@SDGundamX

Are you agnostic in respect to Elvis being alive? Are you agnostic in respect to the flying spaghetti monster or the pink invisible unicorn? If this had been a video calling people that believe Elvis is alive and well idiots would the wording have offended you so? What if he called people who believe in Poseidon and Zeus idiots. Would that offend you? If not, why not?

I used to be agnostic like you. I thought since I couldn't prove something didn't exist, I couldn't really argue against that thing. But in reality we do this all the time. Most people (I'd say everyone) have a set of filters setup against believing in anything and everything. Are you really agnostic about everything that you cannot prove/disprove? I'd think not (I may be wrong), and it wouldn't be very useful.

I am all for people being happy, but not at the expense of others. Gays being persecuted, Africans killing children because they believe they are posessed, Africans not using condoms and dying of AIDS because condom usage is a sin, people blowing themselves up for virgins in the afterlife, evolution being denounced and attacked from all sides. What is this madness and why can't we call it madness?

Sure, but the flying spaghetti monster isn't real so he can't help you draw better. You should ask Jesus for help! >> ^ponceleon:

Man, if I could draw for shit, I'd totally do a series called "Flying Spaghetti Monster is with you."

Man, if I could draw for shit, I'd totally do a series called "Flying Spaghetti Monster is with you."

antidisestablishmentarianism =307%
Flying Spaghetti Monster =282%

http://www.zgeek.com/forum/gallery/files/8/9/8/8/flying-spaghetti-monster.jpg

I believe religionists are lazy thinkers who simply believe because it's the easy way out, and they're afraid to face the ugliness of what may well be the truth about life. It's a lot easier to say "oh that sounds like a good idea, I'll just believe in that," because it means that you don't have to put any effort into seeking answers for yourself. Instead, you blindly follow out of fear, ignorance, and laziness.


- Edit -
>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
Meh.
If you're going to hold the argument that there's grey area on the existence of God you might as well throw everything out the window.
Unicorns, ghosts, alien cattle mutilation, flying spaghetti monster, all are equally unprovable, therefore equally likely as any deity.
Likewise there are an infinity of permutations on what a "God" might be. Then the odds of a god existing are Infinity:1 or, to put it another way, the mathematical chance is 0.
Ergo God does not exist. Anyone arguing that he DOES exist, or that it's indeterminate is wrong. Period.

Too bad evolution made us predisposed to belief and faith. It is sad it is a natural instinct with as much gravity as sex, almost...


So, wait, you're being serious? O.o You really think religion is a result of natural instinct?

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
Meh.
If you're going to hold the argument that there's grey area on the existence of God you might as well throw everything out the window.
Unicorns, ghosts, alien cattle mutilation, flying spaghetti monster, all are equally unprovable, therefore equally likely as any deity.
Likewise there are an infinity of permutations on what a "God" might be. Then the odds of a god existing are Infinity:1 or, to put it another way, the mathematical chance is 0.
Ergo God does not exist. Anyone arguing that he DOES exist, or that it's indeterminate is wrong. Period.


Too bad evolution made us predisposed to belief and faith. It is sad it is a natural instinct with as much gravity as sex, almost...

Meh.

If you're going to hold the argument that there's grey area on the existence of God you might as well throw everything out the window.

Unicorns, ghosts, alien cattle mutilation, flying spaghetti monster, all are equally unprovable, therefore equally likely as any deity.

Likewise there are an infinity of permutations on what a "God" might be. Then the odds of a god existing are Infinity:1 or, to put it another way, the mathematical chance is 0.

Ergo God does not exist. Anyone arguing that he DOES exist, or that it's indeterminate is wrong. Period.

>> ^blankfist:

Kill the rich! Cut their balls off! YAY! We hate that they have money! We should steal more of it!

>> ^quantumushroom:


Let people keep more of their own EARNED money and good things happen. Blindly give money to government and they urinate it away.

>> ^Xax:

Whoa whoa whoa. STEALING? Bullfuckingshit. Of course there are a lot of corrupt motherfuckers out there, but I have no trouble believing that many people make more money than the average bear without being unscrupulous. People who have used their smarts and/or luck to become successful have every single right to write themselves a big fat paycheck. If some snotty piece of shit working under them is unhappy that they're not making as much money, well that's just too fucking bad.


