Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-27-2012, 01:30 AM
 
Location: Athens, Greece
526 posts, read 689,223 times
Reputation: 63

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville Native View Post
don't ya hate it when you always have to explain the punchline to someone
In this case the whole joke starts with the punchline:

The victimizers rape and kill the victims.
The victims rebel and force the victimizers to leave the land.
The victims go after the victimizers to catch and kill them.
The angels tell the victims that the victimizers left for the heavens.
The victims fall on their knees and worship the now supernatural victimizers !!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-27-2012, 02:19 AM
 
Location: Athens, Greece
526 posts, read 689,223 times
Reputation: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by tilli View Post
You need to look up the definitions of gods and of empirical. Dieties are more than human, and dieties are far from empirical ideas.

The term “Deity” comes from “Deus” meaning god (Θεός, [Theos] in Greek, the word that produced the term “theist”). You must be careful because usually you spell it “diety.”
“Empirical” is another modern Greek language word and although I myself I am a bit ancient with my 70 years of age, I am still a modern Greek speaking Greek so I need not look up the word “empirical”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tilli View Post
I don't believe I ever asserted that the concept of dieties is a joke. And I don't particularly care if my comments do harm to religion.

Agnostics’ comments cannot harm religion. It is me who insists that “God is a joke.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by tilli View Post
Humans invented dieties not because people need to believe in a supreme being (after all, I am living proof that this is not true), but because they need to have an explanation for things they do not understand. Before science, "<insert your pet diety> did it" was the default explanation.

That is a fairy tale told by philosophers in support of theology.
There were never people that stupid to produce the idea of some Zeus throwing down thunderbolts from the sky. Zeus was a rapist and murderer whose crimes are described in the epic poems of the ancient Greeks. The philosophers invented the allegorical interpretation of the myths and transformed the criminal gods into elements of the nature. Theologians liked the idea; they promoted it and thus it is now used by ignorant agnostics as an excuse for their ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tilli View Post
I know there is no evidence that anything like angels actually exist, just like there is no evidence that any dieties actually exist.

I asked:” What do you know of angels (messengers of the gods)?,” but you seem that you do not want to know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tilli View Post
Your point is? Keeping in mind, of course, that the topic of discussion is whether or not atheists ever have doubts.

My point is that the atheists who have doubts are not atheists but agnostics. An atheist would know what “angel” means. Today’s priests are angels: the intermediaries between gods and men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tilli View Post
I have been an atheist since I was a small child, despite many attempts to indoctrinate me. So do not misunderstand me.

Well, I have never been a theist myself but that’s the easy way: one is born to non-believers and becomes a non-believer, or one is born to believers and believes whatever it is that his parents believe. I admire believers who fought against all the indoctrination and won.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2012, 02:59 AM
 
7,801 posts, read 6,342,812 times
Reputation: 2988
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
As I believe I pointed out several posts back, is it not true that there is at least one purpose or meaning in life - that of reproduction? All life must reproduce in order to survive to the next generation. This is a universal drive, is it not?
It is a pedantic linguistic point but Reproduction is a requirement for life as we know it, that does not make it the "purpose" of life. I refer to "purpose" in the sense of "intent" and "design" for which of course we would require the existence of a mind that did the intending or the designing.

For example if we found a race of aliens that were without reproduction but immortal would we then call their life relatively "meaningless" to ours because reproduction is the "purpose" of life and they do not have it?

No I would see reproduction as one of the characteristics of and functions performed by life as we know it, but not as the "purpose" of it as such.

Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
And isn't it true that most other drives in life are secondary to this all-important drive?
Maybe to most other animals but it is a drive we have in many ways overcome. Ask someone what is important in life and they will rarely give the Darwinian answer of "To have more off spring than my competitors". They will speak of things like freedom and art and morality and purpose and love. And while espousing such topics many of us would hold our species above the others in this regard saying that the pursuit of such things elevates us above the animals and therefore the life of a human has more "meaning" than that of cattle for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad View Post
Very poetic
I have my moments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad View Post
So tell me how we know, "how to prove whether or not there's a god messing with the universe "
You don't. Instead you simply ask "Is there any reason at all on offer to think there IS a god" and since the answer is no you proceed in that fashion. The same way when allocating the resources of a nation you do not think "Should I put money into a UFO defence fund? How can I prove whether or not there is Alien Invaders abducting our citizens and probing them anally as a precursor to mass invasion".

You do not ask that, you instead think "Is there any reason to think there is such aliens? No? Then I will proceed as if there is not".

