November 08, 2007

Are Agnostics Fence Sitting Cowards?

There are a lot of terms used to describe someone who has no belief in a god. These terms include Atheist, Bright, freethinker, Humanist and Agnostic. Today i would like to discuss the term "agnostic", What an agnostic is, what they believe and why i feel they are fence sitters and religious apologists.

The above terms all have one thing in common, None see any evidence of a god and none have any belief in a god. But while all concede that, while entirely unlikely, there is a possibility that a god does exist only the agnostic feels compelled to define themselves based on the possibility of something completely unlikely being true.

If one were to ask an Atheist, A Bright, A freethinker or a humanist if there were a god they would all likely answer "No, I don't believe there is", But should one ask the same question to an agnostic their reply would be "I don't know, possibly".

While it may appear that what they are saying is logical, After all we have no evidence that god doesn't exist, It isn't practical to concede the possibility any more than it is practical to concede the possibility of fairies, Elves, a teapot orbiting the sun or the flying spaghetti monster.

If someone were to say they were agnostic towards fairies, The FSM or elves would they garner the same respect as someone who is agnostic towards a supernatural god? it's unlikely.

I believe this attitude is religiously apologetic and stems from a similar kind of indoctrination that causes the religious to claim there is a god. The agnostic has been partially tricked, While not to the extent of a believer, That the idea of god is somehow protected, That it has some special place and that, While unlikely, Is still possible.

It also seems to be the case that the agnostic is only agnostic towards the judeo/christian god. If they were to concede the possibility of Allah for example they would have to concede that the Jihad, Ritual killings and the decapitation of 12 year olds may also possibly be moral. So it's very dangerous ground on which the agnostic treads. In everything, we have to be careful what we concede the possibility of and we certainly never define ourselves based on what may be possible.

58 comments:

  1. Wow Atheists never cease to amaze me with their religious zealotry. They need to exclude everyone that does not conform to their idea of the world, funny they have more in common with religious fanatics than scientists. Well I am a free thinker and an Agnostic I am an Agnostic not because of the wishy washy reasons you give but because I detest Dawkinsian Atheists and their smug assumptions about reality. Of course there is no evidence for God as the only people seemingly concerned with this issue are Atheists who can only look at the world in terms of there being no God. I recently read an article in the new scientist about how the human mind is hard-wired to believe in a force higher than itself I think they may have actually said God. Now there are two ways of interpretting this - you can either say a belief in god served some evolutionary function in the past so people who believed in god were selected and eventually became the norm which is the Atheist/Dawkinsian way of interpretting it - which is fine and is indeed the official interpretation or you can say yes there is a possibility there is a god as here is some evidence that god not only made us he made us to believe in him which is a more religious viewpoint this of course is such a sacreligious viewpoint it would be laughed out of the lab. Now both of these interpretations are valid in my mind so this is why I remain agnostic. If I believe in the possibility of god however, does not mean I have to believe that I was created 6000 years ago or that evolution is rubbish or equally all the guff associated with religious dogma is true. As I said I am a free thinker and can make my own mind up and also live and let live. I will leave the inquisitions and the judging to the Atheists and the other religious zealots

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't see how any case could be made that we are hard-wired to believe on god, or even that god made us to believe in him, because of the amount of people who don't believe.

    But that isn't really anything to do with the post, and neither were any of your other points. the post is about agnostics defining themselves based on the remote chance of something highly unlikely being true.

    are you also agnostic towards pixies? or do you reserve this special concession for god alone?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your view of agnosticism is right out of a Dawkins handbook. While I can appreciate the argument, it doesn't truly represent the stance of an agnostic.

    My view is that in the same way an agnostic would say there could be a god, many gods or no gods, so could their be unicorns, fairies or whatever else. They could exist in in our universe or in parallel universes (e.g. his dark matters trilogy).

    The stance of an agnostic is not apologetic (at least to any certain religious or philosophical belief), it's that anything is possible. Agnostics find fault in both the religious and religious-athiest's stance (such as yourself), in that they have concluded that there can only be one truth, and that truth is the one they currently believe in. Athiests such as yourself are no less religious about your beliefs than fundamental Christian.