What would top 2% salaries/benefits/bonuses have to get to before you guys would step in? Would you ever step in? If so, how would you intervene? (short term/long term) If not, how do you justify the relative enslavement of the working class to facilitate the further grab of cash, and just as directly, power?

When should we finally equate the existence of the "invisible hand" to that of any other supernatural being? I propose we let the Flying Spaghetti Monster(FSM) run the markets. It is all knowing and all loving.

I loved the one statement: "I'm free to change my mind if it seems that I should."

That really encapsulates the difference between science and religion. Religious freaks keep saying that atheist "deify" science and have "faith" in it and I really think the statement above serves to show what the major difference is: Religion takes holy texts (or the words of people who have declared that they somehow channel god through their words) as being unwavering truth. Science works towards truths, but is ALWAYS willing to reexamine its conclusions should new evidence appear.

Earlier in the month, someone on VS tried to call me on believing in Dark Matter (which some speculate is unmeasurable) but not believing in the possibility that Jesus is running around controlling the universe (which is also unmeasurable).

The difference is that dark matter is predicted by measurement. It doesn't clinch that it exists and my mind is entirely open to another explanation about why the rotation of the outer parts of galaxies seems to move contrary to what one would expect given the amount of mass one would predict at the edge of a disk. That said, there is absolutely nothing in nature that predicts Jesus, or Buddha, or Mohamed, or the flying spaghetti monster.

@ponceleon

First off, I'm wondering why you happen to think that I believe in a god or gods. No where in this thread have I stated that I'm religious. I simply think forcing opinions on other people is a bad idea--whether it's forcing others to believe in your religion or forcing others to give up their religion, as say China does. So maybe you might want to lay off the ad hominem attacks. Let's have a reasonable open dialogue, shall we?

Second, you entirely missed the point of my post. I'm not asking you to believe. You are free to look at the world around you and decide for yourself. My point was that the world around us can be interpreted in multiple ways. Take a roller coaster for instance. One person rides a roller coaster and is terrified. The person next to him is having a great time and loves it. Are roller coasters terrifying or fun? Science cannot help us answer this question. Both people experienced exactly the same event but interpret it in entirely separate ways. The best we can say is that some people find roller coasters scary and some people find them fun. What does this have to do with religion? So far, you have interpreted your experiences in this world to conclude there is no god or gods. That's fine! I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with you demanding everyone else interpret their own experiences exactly as you do. You want scientific proof of god. Again, I have no problem with that (although I find your insistence on scientific proof kind of funny, since I don't require scientific proof to know that I am having fun on a roller coaster). That's your choice. But I don't think you have the right to take away the choice from everyone else in the process. Trying to do so would be as absurd as trying to force everyone in the world to like roller coasters.

Let's talk about Dawkins for a second. I think Dawkins does a disservice to atheists everywhere by lumping all religious people into one group. We call that "stereotyping." The stereotype that Dawkins uses is based on a conservative fundamentalist Islamic/Christian religious fanatic (the unthinking believer that I was talking about in previous posts). Since he is using a stereotype, he may as well be railing against [insert the ethnicity of your choice] and screaming about all the problems they cause. Now, certainly he has an eager audience--as do KKK leaders at most of their rallies. But he's doing nothing to make the world a more civil or peaceful place. In fact, he's simply polarizing it even more.

Why not Vishnu? I have no problem with people who worship Vishnu. Or Thor. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or the Tooth Fairy. The problem comes only when people try to impose their religion on others--and that is not something I am advocating. As I said above, I have a problem whenever anyone forces their opinion on others (as does Dawkins--it's something we agree on). So obviously I am against things like the forced inclusion of Creationism in textbooks. Or blasphemy laws. Or the discrimination against a particular group based on their religion (or lack thereof).

Sorry this post is getting so long. I'll wrap it up with this: I'm curious what your stance is on the existence of dark matter. Most astronomers believe in dark matter in spite of the fact there is no physical way to measureit. It's basically invisible. And yet current models of the structure of the universe require the existence of dark matter to work properly. You demand proof in order to believe in a god or gods. Well, there is no proof of dark matter--only speculation. And yet the scientific community generally has faith that it exists. How do you reconcile that?

Although I don't have any evidence of the existence of God or gods, science has ironically given us plenty of evidence for the benefits and evolutionary advantages of faith. Have a read.

The Evolutionary Advantages of Faith

So, your insistence on doing away with religion is actually quite amusing, as you would be fighting evolution apparently.