We do not need 100% certainty on subjects to operate. If we did then we would do, say or achieve nothing at all. We must go with what appears apparently true at any given time and given there is literally NO reason on offer to think there is a god entity at this time then it us under that conclusion we must operate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2012, 04:47 AM
 
Location: Hawaii Kai
5,517 posts, read 7,067,544 times
Reputation: 5435
The basic concept of a "god" isn't very funny IMHO, but the psychological phenomenon of a fully-grown adult who is still playing with some interpersonal (and improvisational) imaginary friend certainly is!

However, these IFs can sometimes provide comfort in times of emotional stress, so maybe it's not altogether such a bad thing.

Last edited by Tantalust; 01-27-2012 at 05:54 AM.. Reason: I forget.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2012, 05:01 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,079 posts, read 20,498,587 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad View Post
As for me I'm just glad I didn't just stay focussed on the courtroom evidence because my heart would never have been open enough for His evidence to reach me. As for religion and Jesus...I have no idea nor do I feel it makes any difference to me.
You might be surprised. Our pal Mystic was a firm science- evidence non - believer until the Mystic experience hit him and now...well, you'd better ask him yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad View Post
So tell me how we know, "how to prove whether or not there's a god messing with the universe "
That's a question that I discussed with Boxcar when he went 'agnostic' (where's he got to?) and we were discussing the lack of 'spoor of god'. The fact is that it was rather hard to suggest what evidence would definitely indicate God -input and where we could not just say 'well that's unexplained for the moment'. Boxcar was put out that God seemed unable to make a case and this does seem a problem, but there it is. Materialism does seem validated and thus is the logical default until definite evidence for god upsets that and I don't know what that could be.

ID (especially Michael Behe's 'irreducible complexity') has tried to show an element of design and planning but the ID science is not sound. Reference to zones of comfort are persuasive, but the fact is that a series of handy catastrophes were necessary to allow us our chance so 'accident' doesn't look so unlikely after all.

There's also the question of God in human affairs. Let's face it, a deist -god is pretty unimportant. There is absolutely no reason why belief in it matters a damn. The ONLY reason it is at all important for us to believe in it is if there is a hands- on god communicating with us here and now in this world. And our history and natural disasters strongly argue that there isn't.

There was a thread on what God's world should be like. The fact is that, if there was any kind of god that wasn't academic, it should be bloody obvious.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-27-2012 at 05:47 AM.. Reason: 'our', not 'out'. sossidge - fingers again...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2012, 05:45 AM
 
Location: Tampa, FL
2,637 posts, read 12,596,499 times
Reputation: 3630
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango View Post
The term “Deity” comes from “Deus” meaning god (Θεός, [Theos] in Greek, the word that produced the term “theist”). You must be careful because usually you spell it “diety.”
You're right, I do spell that wrong all the time, along with lots of other words that involve placing I next to E. I don't use a spell checker because I found it made me much worse (I used to be a great speller as a child). So I'll try to keep an eye on that, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Although my spelling is quite beside the point, don't you think?

Quote:
“Empirical” is another modern Greek language word and although I myself I am a bit ancient with my 70 years of age, I am still a modern Greek speaking Greek so I need not look up the word “empirical”.
This is an English-speaking forum. When people say empirical on this sub-forum they are generally referring to it in the scientific context, not whatever context you are using it in. Empirical data is that which can be verified or disproven by observation. Deities do not fall into this category as they are defined such that they can be neither verified or disproven by observation, thus the requirement for faith.

Quote:
Agnostics’ comments cannot harm religion. It is me who insists that “God is a joke.”

OK?

Quote:
That is a fairy tale told by philosophers in support of theology.There were never people that stupid to produce the idea of some Zeus throwing down thunderbolts from the sky. Zeus was a rapist and murderer whose crimes are described in the epic poems of the ancient Greeks. The philosophers invented the allegorical interpretation of the myths and transformed the criminal gods into elements of the nature. Theologians liked the idea; they promoted it and thus it is now used by ignorant agnostics as an excuse for their ignorance.
And what is your alternate hypothesis? Since people believe in magic deities right now, I don't find it difficult to believe that ancient peoples also believed in their deites.

Quote:
I asked:” What do you know of angels (messengers of the gods)?,” but you seem that you do not want to know.

I answered. I know of no evidence that such things exist. What else would you like me to know?

Quote:
My point is that the atheists who have doubts are not atheists but agnostics.

Once again, most of us, myself included, are BOTH. Agnostic and atheist are not exclusive terms.

Quote:
An atheist would know what “angel” means. Today’s priests are angels: the intermediaries between gods and men.