    My appreciation comes with the fact that an agnostic can come to the same conclusion about god as an atheist would, but only based on our logic and senses. However, as you know, many animals, insects, etc... have sensory abilities beyond our imagination. They can sense and see things that we cannot. Because we recognize the limitations of our human form, yet at the same time appreciate the imagination our brains allow us (for evolutionary and survival purposes I'm sure), we can imagine the possibility of anything being possible. Especially those things that we aren't able to sense.

    Whereas you might find that as apologetic to man-made religions, I see it as a part of human nature, not to be ignored or mastered into the denial of its existence.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "in that they have concluded that there can only be one truth, and that truth is the one they currently believe in"

    Set fire to that strawman! I clearly stated that even an atheist will say the existence of god is possible, But they also say that the possibility is to remote that there is little point contemplating that possibility.

    If you say that anything is possible, Even fairies, elves and pixies i am going to have a hard time taking anything you say seriously. While we aren't able to disprove them it's no reason to believe the likelihood is great enough for you to use it to define your position on it.

    Would you say you are agnostic towards pixies? Or is the likelihood of them existing so small that you would instead say "no, i don't believe pixies exist"?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I wasn't making a case to say we are hard wired to believe in God. I was reporting what was reported in popular Science magazines and all over news networks possibly last year. I assumed, as you were interested in the God or no God debate, you would have kept yourself informed. However, I have looked for the article in the new scientist but cannot find it but I found it reported on the CNN newsite here is the link http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/04/neurotheology/
    My post I don't think was off topic.
    I was actually trying to say -that only Atheist say 'Agnostics define themselves based on the remote chance of something highly unlikely being true' not agnostics. and I was challenging the assumption that it is highly unlikely to be true.
    What I was trying to illustrate in my post was the assumption that god does not exist is based on your interpretation of the facts not the actual facts. I don't define myself as you have defined me at all I am open-minded as to me there are many ways the data can be interpreted. If you choose to believe - that god had made us to believe in him then he obviously gave us freedom of choice aswell sorry can't answer that one am a little rusty on religion. I don't nescessarily believe that god made us or even in god what I am saying is just because I don't doesn't mean I am right this is where Dawkinsian Atheism falls down as it believes it is speaking the truth so much so it cannot entertain anything else. As far as the Pixie statement goes I don't think there has been an article in the news about pixies existing that has provided food for thought so on this subject I am afraid I remain an Apixiest until further data comes to light.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "As far as the Pixie statement goes I don't think there has been an article in the news about pixies existing that has provided food for thought so on this subject I am afraid I remain an Apixiest until further data comes to light."

    There is no data regarding the existence of god either, only a lot of people telling other people it's true over hundreds of years.

    This kinda shows that you do hold religion in some high regard and you excuse it from the logical assessment that you apply to other claims.

    Why would you claim the existence of god is possible but not the existence of pixies when the evidence for both is equal?

    This is what i mean about agnostics being religious apologists. The cause of you being agnostic towards god is the same thing that causes the religious to believe, Only on a lesser extent.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well if you believe in the multi-verse theory, like you said you do, then you would believe in pixies and god. Why? Because infinite number of universes=infinite possibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh Dear, Matt I think you are not listening to what I am saying. This is where my detesting of Dawkinsian fundamentalism comes in, I am sorry please don't take it personally I have nothing against atheists some of my best friends are atheists, its my problem, after all you can't help being blinkered - Dawkins is a charming and eloquent writer - I was an avid follower too once until he gave up science and became religious. In my defence of why I am Agnostic and not an Atheist - I said there is a study to show we are hard wired to believe in god. Right I did not say we are hard wired I don't even know if I believe it myself. A Scientist said it. Was he into ID or creationism? No he was a neuroscientist. So a proper one - met all the right criteria - materialist yes non-religious yes. The data is automatically interpretted as there is no god (see here is where the censorship comes in this is an assumption not a fact) so there must be another explanation for this and he came up with a good honest material atheist one. However, if one (that does not mean me or you) chooses to interpret this data as actually there is a god and there is your evidence right there in that we are hard-wired to believe in god I for one will not say rubbish there is no god. I remain agnostic. Also having reread this article and looked up the science of Neurotheology on wikipedia you will see this field is a good honest materialist one but under criticisms there is some guy saying something similar to me. So anyway to reiterate about the pixies no I don't believe in pixies as there is no science dedicated to their study. whereas there is for religious experiences Neurotheology and thanks to you Matt I now have heard of this field seemingly a genuine field of research. and is further evidence to me that being agnostic is the safest bet when you are truly scientific as if even science is admitting there is something to religious experiences then thanks God or Dawkins, whichever you prefer, I am an Agnostic. PS sorry for the long posts why use one word when hundreds will do

