Say Anything Blog

I would maybe change that to the agnostic movement.

For example Rob Port (a guy that used to be around here a lot) says he’s an atheist, but he’s very respectful of people who are religious and knowledgeable about their religion.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

I always thought agnostic was acknowledgement of a higher being but remaining indifferent.

Fileitunder.com

I always thought of ‘agnostic” as a kind of crossword puzzle, only without the clues. 

Or maybe the clues really are there, and we just don’t pay them any attention, but just kinda fill in the blanks.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Whistler,

By the way, who’s this “Rob Port” guy you keep talking about?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Are you sure you guys don’t mean Rob B, who posts at Fileitunder??!?

Fileitunder.com

My take on “agnostic” is of someone who doesn’t know whether God exists or not, and therefore won’t take a stand either way.  In other words, a religious moderate.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly theological claims regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), or deities — is unknown or (possibly) inherently unknowable. Some agnostics take a stronger view that the concept of a deity is incoherent, thus meaningless and irrelevant to life.
Contrast this to Atheism as the disbelief in the existence of any deities. It is commonly defined as the deliberate rejection or denial of theism, amounting to the positive assertion that deities do not exist.

So by the unverifiable nature of metaphysics athiest are argueing the opposing side of the board from theist. Agnostics range in the middle as the proverbial “shade of grey” between black and white.

Agnostics, in this sense can say they believe that there “is a God but simply cannot prove it” as a position all the way to they believe that “there isn’t a God but simply can prove it” to the middle ground of “they aren’t sure.”

(Disclaimer: this is Rob B, not Rob Port, which is evident because as a Sock puppet “Rob B” would be terribly uncreative as a name.)

an agnostic is someone open minded about the possibility of the existance of god(s) but who doesn’t take it as an absolute definate. There are different degrees: i.e. those agnostic that believe god(s) most likely exist and have a small doubt v.s. those that highly doubt it as posible but still honestly aknoledge the possibility.

This points me to the whole reason that I bring this up, Christianism has an extremely strong dishonest streak in it. By that I mean that Christians don’t normally honestly believe that there is a God. Christians have a emotionally vested interest in saying that “there is a God.”

...

Likewise, have you noticed that Christians hate all other non-Christian god(s). How many Christians do you ever see not attacking the possibility of the god(s)/deities of Bahi or Islam or the Native Americans or the scientologist as been the true god(s)/deities? I can’t remember one time. I’m sure that there has to be, but let’s be honest, Christianism in the US is a anti-other-religions movement.

Christianism in the US is a anti-other-religions movement.

Anon,

Truth is exclusive.

At least Christianity is consistent in that it removes the possibility of any other God.  The point of this post is that Atheists in America focus their disdain upon the God of Christianity alone, and not the gods of other religions.

an agnostic is someone open minded about the possibility of the existance (sic) of god(s) but who doesn’t take it as an absolute definate (sic).

Leave it to an agnostic to pat himself on the back rhetorically for being fuzzy-headed, unclear, indecisive, morally adrift, and decidedly prone to relativistic thinking.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

At least Christianity is consistent in that it removes the possibility of any other God.  The point of this post is that Atheists in America focus their disdain upon the God of Christianity alone, and not the gods of other religions.

Which is a natural thing, since the idea and argument of the existance of said god is the one they encounter the most. ..I wouldn’t be surpriced if atheist in Japan focus their disdain upon the god of whatever religion may be most prominent in the place in which they reside, i.e. the god(s) for which most of those around them argue exist.

expansion:.. but let’s be honest, Christianism in the US is a anti-other-religions AND ATHEISM movement.

aNON: Now, that’s just nonsense.  At least they don’t exhort their followers to “kill all the infidels"…

Your antiChristian bigotry is showing once again.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

My take on “agnostic” is someone who questions the questions that can’t be answered logically.  But, that’s just me.

The God of Judaism, Islam and Christianity is one and the same.  Think of it as a relational database, but with different perspectives and written in Basic2.  It gets tricky after that.

