A question for Atheists AND Agnostics

[Totenkindly]

Um, yeah, exactly... no eyes, lots of teeth, and buckets of flesh-eating saliva.
[weakly] "luc-ky staaar..."

(Seriously, I love the creature design on this one, it was perfect.)

 

[EcK]

no eyes: check
where eyes 'should be' the surface is:
black check
super reflective check

We have a winner.

But then they're not anthropomorphic enough to really trigger any profound sensation of wrongness in the viewer.

 

[Totenkindly]

But then they're not anthropomorphic enough to really trigger any profound sensation of wrongness in the viewer.

i dunno about that, they've got torsos, heads, and limbs in generally the right spots. So they're still "humanoid" and seem intelligent... just operating on some style of intelligence we don't understand.

Plus they gestate inside human hosts and tear their way out during the birthing process, killing the host. That creeps me out pretty bad, taking an affirmation of life and turning it parasitical (the scene in The Dark Tower Book 7 where Mordred comes out, turns into a spider, and eats his mom while she's suckling him freaks me out just as bad).

I mean, come on -- doesn't that feel wrong?

 

[EcK]

bottom line:

They're just so adoraable

 

[Totenkindly]

bottom line:

They're just so adoraable

... until they piddle on the rug and it eats a hole to the basement, try to clean THAT mess up!!!

Wait, what's this have to do with agnosticism again?

 

[EcK]

... until they piddle on the rug and it eats a hole to the basement, try to clean THAT mess up!!!

Wait, what's this have to do with agnosticism again?

I just like to pull those things off with a moderator

thanks for playing :rolli:



look on the bright side, this was way more entertaining and we talked about REAL issues with REAL effects in our lives rather than as before, self evident things only demented parrots keep denying

 

[lowtech redneck]

Pascal's wager is a terrible reason to believe in a religion; the real reason for a rational person to believe in a religion is if doing so increases their happiness in this life (which I strongly suspect is the case for most people).

Religion (unfortunately) is better suited to such a utilitarian purpose than individualized/unorganized metaphysical beliefs such as Deism because the latter lack a system of positive/negative reinforcement and (most importantly) mental habituation (i.e. self-imposed brainwashing); maintaining faith without these things actually requires a far higher capacity for faith (i.e. hope with a degree of certainty) than believing in an organized religion.

For the above reasons, I get annoyed at militant atheists just as much as I get annoyed at religious enthusiasts; they are both attempting to impose what works for them onto people whose beliefs do not greatly threaten others, and who would be ill-served adopting a different belief system.

People who have with a very low tolerance for cognitive dissonance coupled with strong metaphysical wants that have no rational substitution are pretty much fucked. Pass the beer, please.

 

[Fluffywolf]

You mean, "Alien"?

I think he is trying to mock Lord of the Rings.

 

[Totenkindly]

I just like to pull those things off with a moderator
thanks for playing :rolli:

I know, that's why I have to get it back on track... but I like to play too. I'm flexy.

 

[EcK]

I know, that's why I have to get it back on track... but I like to play too. I'm flexy.

NPs, that's how we roll




you could always get it out of the thread and call it 'eck world'. You know me, anything to help the mods

 

[millerm277]

What do atheists/agnostics have to lose if they're wrong? Nothing? If I'm wrong, I will have still lived my life the way I wanted to, and made the most of it for myself.

Even if it's not the consequence of Christianity, but of some other belief system? Wouldn't it make most "logical sense" to at least commit oneself on to some belief? Say Christians and atheists are both wrong--wouldn't that still make the Christian more rational by believing in at least Something Unknown? Well, this is where it depends on your viewpoint I suppose. My mind sees it as illogical that there is "Something Unknown", and as a result....it is completely illogical to me to join a belief system. That would only restrict my ability to do as I want in the limited time I have available to me in the one life I get, through it's rules and time required to participate in said religion.

 

[Mole]

Belief is essentially for children.