    ReplyDelete
  9. D i didn't say i believed in the multi-verse theory, Like i explained, It was an example of a reason why the laws of physics could appear to be finely tuned. Like i explained, the laws of physics are used as evidence for god as though the laws of physics could have no possible other cause. I presented another possible cause which invalidates the laws of physics being evidence of god.

    Di you seem to be clutching at straws looking for ways of defending your obviously illogical conclusion that the existence of god is possible while at the same time claiming that pixies don't exist.

    You can't have it both ways. Either you believe all fabricated myths with no evidence to support them could possibly be true or you believe none are. which is it?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Unless the agnostic further specifies that they are agnostic atheist or agnostic theist, they are indeed fence sitting, or not being completely honest.

    Agnosticism is a position on knowledge, while atheism is a position on belief. Each position answers a different question:

    Do you know there is a god? "No, but there could be." Ok, agnostic. Do you believe in a god? "No." Ok, agnostic atheist.

    Plenty of the agnostics criticizing atheists are actually atheists themselves.

    The thing about god-belief being hard wired into the human brain is really an unnecessary and overblown study on the human tendency to personify everything. Movies depicting animals who think and talk like we do. Slices of pizza with arms, legs and eyeballs, shouting, "Eat me! I'm delicious!" Anything, you name it-- humans will imbue their features on it. Does it come as any surprise that humans would therefore imbue their features upon the universe? When the Sun was believed to be an emotional entity, did that mean humans were somehow connected to things "beyond their senses"? Nope. They just lacked the knowledge necessary to think beyond themselves.

    If we're hardwired to believe in gods, then we're just as hardwired to believe in talking slices of pizza and singing crabs (Sebastian rules).

    Besides, there has never been anything non-human about any god ever invented. They all act exactly like humans... and primitive humans at that.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If you don't believe in something, don't use it as an argument to prove something. Everyone uses the pixie (or some other mythical creature) to 'prove' that God is just a fairy tale. I do have something to say to that. We would be able to test faries because, if you want to believe you whole fairy argument, they exist in our universe. God, however, does not exist in our universe. Just like how hell isn't underground and heaven isn't in the sky, they are different 'universes' for lack of a better term.

    So I guess the best question is, do you believe in infinite universes and subject yourself to the idea that there is probably an all powerful being able to do anything, or do you believe that there is only 1 universe and that the staggering chances of the universe being as good as it is. As an example, water is the only element or combination of elements to expand when it freezes. If water was like every other element, then ice would form from the bottom of a body of water, up. This would make life impossible because the entire seabed would be covered in ice. Also, the ice age would have ended all life.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Di Agnostic,

    There is a study dedicated to finding pixies. It's called Cryptozoology.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptozoology

    Why do you need to see an article in a magazine to believe that pixies might exist? Sounds like you're just giving credit to whatever you feel is most popular at the time, in other words, "If lots of people think it could be true, it must be possible."

    Since when does the popularity of an idea determine its validity?

