Let's do a religion poll!

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: mrkun
Anyone that isn't a theist is an atheist. It's that simple. Agnosticism is an epistemilogical position and is actually compatible with both theism and atheism.

And see, that's false dilemma. I am not required to choose between your 2 extreme positions. Nor is anyone else. A person could simply hold no opinion whatsoever. On top of that, the concept of "God," which is the basis of this unending theist/atheist argument, is so poorly defined and understood by most people that to claim everyone falls into either one of 2 camps is simply ridiculous.

Your 2nd sentence is correct though.

So I can believe in God (theist), or not choose a side (agnostic), but I can't be opposed to the belief? I have no less proof of Him not existing than a theist has of Him existing.

Not very fair, is it?

This has been Vic's stance for as long as I've seen him posting. If confronted, he'll hem and haw without really saying anything productive about it. Push harder, and he'll say atheists are all proselytizing jerks and the religious are not. Push harder still, and he'll resort to childish namecalling. I've never seen someone with religious beliefs who was so ashamed to just admit them.

Nope, that's not me at all. Once again, we go back to false dilemma. Just because I don't agree with your anti-religious stance does not make me a religious person. And I have NEVER said that "atheists are all proselytizing jerks and the religious are not."

I suppose the reason you might think so (beyond the insistence on false dilemma) is because I find theists easy to deal with. I've read their book, and they have no other arguments beyond their faith which (and this is important) they recognize to be faith (which I respect and leave alone as an inherent human right). With this basic communication established, we can agree to remain civil and, at the very least, keep our distances. OTOH, atheists seem to lack basic reasoning skills, have no book, and claim to hold beliefs based on science that are actually not scientific. Consider it this way: if a fundie Christian were to tell you that science, logic, and rationalization support his beliefs, you'd laugh right? Well... you guys were funny at first, but eventually I found your blind faith, bigotry, and self-deception to be annoying, and arguing against it to be as frustrating as with a bible-thumper who keeps blindly proving his faith with his faith.

We've had this conversation before and you conceded my point. It's unfortunate that you took nothing from it and are spewing the same old argument.

:roll: Link it then.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't care, irrational as atheism is.

What's so irrational about it?

I assume he'll claim that it's ignorant to be 100% against something that you can't prove.

But then, can you not be 100% against the flying spaghetti monster, since you can't prove it doesn't exist?

I'm starting to lean more towards atheism.

No, it's a belief system not based from observation. Without observation, we have no basis of rationalization. We're just stabbing blindly at conjecture and insisting that reality is created by what we believe.

The FSM is IMO a form of reductio ad absurdum that I find to be anti-intellectual. It's like claiming for the sake of argument that your dog is God and then declaring that proves the non-existence of God because your dog doesn't have god-like powers. In other words, it's a confusion of communication that begins from an improper definition. That's why I always argue that any discussion over the existence/non-existence of God has to start by getting all parties to agree on the definition of God. Once you have that, then the conversation can continue. Otherwise, it'll just get stupid and emotional, and fall apart into 2 separate camps of extremists fighting over irrational beliefs rather than any attempts at rational reasoning or communication.

How about you let the people who know the most about atheism tell you what it's all about, yes?

Atheism is a LACK of belief in a higher power. It's that simple. There are offshoots of atheism, but for the most part, it's supposed to be a simple lack of belief in a higher power.

I am not a theist, so therefor, I'm an atheist. I do not actively have FAITH that there is no god, I simply do not believe.

I am somewhat of an anti-organized-theism. I can not STAND organized religion. I don't mind, nor do I actively disagree with theists, though.

And back to the apologism. Atheism is NOT the simple lack of belief in a higher power. That's just silly. And I'll demonstrate right now why that is so. Define "higher power." Oops! Okay... now exactly what is this thing you claim to have a lack of belief in?

Have fun.

Hehe, well that was cute.

So, what you're telling me is that what I'm SAYING I am, is not actually me, and I'm something completely different. What exactly would you call me, then?

RIDDLE ME THIS: I do not believe in any higher power, at all. I will never believe in a higher power. I am not "undecided" yet I also do not have FAITH in there being NO god. I simply do not believe. What am I?

Have you looked the definition of Atheist up, yet? Have you found yet, that there are actually different KINDS of atheists, and not simply just contradicting definitions of the word based on their origin?

First, nice dodge. You completely avoided the question and continued using the term "higher power" as though it has an agreed definition.

Second, the fact that you "will never believe" in this "higher power" means that you will continue to affirm this state of disbelief even in the event (unlikely as it may be) that is proof is provided. That is faith by definition. Get a clue.