Belief is imaginative.

Belief requires no evidence.

Belief depends on authority.

Belief depends on the promise of heaven and the threat of hell.

Belief is like blind man's bluff - we close our eyes and take a stab.

Belief is charming in children and absurd in adults.

It is now time to take off our blindfold and look at the evidence.

 

[Vildechaya]

If G-d changed so much from the old testament (vengeful-quick to anger) to the new testament (loving-merciful-), then can we really be sure that G-d hasn't over the years hasn't changed again.

Such a great change of character would make most people very suspicious of the intentions of a fellow human.

Maybe G-d is , uncaring, or no longer exists.

 

[professor goodstain]

If G-d changed so much from the old testament (vengeful-quick to anger) to the new testament (loving-merciful-), then can we really be sure that G-d hasn't over the years hasn't changed again.

Such a great change of character would make most people very suspicious of the intentions of a fellow human.

Maybe G-d is , uncaring, or no longer exists.

People most definately edited/altered the Bible over that amount of time. That's why it is important to focus your faith in the holy Quran.

 

[Vildechaya]

People most definately edited/altered the Bible over that amount of time. That's why it is important to focus your faith in the holy Quran.

Oy Vey!

 

[simulatedworld]

Is this a joke?

 

[juggernaut]

Is this a joke?

I'm fairly sure that's an affirmative capeetan.

 

[Nadir]

What do atheists/agnostics have to lose if they're wrong? Even if it's not the consequence of Christianity, but of some other belief system? Wouldn't it make most "logical sense" to at least commit oneself on to some belief? Say Christians and atheists are both wrong--wouldn't that still make the Christian more rational by believing in at least Something Unknown?

I think this is Pascal's gambit.

Put rather simply, you lose out on your whole life. One has to consider that religious membership, especially where organized religion is concerned, is not really as simple as a newsletter subscription or anything. To be a part of religion invariably means accepting its various and usually unchanging tenets, commands and moral guidelines, as well as acknowledging the existing of a divine being and will. This might sound simple on paper, but it's clear that it has the power to greatly shape the perceptions and lifestyles of its believers depeding on the strength of the belief. It's a very important choice on the side of the individual. You can't really follow a religion from the sidelines, as it were (I'm not saying that in order to believe, you must be a fundamentalist).

Another issue is that I simply don't feel the need for a belief in God to explain the world around me or my existence. Sometimes it's really that simple. Of course, this doesn't mean that every observable phenomenon in existence is currently explainable. There are many things yet unexplained. But in my eyes, that doesn't justify the existence of God, at least not in the form that organized religions dictate. So I don't believe in God.

How can I be "sure" that God doesn't exist? I can't, and I don't think any atheist can say the opposite without a certain amount of doubt. Does that make me an agnostic? Bertrand Russell explains that far better than I could in his article: "Am I An Atheist or an Agnostic?", found here:
Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?
This section is of note:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Proof of God[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.[/FONT]

So the question is never really as simple so as to be answered away with a process of elimination.

 

[porous_shield]

I think it is most rational to be an atheist/agnostic that questions everything and is in search for the correct solution rather than pick one based on fancy or what your parents were. As Calvin of Calvin and Hobbes once theorized: "If I'm good only because I will get presents, aren't I really just saying that I can be bribed?" So whomever offers the best rewards gets my services? Since I'm not a god, I can't really speak for them but that would be a very contentious issue if they were my followers.

It would seem more logical if the god would uniformly pick whom was good regardless of faith or creed. This seems to beg the question-how do we define good? The best definition of good I can think of is: 1. treating others as you would want to be treated and 2. would you want you're mom seeing you do this? Why do we need any other rules?

I suppose if the deity is a monster than if you follow the above rules you're going to it's hell but then the price would be worth it.

 

[Blackmail!]

Maybe G-d is , uncaring, or no longer exists.

Someone is telling me that you have studied the Kabbalah for too long...