TW: decision69; which in this case, is not really relevant.

HG:

Atheists in America focus their disdain upon the God of Christianity…

aNON:

Which is a natural thing, since the idea and argument of the existance of said god is the one they encounter the most…

Gee!  All this time I thought the idea was to respect the religious differences between us, rather than try rationalize the disdain and disparagement of each other’s faith.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

My take on “agnostic” is someone who questions the questions that can’t be answered logically.

Diana,

An interesting way to look at it!  Still, your “definition” implies that those same agnostics are capable of logic… which clearly is not always the case.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

The God of Judaism, Islam and Christianity is one and the same.

Nope. Allah, Jehovah, and Jesus Christ are not one in the same.

Freedom of religion. Not freedom FROM religion. Glad I could straighten that out for y’all. Now I am off to play Warcraft(I refuse to say World Of). I am building me a mean Orc!

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Bat One ... example, please.

HG ... by definition, Jesus=God.  Are not all three the God of Abraham?

aNON: Now, that’s just nonsense.  At least they don’t exhort their followers to “kill all the infidels"…

I hold those with the “kill all the infidels” (aka anyone that doesn’t take their believe as absolute) mentality to be close to as detestable as Hitler. I hold those that actually take it upon themself to actively try and “kill the infidels” mentality to be as bad as Hitler themself.

I believe Christianity, ..as well as some other relgions like Budhism, to have been a clear net positive for this world.  The same doesnt hold true of many other religions ..

But there’s some bad Christians outhere, lol. ..

...Last week I saw a infomercial of this guy trying to sell some God-want’s-you-to-be-wealthy-in-money-here’s-how type of book, and so he first comes to mind as an example.

I hold those with the “kill all the infidels” (aka anyone that doesn’t take their believe as absolute) mentality to be close to as detestable as Hitler. I hold those that actually take it upon themself to actively try and “kill the infidels” mentality to be as bad as Hitler themself.

..atheists and agnostics included

...Last week I saw a infomercial of this guy trying to sell some God-want’s-you-to-be-wealthy-in-money-here’s-how type of book, and so he first comes to mind as an example.

Well, I see your point; that’s much worse than feeding people into woodchippers, for instance.  /sarcasm

To address one of your other points, Christianity is for something, while atheism is against something.  See the difference?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

It’s optimistic!

Fileitunder.com

Gee!  All this time I thought the idea was to respect the religious differences between us, rather than try rationalize the disdain and disparagement of each other’s faith.

that my mantra, no pun inteded. But I realize it isn’t the mantra of many other American (atheist, Christian, and other relgious groups included).  If you think about it agnostic seem to be the philosophy most open to the religious philosophies of other. i.e. a Christian may say he’s respectfull of an atheism believes, but deep inside he is more likely to hold it essential tenets to be bull shit, and visa versa.

From Merriam-Webster:

agnostic
2 entries found for agnostic.
To select an entry, click on it.

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-’näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know—more at KNOW
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

..i.e. is kinda much easier to be respectfull to something you remain, even if a little, open-minded about, than it is to something you hold so be close to bull shit.

In its post-modern incarnation, atheism is “against” God. Not really how it all started. And now I really am off to Misha.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Diana: In the Old Testament(Judaism), God is active and occasionally Incarnate.  In Christianity, God is relatively inactive and wholly Disincarnate; Jesus is the active and Incarnate form of God, but they coexist.  Allah is inactive and Disincarnate.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

"one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god” is the definition that hold most true about that which we are discussing.  It should be easy to see the different degree agnotism takes, i.e. from those that hold the existance of God/a god to be an extremely remote possibility, to those who hold the existance of God/a god with near absolute certitude.

aNON: indecisiveness isn’t open-mindedness; it’s cowardice. Ignorance isn’t open-mindedness, either.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

In its post-modern incarnation, atheism is “against” God. Not really how it all started. And now I really am off to Misha.