Finally, the American Heritage dictionary definition of atheist is "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
I had been loathe to post this prior to however because (this argument has occurred before, believe it or not ) now Garth will tromp on in with some nonsense that dictionary definitions are anti-intellectual blah blah blah blah blah.

Yaknow, if you guys wanted to use the word "skeptic," I wouldn't have an issue here. It would fit well, except according to the active faith belief which manowar821 has given testimony here to.

No no no, I suppose I should re-clarify this... I did not mean that I would never believe in a god of any sort, regardless of proof of it's existence. I meant that I am nearly certain that the proof will never surface, because I don't exactly believe there is any sort of logical reason as to WHY a "god" were to exist.

To answer your question, "higher power" is any form of immortal intelligence that has power over our lives, and/or acts as a creator(s). Anything unnatural, anything paranormal, etc. The only thing I truly trust, is facts and unsubstantial proof.

I am not a theist.

Okay, wonderful. While many of you are so obsessed with what I believe in, and in making sure that others know what you believe in, I really couldn't care. As I alluded to with Alone, that's a cultural/society issue that really has no meaning within a logical debate. Some people (or so I've heard) rub their navel with blue mud. I don't. Who cares?
Following this whole conversation, my biggest question is why do you care so much while pretending not to care while making sure that everyone knows what your particular ideological label is, all at once? In a way, I find watching that interaction just as fascinating as the navel-poundering that is the endless God debate.

In the meantime, I'm really curious on what basis you derive your "nearly certain" position. Besides personal prejudice, of course, which (once again) I really don't care about. I mean, you seem to act like there is a logical basis for that position, but don't actually provide one (which I assume is why you backpedaled/hedged with "nearly certain.")

 

[CKent]

I'm not digging through old posts. The "atheists" you come across on AT and apparently in other areas of your life are young people going through their rebellious phase. Rebellious kids are annoying no matter what they stand for, and it explains the atheism jump from 5% of the general population to ~50% among college students, ATOT, etc.

Claiming all atheists are <insert insult of choice, I know you have tons> based on your specific experience with non-representative examples of atheists is no different from someone claiming all religious people are door to door religion salesmen after having a JoHo come knocking.

And yet this is your answer to why it's ok to be religious but not an atheist.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CKent
I'm not digging through old posts. The "atheists" you come across on AT and apparently in other areas of your life are young people going through their rebellious phase. Rebellious kids are annoying no matter what they stand for, and it explains the atheism jump from 5% of the general population to ~50% among college students, ATOT, etc.

Claiming all atheists are <insert insult of choice, I know you have tons> based on your specific experience with non-representative examples of atheists is no different from someone claiming all religious people are door to door religion salesmen after having a JoHo come knocking.

And yet this is your answer to why it's ok to be religious but not an atheist.

You're not digging through your old posts because you're lying. Great work. :roll:

Still, the atheists I meet and have these types of conversations with in real life tend to be enjoyable and rational. Most of them understand the issues of the unknowable and the inability to define God, etc., and we can easily agree on the fact that their atheism is in opposition to the God of traditional religions as opposed to this silly internet black-and-white you're-either-a-theist-or-an-atheist nonsense you read on internet message boards. Hell, my brother-in-law is an atheist and a Dawkins supporter and we have those types of conversations all the time (he's also really political active as well and, like myself, enjoys intellectual discussions the way most people don't).

So... you're just making up straw men while you're lying. How nice of you.

And yeah, the internet teenage angst rebellious atheist is kind of like a JoHo knocking on your door, in that I find them equally laughable in their silly blind convictions (OTOH, the JW's tend to leave my door quickly and not come back, unlike these internet arguments). I remember when my GF and I first starting living together and the first time we had JW's knock on the door. She was like "Oh sh!t, it's the JW's!" and I was like, "Oh boy this is gonna be fun!" :evil: It took her awhile to understand. People who insist that reality conform to their beliefs (impossible of course) rather than conforming their beliefs to reality due so for societal reasons. You're conforming to the group and submitting for the purpose of being accepted. So when you boast, "I'm a <insert societal label here>" like a badge of honor, well... I find that funny and can't help but poke at it. It's a weakness I know, and one that's contrary to my strongly-held position in my VaTech/bullying thread I understand, but I really don't do it from malicious intent. Quite the opposite in fact.

And I think you're last sentence is a typo or something. I'm NOT religious and NOT an atheist. Get it? Now kindly quit spreading lies about me, eh?

 

[imported_Tick]

Alright, I've updated it with more answers. Also, can we please drop the trolling.

 

[ViviTheMage]

my parents are Lutheran , so I guess I am!