Allow me to answer.

When you are saying that the universe is controlled by a zombie vampire that demands cannibalize of all his worshipers on Sunday, YOU are under the burden of providing proof of such a silly explanation of how the universe works, not me.

Just as Dawkins says, why not Vishnu, why not Xenu, why not the Magic juju at the bottom of the ocean, why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster? See the problem with you "faithful" people is that you want to put the burden of proving that something by definition magical and unprovable on me the rational person.

Sorry, if you are going to believe that the tooth fairy is real, YOU have to show me the tooth fairy DNA. I don't have to WASTE my time searching for evidence in YOUR particular delusion when the world is FULL of other, funnier ones I'd rather search for if I was forced to.

As for re-inventing the wheel, I'm not saying we need to do that. If you re-read my post you'll see that I have no problem with secularizing the good teaching and removing them from all the mumbo jumbo. Be nice to each other, check. Don't kill people, check. Worship the magic doodaddie or you go to the magical pit of fire for all eternity... sorry, no check for you.

Anything else?

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^ponceleon:
Sure it is fair to dismiss ALL religion. Just because you are a little crazy in that you believe in magical forces controlling the universe doesn't make it ANY more legitimate.
[edit]
I do good things because it is better for all of us to be good to each other, not because some magical being threatens me if I don't do what he says. Who is a better person, the one who does good deeds because he wants to do good deeds, or the one who does them because he's afraid of the consequences if he doesn't?

I'm only going to address these two parts of your post, so sorry for the edit.
First part. Do you have any legitimate proof that magical forces aren't controlling the universe? I highly doubt it... you would have published said proof and won the Nobel prize by now.
What science has given us are facts about the world we live in, but that collection of facts can be interpreted in multiple ways. Where some people see only random chaos others see intelligent organization. Clearly, your interpretation of the facts is that there cannot possibly be any divine being or beings or any "mystical" forces. And that's fine! But surely you must realize that this is your interpretation? That other interpretations are possible? Were you to demand everyone to believe your interpretation (as Dawkins does) you would be no better than the Fundamentalists that both you and he despise.
Second part. What exactly is "doing good things?" That is precisely the question most religions strive to answer. You feel you can come up with the answers for yourself. I respect that! But others feel: why re-invent the wheel? People have been exploring this question (and many others like, "What is the meaning of life?") through religion and philosophy for centuries. They choose to look to other places for answers and they should be free to do so. In fact, I think we all should do a bit of introspection on questions like this more often and instead of blindly trying to force others to see our opinion, engage others in open and honest dialogue. Most hostility towards religion comes precisely because there are those who refuse to engage in honest dialogue, thereby giving themselves and religion in general a bad name.
In closing, I just want to say that nobody thinks unquestioning belief is a good thing. Faith is not the same thing as unquestioning belief. Faith is trust, and trust comes from experience. You yourself, ponceleon, have faith--faith in yourself and your own moral code that I'm assuming stems from your own personal experiencese. That is exactly the same way it is for the bulk of religious people (with the exception of the radicals and fundamentalists I mentioned earlier). Most religious people believe not because of some threat or because they no longer question things, but because their experiences in life have given them confidence that their interpretation of things is correct.

>> ^RadHazG:

You can be spiritual sure, you can believe in a god, multiple gods, the spirit of the universe or the flying spaghetti monster. What you can't do is make the ridiculous assumption that these unprovable things you believe in can affect anything that actually exists in reality as we know it.
Rottenseed beat me to the punch on the type of life bit. Does thinking that our "type" of life is the only thing that can be "alive" make this presenter... "Lifeist"?


Just to be the devils advocate, you can't have it both ways. There is no logic at all to telling someone that they can believe in a god who created the universe, then claim that it's ridiculous to assume that he/she/it would be able to affect anything with that universe.

If you grant the permission to believe in an all-powerful deity, it's actually a lot more ridiculous to believe that it could not affect the universe than it is to believe the opposite.

Oh Flying Spaghetti Monster, why did I upvote this crap

You can be spiritual sure, you can believe in a god, multiple gods, the spirit of the universe or the flying spaghetti monster. What you can't do is make the ridiculous assumption that these unprovable things you believe in can affect anything that actually exists in reality as we know it.

Rottenseed beat me to the punch on the type of life bit. Does thinking that our "type" of life is the only thing that can be "alive" make this presenter... "Lifeist"?