    ReplyDelete
  13. woohoo debate. Well actually Matt you are right I am clutching at straws I am being illogical I thought this site was for reasoned debate not blind adherence to ones own rigid dogma. So to make it a little easier for you here is an article from the Dawks own website.
    http://richarddawkins.net/article,933,God-Is-in-the-Dendrites,George-Johnson.
    Now, as this actually appears on richarddawkins.net does it makes it suitable subject for debate? so here you can see there is some evidence for religious experiences or whatever they are called so MAYBE they are not just stories made up by primitive cultures to ease their worries or maybe they are nice little fairy stories. however, there was no mention of pixies so to reiterate I am apixiest as there is no evidence they exist, Cryptozoologists I doubt are looking for pixies they are looking for creatures that mythical creatures are based on perhaps. If they find something that seems to be a pixie then I will give it serious consideration. I am agnostic as to the existence of god because there is some evidence of the existence of experiencing god or at least as much as there is evidence he doesn't exist - so worthy of further thought obviously not to an Atheist as unlike me they already know the truth.
    Fabricated Myths is very strong I assume Santa Claus is also a fabricated myth as he doesn't exist but wait he was based on something in reality.
    Also Nebulous I am an agnostic agnostic how can one be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist that is like saying I am a believing Atheist. I am not sitting on any fence there is no evidence either way for me its like is England a great football team I don't care so I don't agree or disagree. This just highlights to me the inability of Atheists or for that matter Theists to see anything other than in black and white they can't actually stand mystery even though they both harp on about it all the time. Also I don't care about whether god is hard wired in the brain or not, some credible scientists do, and I used it as evidence of being able to look at an argument two ways. also Nebulous neurotheology appeared in Science magazine so it must have some respect amongst the scientific world. I was not trying to say I believe in Neurotheology or see it as some conclusive proof of the existence of god or is even popular in fact I had never really heard of it until today I used it to try and show there is more than one way of looking at something and that being agnostic is not some wishy washy copout. As an Agnostic and now an Apixiest I don't feel the need to have god proved or disproven to me if people want to go to church and pray without being called ignorant then that is fine with me but its not for me. If people want to use science to bolster their Atheist beliefs that is equally fine with me but again not for me. If people want to tell me what to think or that I am some copout because I don't worship at the feet of Jesus or Buddah or Richard Dawkins or want me to ostracise certain sections of the community just because they believe something different then I am sorry I don't need to feel so secure and sure in my beliefs to do this here is where I like to argue against ignorance and zealotry.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Di Agnostic,

    It's as simple as this: Do you believe in a god? No? You're an atheist. You lack theism.

    " I am an agnostic agnostic how can one be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist that is like saying I am a believing Atheist."

    The error you are making is saying that gnosticism equates to theism. If you understand the difference between "knowledge" and "belief", then you know that the two are not synonymous. You can have faith and believe in a god without having evidence that it really exists. That's agnostic theism, by the way-- don't claim to have knowledge of the god's existance, but believe it exists. Make sense?

    The other error you make is in your claim that all atheists know there isn't a god (that's gnostic atheism). The only requirement for atheism is the absence of theism. Your assertion that all atheists believe in one thing and worship Dawkins is a false generalization. Cats are atheists by default and have never read Dawkins, nor do they insist that gods do not exist. I have to say you are misinformed on this issue.

    Unfortunately, using agnosticism as some kind of twilight zone between theism and atheism is only deception. You either do believe or you don't. And since you don't seem to believe in or worship any gods, I'm going to have to call you an atheist.

    Di Agnostic Atheist. :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

    Read about Agnostic Atheism here

    "If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist"

    (cited from the Wikipedia article which cites Robert Flint for this quote)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Nebulous nebulous so rather than engage in a discussion about whether there is evidence god exists you would like to get bogged down in semantics. I read with interest All about Robert Flint and 'Agnostic Atheism' and have come to the same conclusion as to what I have written before. you see it comes down to psychology really there are people in the world who have at the centre of their being a need to find out whether god exists or not this to me is a deep insecurity. to me either god exists or god doesn't. If god comes up to me and says hi I do exist then I go aaaah that explains it all, better get on with not coveting my neighbours ass. if god doesn't come along which I must admit he so far hasn't then I keep my options open but as I don't know everything I cannot say either way.