I don't practice or any of the sort.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Vic
You're not digging through your old posts because you're lying. Great work. :roll:

Not lying, I just don't care enough about ATOT's 10 millionth religious thread to waste time on it. I know you wouldn't remember, since your posts comprise a full 1/3 of the replies in religious threads so it's been at least a few tens of thousands since that thread :laugh:

And I think you're last sentence is a typo or something. I'm NOT religious and NOT an atheist. Get it? Now kindly quit spreading lies about me, eh?

Yeah I know you claim agnosticism. The contradiction comes when you argue theism. I'm not the only one who's picked up on that.

 

[Quasmo]

Add Methodist.

 

[SirStev0]

You anger our great lord the loathsome Cthulhu by omitting the Cultists of Cthulhu in your poll.

 

[Luthien]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
No Scientology? What if John Travolta or Tom Cruise lurk here?

Bah! When it comes to scifi, I'm a Heinlein fan

Yeah, Heinlein is very good and ahead of his time on social issues imo.

I gotta pick up some more of his books sometime.

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: Quasmo
Add Methodist.

Falls under protestant.

 

[imported_Tick]

Sodding double post.....

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
You anger our great lord the loathsome Cthulhu by omitting the Cultists of Cthulhu in your poll.

Fine, fine. It's added.

 

[secretanchitman]

athiest.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Case in point. Reduction ad absurdum is not necessarily a fallacy.

When is reductio ad absurdum ever a fallacy? Do you even know what it is? I think you need some remedial logic lessons.

I simply said that I find its to be anti-intellectual.

Where did you say that?

However, the question is relevant because of EXACTLY what you are inviting me to elaborate. WTF. The anti-intellectualism is the absurd symbol usage ala name-dropping. I expect you to be smarter than that, but I have long ago because used to the fact that obfuscation (and other forms of intentional miscommunication) are your favorite forms of argument. If you don't/can't get what I'm saying, say so. Let me be clear: a thing is not what you call it, not what symbol or label you use to reference it in your mind. A thing is what it is. FFS, that's the most basic axiom of logic.

You've still not substantiated your allegation that I committed a fallacy, nor have you explained what it matters the question you asked. "A thing is what it is"... so what? What does that have to do with the points I've made?

 

[herm0016]

Pastafarian




http://www.venganza.org/

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Vic

Case in point. Reduction ad absurdum is not necessarily a fallacy.

When is reductio ad absurdum ever a fallacy? Do you even know what it is? I think you need some remedial logic lessons.

I simply said that I find its to be anti-intellectual.

Where did you say that?

However, the question is relevant because of EXACTLY what you are inviting me to elaborate. WTF. The anti-intellectualism is the absurd symbol usage ala name-dropping. I expect you to be smarter than that, but I have long ago because used to the fact that obfuscation (and other forms of intentional miscommunication) are your favorite forms of argument. If you don't/can't get what I'm saying, say so. Let me be clear: a thing is not what you call it, not what symbol or label you use to reference it in your mind. A thing is what it is. FFS, that's the most basic axiom of logic.

You've still not substantiated your allegation that I committed a fallacy, nor have you explained what it matters the question you asked. "A thing is what it is"... so what? What does that have to do with the points I've made?

Earlier in this this thread, and I didn't say you committed a fallacy, asshat. You said I said that after I complained of reductio ad absurdum. WTF. And so what then to your "point" of the invisible pink unicorn. Makes a lot of sense, now doesn't it? An apt analogy... it's invisible, while somehow pink, and yet a unicorn. Yes sir, you are full of logic. :roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Vic
You're not digging through your old posts because you're lying. Great work. :roll:

Not lying, I just don't care enough about ATOT's 10 millionth religious thread to waste time on it. I know you wouldn't remember, since your posts comprise a full 1/3 of the replies in religious threads so it's been at least a few tens of thousands since that thread :laugh:

And I think you're last sentence is a typo or something. I'm NOT religious and NOT an atheist. Get it? Now kindly quit spreading lies about me, eh?

Yeah I know you claim agnosticism. The contradiction comes when you argue theism. I'm not the only one who's picked up on that.