Not just God, but also Allah, Budha, Voodoo deities, Santaria’s Godess, etc.

aNON: Nice cherry-pick, but you forgot the rest of definition one:

one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Nothing like making your case with a half-truth; the MSM does it all the time.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

aNON: indecisiveness isn’t open-mindedness; it’s cowardice. Ignorance isn’t open-mindedness, either.

..and I’ve never made the claim otherwise.

Not just God, but also Allah, Budha, Voodoo deities, Santaria’s Godess, etc.

Funny how they only seem to focus on Christianity.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

aNON: Nice cherry-pick, but you forgot the rest of definition one:

one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

um, that exactly what I quoted, ..

“one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god” is the definition that hold most true about that which we are discussing.  It should be easy to see the different degree agnotism takes, i.e. from those that hold the existance of God/a god to be an extremely remote possibility, to those who hold the existance of God/a god with near absolute certitude.

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

The entire quote.  The second part makes my point, and the first part makes your point, if you ignore the second part, which is what you did.  Even though the first part didn’t support my point, I included it as a matter of principle; you left out the second part of the first meaning, which was a cherry-pick, as I said before.  It’s telling a half-truth(or a partial truth) to support your agenda, not to advance the cause of truth.  See the difference?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

aNON: indecisiveness isn’t open-mindedness; it’s cowardice. Ignorance isn’t open-mindedness, either.

..and I’ve never made the claim otherwise.

Apparently you did, after all.

..i.e. is kinda much easier to be respectfull to something you remain, even if a little, open-minded about, than it is to something you hold so be close to bull shit.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Funny how they only seem to focus on Christianity.

Perhaps do to the fact the argument for the Chistian God is the one which they are mostly surrounded with. I lived in a Hindu mecca in the middle of Deshnoke, India, I guranteed you those holy-cow rats would be getting an earful bigger than my protestations against the likes of Robert Titon, lol.

aNON: Your cherry-picking reminds me of those lefties who quote the first part of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion...” and leave out the rest of it, which reads: “...nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.” which clearly prohibits laws against religious worship, either in public or private.  Since it mentions Congress, it would prohibit any federal interference with religious worship at all.  Not convenient for the leftie antiChristian agenda, so they just pretend like it doesn’t exist.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

rob, it’s obvious agnostics remains more open-minded about regions (i.e. Christianity etc.) and atheism, than those that practice religion (i.e. Chistians, etc.) and atheist are about agnotism, atheism, religions, denominations, and sect different from theres.

aNON,

In other words, it is better to honestly express one’s disagreements with another, for example telling you that I think of you as an illiterate, f**cking moron, rather than a more civilized and personable approach to our differences of opinion, such as pointing out those differences rationally and avoiding the disparagement and disdain that you were rationalizing earlier above?

Implicit in any religious faith is the moral certitude that forms the foundation of that particular creed.  This is as for Zen Buddhism or Russian Orthodox Catholicism as it is for Wahabist Islam, Druid paganism, or Orthodox Judaism.  Those with a religious faith say, in essence, “I believe.” And most often, they can respect the fact that others believe… even if their beliefs are different.  For those who do not believe much of anything (Agnostics), that moral certitude is understandably anathema, as it is based on belief rather than demonstrated fact or logic.

You may regard yourself, and other agnostics, as open-minded, although I would question both the judgment and the motive.  But if you are going to continue to justify the disdain and disparagement of agnostics for Christians and Christian faith, you can hardly expect others to accept your claim of open-mindedness.  When you say one thing and do another, that’s generally called hypocrisy.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

robert108 ... but, they is still only one God, according to the scriptures and other writings, who was the God of Abraham.  The concept has been interpreted, bastardized and corrupted by some, but the premise remains the same.

Are not all three the God of Abraham?

Diane,

Ask Islam—only Allah.
Ask Judiasm—only Jehovah.
Ask Christianity—Jesus Christ and Jehovah is the God of Abraham.