    God is only important to theists and atheists. to be an agnostic atheist is like saying I voted conservative but I am not sure it was right. an Agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist if anyone actually talks about such things in the modern day suffers from what I call Monty Pythons Life of Brianism he belongs to the peoples front of judea not the judean peoples front. I could also say, if I wanted to come over all robert flint, Atheists by not believing in god make god important enough not to believe in him so in fact need god to reinforce their lack of belief in him so making them theist atheists so nebulous are you a theist? I think perhaps if I follow my silly argument then you are ;0
    Ok next, I am sorry I made the 'False' generalisation that all atheists believe one thing and worship Richard Dawkins but if you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas. This topic started with a very Dawkinsian 'false' generalisation (although it was posed as a question but one with the usual predictable dawkinsian answer) that agnostics are fence sitting cowards. I perhaps did not make myself clear in my previous posts that my arguments are directed at Dawkinsians my interest in debating the notions of theism or atheism or agnosticism are directed at people who want to debate the issue not preach it.
    Two further points. one. Cats are by default atheists is another assumption. as you have assumed by default that as I am not a theist I am an atheist. Cats could be completely enlightened and know god exists so don't feel the need to debate the issue or preach the issue or impose their beliefs on their fellow cats and get on with sleeping and catching mice so they are theists. assuming cats are by default atheists is anthropomorphic.
    and final point you said 'The error you are making is saying that gnosticism equates to theism. If you understand the difference between "knowledge" and "belief", then you know that the two are not synonymous' I don't want to do the usual nah nah your wrong and be all pedantic about what a word means rather than how it is used and I know the literal translation of gnostic is knowledge however gnosticism would probably be more associated with a weird christianoid set of beliefs. And in my well read mind when someone uses the term gnosticism I associate it with this particular cult.

    Read about Gnosticism here
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic

    ReplyDelete
  17. The problem here is that Agnosticism is used by a lot of people as a third position. Indeed I used to think this way, its nice and non - confrontational.

    I now describe myself as philosophically an agnostic atheist. I don't have a belief in God but realise the human knowledge has limits, in the absence of evidence why jump to the conclusion God exists.

    Then of course we could talk about this concept of God, indeed as a descriptor the word is nigh on useless - endless debate here.

    So in practical terms I am atheist, I have an absence of belief in a god(s).

    Are agnostics fence sitting cowards, I don't think so. Just people who don't want to draw that firm line, that don't see "it" as an issue. Non-confrontationalist maybe.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sean
    when you say - I don't have a belief in God but realise the human knowledge has limits, in the absence of evidence why jump to the conclusion God exists. you miss my point, I am not jumping to the conlusion god exists or for that matter not. in the abscence of evidence why jump to the conclusion that he doesn't exist. Dark matter is an interesting theory there is no evidence it exists but despite this I don't believe it doesn't exist-I am waiting for more information. If the people who believed in Black holes before they were proven thought along these lines then what would have happened. you are right there are only two ways of looking at this issue. People who need god (whether to believe or disbelieve) or those that don't. I believe there are atheists, theists and agnostics who fall on both sides of this fence. However the Dawkins church of atheism which most atheistic blogs seem to adhere to, is one of the schools that needs god to reinforce their exclusivity in knowing the truth and everyone elses opinion is unscientific. Science does not need to be atheistic.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The whole thing is that science can never disprove religion. Science and theology are two different areas of thinking. It would be like saying "I can use my calculus skills to prove this is a run-on sentence." You can't. No matter how much you dance around the issue, math can't correct grammar, grammar can't correct math.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Nebulous nebulous so rather than engage in a discussion about whether there is evidence god exists you would like to get bogged down in semantics"

    This isn't a post about whether "God" exists, it's about whether agnostics are fence sitting cowards. That's why I'm arguing about it.

    "If god comes up to me and says hi I do exist then I go aaaah that explains it all, better get on with not coveting my neighbours ass. if god doesn't come along which I must admit he so far hasn't then I keep my options open but as I don't know everything I cannot say either way".