Meaning you're completely full of it. Got it. I never argue in favor of theism, just against deluded atheists who pretend that their position had validity that it does not. Like I said, this is not a black and white either-or position.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Vic
Earlier in this this thread, and I didn't say you committed a fallacy, asshat. You said I said that after I complained of reductio ad absurdum. WTF. And so what then to your "point" of the invisible pink unicorn. Makes a lot of sense, now doesn't it? An apt analogy... it's invisible, while somehow pink, and yet a unicorn. Yes sir, you are full of logic. :roll:

Told ya

Riling Vic up is like going out in the rain and getting wet :laugh:

 

[Hyperlite]

i had to roll with Jedi. i actually get called that a lot, but only because i am supposedly impossible to sneak up on.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Vic
Earlier in this this thread, and I didn't say you committed a fallacy, asshat. You said I said that after I complained of reductio ad absurdum. WTF. And so what then to your "point" of the invisible pink unicorn. Makes a lot of sense, now doesn't it? An apt analogy... it's invisible, while somehow pink, and yet a unicorn. Yes sir, you are full of logic. :roll:

Told ya

Riling Vic up is like going out in the rain and getting wet :laugh:

Well, I do get a bit frustrated and pissed off when people who are unable to understand my arguments insist on covering-up their ignorance by resorting to mischaracterizations of me. I find passive aggressiveness of that type to be more insulting than the worst of overt aggression and insults short of actual physical violence, and reply accordingly.

But hey, you've done nothing this whole thread but make personal attacks against me and pretend innocently that I am the one making the attacks, and as I realize that you actually believe your lies and delusions, I'm not expecting you to stop.

 

[Kadarin]

I am agnostic. I do not know if there are any kinds of "higher beings" (singular or plural), and thusly I do not choose to believe in such, let alone believe in or follow some set of arbitrary rituals.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Earlier in this this thread, and I didn't say you committed a fallacy, asshat.

Yes you did. You said I used a false dilemma and reductio ad absurdum, as though reductio was some kind of fallacy. It's further implied by your last statement where you claimed that "reductio ad absurdum" isn't necessarily a fallacy. News flash, Einstein: reductio ad absurdum is NOT a fallacy, period, formally or informally.

You said I said that after I complained of reductio ad absurdum.

Why would you complain of it? It isn't a fallacy. I didn't even use it. You still don't seem to know what reductio ad absurdum actually is. It's really kind of amusing.

WTF. And so what then to your "point" of the invisible pink unicorn. Makes a lot of sense, now doesn't it? An apt analogy... it's invisible, while somehow pink, and yet a unicorn. Yes sir, you are full of logic. :roll:

You're apparently unfamiliar with the significance of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Vic
Earlier in this this thread, and I didn't say you committed a fallacy, asshat. You said I said that after I complained of reductio ad absurdum. WTF. And so what then to your "point" of the invisible pink unicorn. Makes a lot of sense, now doesn't it? An apt analogy... it's invisible, while somehow pink, and yet a unicorn. Yes sir, you are full of logic. :roll:

Told ya

Riling Vic up is like going out in the rain and getting wet :laugh:

Well, I do get a bit frustrated and pissed off when people who are unable to understand my arguments insist on covering-up their ignorance by resorting to mischaracterizations of me. I find passive aggressiveness of that type to be more insulting than the worst of overt aggression and insults short of actual physical violence, and reply accordingly.

But hey, you've done nothing this whole thread but make personal attacks against me and pretend innocently that I am the one making the attacks, and as I realize that you actually believe your lies and delusions, I'm not expecting you to stop.

I learned long ago it's pointless to argue, you'd gladly spend 10 hours a day here claiming agnosticism while arguing theism with all the fervor of Jerry Falwell, calling anyone who calls you on the contradiction a name.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Vic

Earlier in this this thread, and I didn't say you committed a fallacy, asshat.

Yes you did. You said I used a false dilemma and reductio ad absurdum, as though reductio was some kind of fallacy. It's further implied by your last statement where you claimed that "reductio ad absurdum" isn't necessarily a fallacy. News flash, Einstein: reductio ad absurdum is NOT a fallacy, period, formally or informally.

You said I said that after I complained of reductio ad absurdum.

Why would you complain of it? It isn't a fallacy. I didn't even use it. You still don't seem to know what reductio ad absurdum actually is. It's really kind of amusing.

WTF. And so what then to your "point" of the invisible pink unicorn. Makes a lot of sense, now doesn't it? An apt analogy... it's invisible, while somehow pink, and yet a unicorn. Yes sir, you are full of logic. :roll:

You're apparently unfamiliar with the significance of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

I know about the invisible pink unicorn. It's pointless IMO. Like I said earlier (in reference to FSM), I could point to my dog, call him God, and then claim that God doesn't exist because my dog doesn't have God-like powers. I could say, with a sly wink and a giggle, that god spelt backwards makes dog, even though that it merely a quirk of the English language (and no other language to my knowledge). And I specifically complained about the particular use of reductio ad absurdum as being anti-intellectual. For the reason demonstrated in the dog example. Read the f'ing posts. If you're not going to bother reading, then don't bother replying, especially if all you're going to do is nitpick things irrelevant to the actual discussion. We'd get along better if that were the case. Thank you.