All claim to be, but all three cannot be.

rob, it’s obvious agnostics remains more open-minded about regions (i.e. Christianity etc.) and atheism, than those that practice religion (i.e. Chistians, etc.) and atheist are about agnotism, atheism, religions, denominations, and sect different from theres.

Anon ... you’d better try that one again.

All claim to be, but all three cannot be.

Your error here is to limit God by human imperfection.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

HG ... as I said, the concepts and interpretations have been twisted.  The three are not separate ... they are all one and the same ... the God of Abraham.

TW: alone76 ... yup!

aNON: Once again, indecision or lack of knowledge do not equate to open-mindedness.
As someone once said: “If you are too open-minded, your brains might fall out.” It’s meant to be funny, of course, but there is an underlying truth to that.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

aNON: I know that everyone thinks their way is best, and that includes agnostics.  You are the epitome of that.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Implicit in any religious faith is the moral certitude that forms the foundation of that particular creed.  This is as for Zen Buddhism or Russian Orthodox Catholicism as it is for Wahabist Islam, Druid paganism, or Orthodox Judaism.  Those with a religious faith say, in essence, “I believe.” And most often, they can respect the fact that others believe… even if their beliefs are different.

exactly! they respect the fact that others can believe whatever they want, (yet are less inclined to,) They are way less incline to find the believes themself to be respectable. i.e. I absolutetly are an atheist when it comes to the practice of Wahabism, so you would never catch me been open-mined about such a philosophy.

For those who do not believe much of anything (Agnostics), that moral certitude is understandably anathema, as it is based on belief rather than demonstrated fact or logic.

and if all demonstrated facts and/or logic don’t points towards the absolute certainty of either atheism or the existance of a particular god, wouldn’t it be illogical to hold the existance of said god or atheism with absolute certainty?
____________

(..gotta go, ..and so I’m out)

robert108 ... but, they is still only one God, according to the scriptures and other writings, who was the God of Abraham.  The concept has been interpreted, bastardized and corrupted by some, but the premise remains the same.

I guess that all depends on whether you think humans define God, or that God created humans.  We are free to define our beliefs, but not to define God.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Your error here is to limit God by human imperfection.

Let me rephrase.... All three groups claim the God of Abraham, but all cannot be the God of Abraham.

aNON: I know that everyone thinks their way is best, and that includes agnostics.  You are the epitome of that.

I don’t think my way is absolutely the best, and I’m open-minded to the ways of others. I doubt you’re in anyway open-minded to the essential tenets of atheism etc. (God forbid for tha would most certainly make you an agnostic, lol)

We are free to define our beliefs, but not to define God.

OK ... wimmens, too.

TW: placed19 th ... totally out of the running.

aNON: That may be true, but so what? I refer you to my previous comment.  God is neither amenable to logic, physics, or human perception; if it were otherwise, it wouldn’t be God.  Metaphysics=above/beyond physics.
God doesn’t fit neatly into any convenient box.  That is why the agnostic position is simply either cowardice or ignorance, IMO.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I don’t think my way is absolutely I didn’t say “absolutely”, so try to be honest; you believe as you do because you think it’s the best way to be. the best, and I’m open-minded to the ways of others. You don’t have the courage of your convictions, then. I doubt you’re in anyway open-minded to the essential tenets of atheism etc. (God forbid for tha would most certainly make you an agnostic, lol)I don’t think being indecisive and sitting on the fence is being open-minded. I’m open-minded about what I want to order when I look at a restaurant menu, though.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

… but you’re discounting the stupidity of man.

OK ... wimmens, too.

Au contraire!  Our stupidity is one of the things that makes us have a need for God.  Otherwise, we would all be a bunch of arrogant agnostics and atheists.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

What about the bright ones

TW: would99 ... not an option.

Since I own this blog, and am an atheist, I thought I should chime in (though I haven’t read all the comments).

