell, it's my intention to pit son against father!

According to the Bible, Jesus told his disciples that any household that ill-treats them is to be left. There is no vengeance for his followers, but for God alone. "Vengeance is mine, said the Lord."

His children are supposed to 'remove the beam from their own eye before touching the mote in their neighbors', 'even the wicked love their brothers, so love thy enemies', 'love your neighbors as yourself', 'love God with all your might', 'give their coat to any who asks', 'traverse as a companion twice the length expected', and so on. Not a single time does Jesus, nor a single disciple, order an act of violence in the Bible.

Even in Revelations, when the 'spirit returns'...the sword that comes from Christ's mouth is nothing but words of Truth for people consumed in lies.

Taking all that with the commandments (none of which are Biblically supported for retribution in the form of violence. A different set of laws contained in the Bible are found in Leviticus: the laws of the Levites, the sons of Aaron. These are the laws of the priesthood, and definitely punishable by death.

According to the Bible, Jesus told his disciples that any household that ill-treats them is to be left. There is no vengeance for his followers, but for God alone. "Vengeance is mine, said the Lord."

His children are supposed to 'remove the beam from their own eye before touching the mote in their neighbors', 'even the wicked love their brothers, so love thy enemies', 'love your neighbors as yourself', 'love God with all your might', 'give their coat to any who asks', 'traverse as a companion twice the length expected', and so on. Not a single time does Jesus, nor a single disciple, order an act of violence in the Bible.

Even in Revelations, when the 'spirit returns'...the sword that comes from Christ's mouth is nothing but words of Truth for people consumed in lies.

Taking all that with the commandments (none of which are Biblically supported for retribution in the form of violence. A different set of laws contained in the Bible are found in Leviticus: the laws of the Levites, the sons of Aaron. These are the laws of the priesthood, and definitely punishable by death.

Thats your interpretation, and thats fine. My interpretation (and I am hardly an expert) is that there are plenty of examples of Jesus and god being violent.

The whole Old Testamant is a pretty violent book. And in Matthew 5:17, Jesus says he has no problem with that (Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.).

Matthew 5:4 says (For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.). I guess you could take that metaphorically, or you could link it back to Exodus 21:17 (And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.). The paragraph above showed Jesus agreeing with the old laws, so I guess he agrees with this one as well....

I guess my whole point here is that the Bible is open to interpretation. My interpretation does not come from a religious background, whereas a lot of peoples does. I'm not saying mine is right, but after having read the book, I have a lot less respect for people that blindly follow their churches view....cough....cough SAMMY249......cough...

"blindly follow their churches view....cough....cough SAMMY249......cough..."

Again you say that without knowing wtf your talking about.

"blindly follow their churches view....cough....cough SAMMY249......cough..."

Again you say that without knowing wtf your talking about.

And again you bypass the topic without answering any questions. lol, this is fun!

Thats your interpretation, and thats fine. My interpretation (and I am hardly an expert) is that there are plenty of examples of Jesus and god being violent.

I'm not going to say you're wrong. But comparing interpretations is always fun (unless one side is willing to kill the other over the shit ;))

The whole Old Testamant is a pretty violent book. And in Matthew 5:17, Jesus says he has no problem with that (Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.).

I agree, the OT is very violent. I wouldn't expect a historical account of a Middle Eastern mercenary tribe to be any different. :P The hebarus (modern Hebrews), were some of the greatest warriors in all history; their exploits in war shaped modern day combat strategies.

Matthew 5:4 says (For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.). I guess you could take that metaphorically, or you could link it back to Exodus 21:17 (And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.). The paragraph above showed Jesus agreeing with the old laws, so I guess he agrees with this one as well....

It's also decided in the NT that the Jewish laws, while still being affirmed and upheld by Jesus, applied to the Jews. For the gentiles, there are four laws...and sadly I can't remember two of them, nor the book, chapter, and verse. If anyone bilblical scholars are around, help is welcome on that. The two I recall are 'Love God' and 'Love your neighbors'. Forgive my poor memory on this, I've only read the book front to back twice.

I guess my whole point here is that the Bible is open to interpretation. My interpretation does not come from a religious background, whereas a lot of peoples does. I'm not saying mine is right, but after having read the book, I have a lot less respect for people that blindly follow their churches view....cough....cough SAMMY249......cough...

My interpretation doesn't come from the religious background either...so don't expect me to be supporting a literal reading of blatant metaphor (Some people try to make a very foolish point as such: If some parts are metaphor, and others literal, how do you know which is which? I respond as such: Well, it's like knowing the difference between a cookbook and 1984...one piece of literature is blatant literalism, the other blatant allegory). I read books from a literature-based background.

I found this forum through pure accident, or divine intervention; which would be unplausible to someone like you. :) The world would be in a Shitstorm; how so? Explain yourself for a second; if that is even possible with you. : It would help if fucking imbeciles like yourself actually took the time to think about what they were saying and present it in a logical manner before opening their cornhole.


Bullshit. If more people followed the teachings of Christ, we'd be in a shitstorm not seen since the Crusades.

It would certainly help if you fucking morons would actually READ your own holy book.

[ The two I recall are 'Love God' and 'Love your neighbors'. Forgive my poor memory on this, I've only read the book front to back twice.
that is all you really need to remember; that pretty much sums up what everything is about. ;)

It is a cop out.

Fuck them.

In America, saying you're a Christian is the true "cop out" seeing as it is the non-controversial and most popular religion in the country.

So, you are the same as they in your stance it seems. That doesn't sound very agnostic to me. Doesn't agnostic reserve judgment? It sounds to me like you aren't a fence sitter after all.



But I'm constantly having these Christians tell me that my agnostic beliefs are "on the fence" or "taking the high road." But why is standing up for your beliefs when they are unpopular considered being an indecisive?

If I don't want to associate myself with a religion, then why should I have to? It's an invention of man anyway. I could go my entire life without talking about religion (or hearing about it).How and why do you let them suck you into a discussion then?

btw...

Is agnosticism a "belief" to you? What type of agnostic are you?