Angel - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

There ya go. Most people, atheists included, use the first definition of angel. A spiritual being superior to humans. Most people would not accept your definition of angel, but it's not relevant to atheism, so again, what is your point?

Quote:
Well, I have never been a theist myself but that’s the easy way: one is born to non-believers and becomes a non-believer, or one is born to believers and believes whatever it is that his parents believe. I admire believers who fought against all the indoctrination and won.

I was born to believers. I was surrounded by a community of believers who all attempted to indoctrinate me in various ways. There was no fighting, it simply never worked on me because it never made sense to me, and I do not accept things on faith which make no sense.

Last edited by tilli; 01-27-2012 at 05:54 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2012, 05:57 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,079 posts, read 20,498,587 times
Reputation: 5927
Can't rep you, Tilli. but a v. good post. 'Angel' was originally the word messenger in the Biblical context applied to messengers of God. from heaven. In fact angels as we now think of them but without wings and solid form rather than the spiritual being preferred in Christian belief since they (like all other such entities) are so darned elusive and undemonstrable.

Tiddling about with definitions is an old ploy of misdirection in theist argument. we all know what we are talking about here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2012, 06:10 AM
 
Location: Tampa, FL
2,637 posts, read 12,596,499 times
Reputation: 3630
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Can't rep you, Tilli. but a v. good post. 'Angel' was originally the word messenger in the Biblical context applied to messengers of God. from heaven.
Indeed, and that is the 4th definition listed in the link.

Quote:
Tiddling about with definitions is an old ploy of misdirection in theist argument. we all know what we are talking about here.
Well, since he claims to be a native Greek and I felt like we were talking past each other, I thought it was appropriate to refer to definitions. Clearly he is not using words like "empirical" in the same way that we typically do, so I thought perhaps this was a non-native speaker language issue we could clear up by agreeing on what certain terms mean in this context.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2012, 07:05 AM
 
5,458 posts, read 6,696,271 times
Reputation: 1814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad View Post
Now you are just being silly. The origins and meaning of life is a very important topic.
So is the question of the existence of something which will judge whether we've been good or evil and reward or punish us based on that judgement (whether I'm talking about God or Santa Claus is up for you to decide). Either important questions should be left to raw emotion or they shouldn't - no changing the rules based on the answer you wish you were going to get.

And if the question of the meaning of life is so important, it must be too important to leave to subjective feeling and opinion. If it matters that much, I'd prefer we use tool which have been shown to be much better at answering questions - facts, evidence and reason spring to mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2012, 08:23 AM
 
707 posts, read 683,911 times
Reputation: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
You don't. Instead you simply ask "Is there any reason at all on offer to think there IS a god" and since the answer is no you proceed in that fashion. The same way when allocating the resources of a nation you do not think "Should I put money into a UFO defence fund? How can I prove whether or not there is Alien Invaders abducting our citizens and probing them anally as a precursor to mass invasion".

You do not ask that, you instead think "Is there any reason to think there is such aliens? No? Then I will proceed as if there is not".

We do not need 100% certainty on subjects to operate. If we did then we would do, say or achieve nothing at all. We must go with what appears apparently true at any given time and given there is literally NO reason on offer to think there is a god entity at this time then it us under that conclusion we must operate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
You might be surprised. Our pal Mystic was a firm science- evidence non - believer until the Mystic experience hit him and now...well, you'd better ask him yourself.



That's a question that I discussed with Boxcar when he went 'agnostic' (where's he got to?) and we were discussing the lack of 'spoor of god'. The fact is that it was rather hard to suggest what evidence would definitely indicate God -input and where we could not just say 'well that's unexplained for the moment'. Boxcar was put out that God seemed unable to make a case and this does seem a problem, but there it is. Materialism does seem validated and thus is the logical default until definite evidence for god upsets that and I don't know what that could be.

ID (especially Michael Behe's 'irreducible complexity') has tried to show an element of design and planning but the ID science is not sound. Reference to zones of comfort are persuasive, but the fact is that a series of handy catastrophes were necessary to allow us our chance so 'accident' doesn't look so unlikely after all.

There's also the question of God in human affairs. Let's face it, a deist -god is pretty unimportant. There is absolutely no reason why belief in it matters a damn. The ONLY reason it is at all important for us to believe in it is if there is a hands- on god communicating with us here and now in this world. And our history and natural disasters strongly argue that there isn't.

There was a thread on what God's world should be like. The fact is that, if there was any kind of god that wasn't academic, it should be bloody obvious.
I think there is a misconception about "belief". Don't put the cart before the horse. People don't choose to believe in order to have those questions answered. They come to believe first, for many different reasons, then those questions are answered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top