I really don’t see how I can be dishonest because of my beliefs.  I simply do not believe in a higher power.  I don’t believe in Allah, God, Yaweh, Buddah, Satan or any other supernatural religious being.  I believe that everything in the world, from creation to evolution to the duckbill platypus, has a scientific explanation that perhaps we just haven’t found yet.

I also don’t see the need for a supernatural religious being to enforce a moral code in me.  I know what is right and wrong, and I do my best to do right even without the threat of a father-like “God” figure sending me to hell.

I should point out, though, that I do believe in Jesus Christ and his teachings (or, at least, most of the teachings attributed to him) because I find them to be wise and worth knowing.

Just as I find certain proverbs and teachings from other religions to be equally wise and worth knowing.

But I guess I’m not your average atheist.  I know from experience that many atheists, especially those who form groups, are militant in their beliefs (or lack thereof) and very disrespectful of people who have faith.  I’m not like that.  If some people need religion to help them lead good, healthy and full lives so be it.

It’s just not something I, personally, have decided that I need.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

What about the bright ones(?)

You mean, by human standards?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Hmmm ... “human” standards have been spit upon lately by the UN, religious leaders and egoists rife with self loathing and an unfathomable interest in their own assholes.  I’m talkin’ global.

I hate to think it’s a sign of the times ... I’d dare someone to prove me wrong.

There’s a prize.

Its easy to go after Christians. Mostly because there is a very good chance that the worst that they will do is frown at you in a disapproving way.

Not to be pedantic, but…

The 2001 American Religious Identification Survey, by Kosmin, Mayer, and Keysar for the Graduate Center for the City University of New York, is probably the most authoritative such study on the religious preferences of Americans, despite being 5 years old.

According to that survey, over 159,000,000 (76.4%) Americans identified themselves as “Christian.” 902,000 Americans (0.4%) identified themselves as Atheist, while 991,000 (0.05%) identified themselves as Agnostic.  Oddly, another 27,486,000 (13.2%) responded as having “No Religion,” which makes me wonder just how many people actually know what the words “agnostic” or “atheist” mean.  Perhaps that 13.2% were just trying to cover their bets… just in case.

Still, to suggest that all those agnostics and atheists (nearly 1 million combined) are as logical, and as respectful of the beliefs of others as our host, Rob, is just plain silly.  They ain’t.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

HG said

The point of this post is that Atheists in America focus their disdain upon the God of Christianity alone, and not the gods of other religions.

Not all atheists apparently.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

Christians don’t believe there are no other gods.  Sure there are, lots of them.  They are just false gods.

HG, good defense.  Now if I could just send you a few clarities on the office of prophet you would be better off.  Maybe I’ll do post with some links of clarity for you in particular sometime.  I might do it on my blog.  You have caused me to think there may be others who struggle with the veracity spiritually of the gift and office.

Rob, I’ve never really understood true atheism.  I sort of was agnostic years ago.  But Knowing that you know there is nothing?  That kind of certitude is tough.  And probably as the post says, rejecting of a particular faith and not all things.  If you said you believe there is a great turtle in the sky and you honor it, you would be weird but you would have something.

I know you think I’m a religious nut.  That’s OK.  Iyam what Iyam. 

I’m not trying to start a new church, I’m not begging for money, I’m not on tv.  My place is to be faithful to what I’m called to do, even if no one believes me.  No one ever does, then, boom things happen. 

So, relax.  My actual opinion is probably only 20% of Americans are even close to being true Christians.  I work in a Church of 500 regular attendees, most are members and I’m not sure half are really saved. Being a member or regular attender of a Church does NOT make anyone a Christian.  Much less the person who was raised in the Church, and now thinks because the read books about the Bible or attend Church twice per year that they are ready for eternity.  Bad news, they aren’t.  I don’t know who is or isn’t in or out.  It’s not my job.  My job is to help the NEXT one I see get there if I can.

So, I do what I can.  I might seem to damage God’s reputation, but I’m quite confident He’ll survive.

As a Christian minister I have the same philosophy I do as a political conservative.  I refuse to dial back my theology or my politics to some moderate position in the hope that it might make it more appealing to some imagined middle ground. If I just didn’t believe in say Capitalism so much maybe fiscal liberals would come along and join the movement. Not too likely.

It’s serious BS in politics to take a moderate position and so it is in spiritual things.  Moderation is lukewarm.  If I read the 3rd chapter of Revelation there is something Jesus had to say about that.

I don’t often propound my beliefs spritually unless someone hits a nerve.  I pretty much find myself subject to lots of abuse if I do.  Jesus talked about that too.  So, I wear the badge without shame.  I’m not trying to be popular or “With it”.  If you met me in person, I’m the same guy. 

But, I have been around long enough to know you all tolerate me, perhaps with a bemused look on your face, this radical old Pentecostal.  Boy, I can’t think of a place I’d rather be.

I did have a post I wrote which fell off the edge of the earth about the relative insignificance politically of the northern plains but somehow that got lost.  Maybe I hit the wrong key.  I’ll have to rewrite it.

the AVATAR
Old Tigers are more dangerous when they believe this could be their last hunt.

From , “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”
Old tigers, sensing the end,
they’re at their most fierce. 
And they go down fighting.

"The point of this post is that Atheists in America focus their disdain upon the God of Christianity alone, and not the gods of other religions.”

Well, speaking just for me, not all atheists in America feel this way.

I would guess that the atheists you hear most about are the militant ones, and they do indeed seem to sneer most strongly at Christianity (which is, let’s face it, the predominant religion around us).

But I’d bet there are a lot of quieter atheists who don’t care enough to get upset about it all. I rarely comment on it myself because there is no point, and certainly no need to give offense.

I think that Zues, Athena, and all the Greco-Roman gods are crap.

But really I think atheists are most upset with Christian-Judaic-Islamic GOD. He’s the same dude right? Some just think he’s related to Jesus, some don’t, and yet more think he would approve of the slaughter of whoever a certain group of people are mad at at any given point in time. Oh, wait, I think all three have tendencies towards the latter… but anyway, its all the same God right?

You have caused me to think there may be others who struggle with the veracity spiritually of the gift and office.

Gene,

I appreciate the offer to clarify.  However, I am quite certain the scriptural evidence is strongly stacked against you on this one.  I wouldn’t be opposed to discussing this with you, but I don’t think SAB would be the appropriate venue.

That is why the agnostic position is simply either cowardice or ignorance, IMO.--Robert108

To believe something without evidence is irrational. A Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist etc. cannot claim to be rational. How can a rational person say that there is, or isn’t, a god? Where is the evidence? (Disclaimer: This doesn’t imply that agnostics are necessarily rational though, just that non-agnostics are clearly not.)

And it is quite ironic for a Christian, a sycophant that bows to a tyrant, to call an agnostic a coward.

So, God is a tyrant?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Well, if he/she/it existed, then the blood of many, many lives is on the aforementioned tyrants hands. And not democratically elected either. Sort of like Pinochet, the Shah, Hitler, Stalin, Dubbya, Saddam, Mao, Suharto, and countless others all rolled into one, but with extra super, duper magical powers to boot as well.

God is looking at this thread and laughing It’s ass off!

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

There are indeed those who have no religious faith of any sort, who are secure enough in their own identity, and mature enough in their demeanor to not disparage the beliefs of others or vent their childish contempt and bigotry.  We call those people grown-ups.

Bostonian:

I rarely comment on it myself because there is no point, and certainly no need to give offense.

Then there are those hateful little people whose joy it is to go out of their way to mock the religious beliefs of others, using every opportunity to belittle and insult that which they are either too vain or too ignorant to comprehend.

Anarchist Vegetarian:

And it is quite ironic for a Christian, a sycophant that bows to a tyrant, to call an agnostic a coward.

Well, if he/she/it existed, then the blood of many, many lives is on the aforementioned tyrants hands. And not democratically elected either. Sort of like Pinochet, the Shah, Hitler, Stalin, Dubbya, Saddam, Mao, Suharto, and countless others all rolled into one, but with extra super, duper magical powers to boot as well.

Proving, if further proof were ever needed, Hoodluman’s original point about those on the Left.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

And it is quite ironic for a Christian, a sycophant that bows to a tyrant, to call an agnostic a coward.

So, the malcontent that calls itself “Anarchist Vegan” is lecturing us on the validity of belief.  That is too funny.  AV, you illustrate quite clearly the limits of the human mind.  As a typical malignant narcissist, you see nothing larger than yourself.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I don’t consider agnosticism to be dishonest or intellectual cowardace because they are evaluating the data that is present and allowing for the fact that there are things that can be brought to bear on the subject that either haven’t come to light or cannot be brought to light in their understanding of the subject.

Most scientitfic minds will admit that even though the odds are against the unexplained result, the unexplained result is still possible. Whether it is sample error or the finger of God, abjectly claiming the elimination of an option despite not having data to the justify it’s elimination is intellectually dishonest. That is the complaint I have with the concept of atheism.

The fact that almost all of the atheist that I have met, now with the notable exception of Rob Port, have gone out of their way to be offensive, but specfically moreso to christians, is a personal gripe. However I contribute that to a personal or emotional bias against religion, but in the US christianity in specfic.

I have talked with many people that have defined themselves as atheist but have agreeed that with the sum of knowledge that people have both discovered and been wrong on that the possibility of a ‘God’ is there, however remote.  In acceding that it “can be possible” a person is no longer atheist but instead a “strong agnostic.” Semantics? You bet. But for the purpose of the classifications that I’ve made it’s held true so far. 

The people that violently attempt to ridicule and mock the religious are not doing so out of any higher desire to educate the masses. They do it out of hubris. It’s the same with Pat Robertson who one moment can be in the right lanes of Christianity and then can swerve into the ditch and say some of the most idiotic things that I have every heard because of his pride.

When it comes to issues of faith and belief, everyone has an opinion.  Most are wrong.  Most are unfounded and il-informed.

IF you depend on reason and understanding you cannot come to faith.  The ressurection and virgin birth are unreasonable.  So, if you must rationalize things you will just stay lost.  That’s a choice you make.

This discussion is like the one on prophecy.  People with opinions.  Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one. 

I closed the door on this with a friend of mine who is complely out of whack.  You can read about it here.

Some of the responders (who I will not name) know less about spiritual things than they do about jet engines.  Having read the Bible or seen some documentary on TV on the History Channel (most of which are wrong) or reading what the MSM tells you about things is as stupid as getting the political basis we all value so much from the same sources. 

2h9 and a few others have a good perspective on these things.  The rest, not so much.  So pardon me for disdaining your incompetent opinions.  When you talk about something you know something about i’ll listen.

I’ll not soon forget when Pilgrim took me to task over my opinion of police tactics.  He had earned the right to do so.  I listened and although I didn’t agree I backed away understanding that he had earned the right more than I had.

The same is true for many of those on this blog who pontificate about spiritual matters.  They sound stupid.

Bluntly, earn the right first.  HG and I will at some point have a discussion about a valid theological disagreement.  He appears to have earned the right.  He’s wrong of course, but that remains to be worked out.

My email is linked here for HG so we can begin an offline discussions of an issue.

It’s not that I don’t love you, I just with you would speak from some level of understanding.

the AVATAR
Old Tigers are more dangerous when they believe this could be their last hunt.

From , “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”
Old tigers, sensing the end,
they’re at their most fierce. 
And they go down fighting.

Gene,

Bravo!!!  Belief is, by definition, the acceptance of that which cannot be scientifically proven, and faith is the energy that sustain that belief.  The idea that Christianity should be discounted because such belief is “illogical” or “irrational” is arrogance taken to the level of absurdity.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

A Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist etc. cannot claim to be rational. How can a rational person say that there is, or isn’t, a god? Where is the evidence?

The teleological & cosmological proofs for the existence and necessity of a Creator exist(this is one example).  While God may not be personally known by logic alone, one can conclude there is a God.  Hence, knowledge of the existence of a God is reasonable and rational.

HG: God’s Existence isn’t dependent on our ability to perceive and understand; as a matter of fact, God IS Existence itself.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I agree R108, God exists whether or not anyone acknowledges Him.

There seems to be an idea here that faith is completely without any credibility, while reason is the epitomy of intellectual capability.  After work, I’d like to explore this.  Be back later.

Some of us adults choose not to believe in certain ‘stories’ that posit nonsense ontologies and have popular appeal for psychological reasons. Furthermore, r108’s new-age diety (everything) could have any name. It is not God as such.

Sparkie, what happens to someone when they die?

Some of us adults choose not to believe in certain ‘stories’ that posit nonsense ontologies and have popular appeal for psychological reasons.

By “nonsense ontologies”, do you mean evolution, human-caused global warming, the bird flu epidemic, the heterosexual AIDS epidemic, and the rest of the leftie agenda?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Sparkie,

I assume your answer would be “nothing”.  No matter your answer you cannot prove that conscious existence ceases at death or continues.  Those who say it ceases, simply believe it to be so.  These have abandoned hope of anything more than the material.  Those who say we continue after death have held on to hope that there is something more, something greater than our finite selves.  There is nothing adolescent or naive about those who hold onto hope that is inherent in all of us, but there is something incomplete about those who abandon hope and think it is the intellectually superior decision.

HG: I agree with you as far as you go, but propose there is an even deeper reason for the denial of God:  responsibility.  If there is no God, and no continuance of life through an immortal soul, there is only situational responsibility, and only situational ethics and morality.  Knowing God and subscribing to a continuance of consciousness requires a far greater commitment to long term morality and ethics, and requires a far greater commitment to living responsibly than the short term awareness of the atheists and agnostics.  Like I said, it’s cowardice.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

R108,

No doubt divine judgment is something many fear and go to great lengths to dismiss.  But, I’ll be honest, the reality of the Almighty is nothing a finite person should courageously confront. When it comes to such a Being any sane person should be entitled to some respectable amount of fear.

HG
A close examination of every particle in a human body will reveal absolutely no violations of natural laws. Need I say more?

Need I say more?

Yes, what is your point?

Sparkie, what happens to someone when they die?--HG

Feel free to try it and report back on this blog (actually, it’s not a blog, it is some flavor of site, probably a forum?).

The teleological & cosmological proofs for the existence and necessity of a Creator exist(this is one example).--HG

First, proof is a strong word. I’d be very careful using it to avoid sounding like a crank. If you substitute in `Zeus’ for the word `God’ in your ontological argument, it still works? So you believe in Zeus HG? I always knew you were nuts . Second, if there is proof of God (and Zeus), then faith isn’t needed? I agree, the quicker we rid our society of faith, the better.

Gene, sorry about the voices in your head. I cannot even get my brother to prescribe you anti-psychotics, he is a clinical psychologist, only psychiatrists can prescribe drugs. But if you want, I can ask him about other (non-drug) treatments?

Robert108: I guess you are not aware that `moral’ actions aren’t possible if you believe in God? Is following a set `moral’ code because you live in fear of judgment by an all powerful tyrant really morality? Sounds a lot like self-interest (by a spineless sycophant) to me.

By “nonsense ontologies”, do you mean evolution, human-caused global warming, the bird flu epidemic, the heterosexual AIDS epidemic, and the rest of the leftie agenda?--Robert108

Unless you manage to publish a peer-reviewed article discrediting any of these things, in a well-known and respected scientific journal, I think only people who prefer faith over reason will side with you.

A close examination…

Within the limits of human ability, of course.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.