    I'm still waiting for the part where you admit that you don't believe in a god, whether you keep your options open or not. You're an atheist. Many atheists would also believe that something exists if it came down and smacked us in the face. Why do you think you're special?

    "Cats could be completely enlightened and know god exists"

    Have you seen a news article about this, or is there some other reason you believe in the possibility of church going, bible thumping cats, but not pixies? Last time I checked, your requirement to be open to such a possibility was that it was respected by the scientific community. I don't think Christian kitties falls into that category. Cat-egory. Ha! I kill me.

    "Atheists by not believing in god make god important enough not to believe in him so in fact need god to reinforce their lack of belief in him so making them theist atheists so nebulous are you a theist? I think perhaps if I follow my silly argument then you are ;0"

    The argument is silly because atheists didn't make gods important. You're making the "why don't we have a word for people who don't believe in pink elephants?" argument. You know where this is going, right? Pink elephants didn't start wars... pink elephants haven't been used as an excuse to enslave, torture, suppress, and kill. And people don't get persecuted for disbelief in pink elephants, but they have, and still do, for disbelief in gods. When people kill for and die in the name of a god-belief, for hundreds of years, it tends to make that belief (and the lack thereof) pretty relevant. I think you should retract your argument here as it is based entirely on ignorance.

    "Dark matter is an interesting theory there is no evidence it exists but despite this I don't believe it doesn't exist-I am waiting for more information."

    You are waiting for more information to allow you to believe it exists. Fact is, you don't believe in dark matter yet, just like you don't believe in gods.

    You claim to be neither theist nor atheist so you can enjoy criticizing both sides while claiming immunity. The fact that you clearly meet the conditions required to be an atheist, yet refuse to acknowledge it, only makes you seem intellectually dishonest.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Nebulous oh for goodness sake this argument is becoming a pain. I do not sit on the fence so I can take pot shots at both sides I am taking pot shots at Dawkinsian atheism just as a few years ago it was creationism - the running theme here is opposing ignorance. what both of these groups fail to realise is there are other ways of looking at problems or the universe. To try and put it another way My personal belief about the universe is the universe is what it is . I don't need god to give meaning to my life. It may be hard to conceive that somebody can think outside the box. if I say I don't believe in god I have a million reasons why I could be wrong if I say I do believe in god I have a million reasons why I don't so here is my quandry. I am not an atheist as I do not need to believe there is no god and I am not a theist as I have no need to believe in him why should I take one side or the other so you can see if I am an enemy or friend. sorry as clear as I can get. I am not waiting for further evidence of god before I believe in him. If my circumstances change and I become a spiritual person then maybe I will but it won't mean I stop being interested in science. there! it doesn't have to be either/or
    I can't be bothered with your dark matter statements i said I don't not believe in it I am not waiting for further evidence - fact is a large chunk of the universe is missing - I am interested maybe its god maybe god is dark matter (just so as you realise - I am being sarcastic).
    I did not give cats a belief system you did you said they are atheists where is your evidence to back it up or maybe richard said they are and thats good enough. I personally don't think they are religious but then I don't think they are not either like you do. I have no opinion but you seem to - perhaps they are agnostic but then that would be fence sitting so maybe you are right as cats do a lot of sitting on fences and maybe they are agnostic so agnostics must be fence sitters (again being sarcastic).
    I know atheists believe atheism is not a religion but then they would wouldn't they they try and hide behind cold hard facts even if they are often just assumptions it doesn't seem to matter but what they hold are beliefs as well and if other peoples beliefs are open to scrutiny and ridicule then so are theirs. I think the problem here is atheist think they know the truth. if anyone says anything different they are either mad, fencesitters, unscientific or witches. Wait a minute I know we could label these people 'enemies of reason' we could try and force their beliefs out of schools and only have our way of thinking anyone else we could just label as nutters no wait maybe we could put different coloured armbands on them to distinguish what kind of thought crime they commit there must be loads of them we will have to concentrate them somehow yeah maybe in camps. Phew glad we thought of it before they did. This is what creationists do so yeah lets follow their example even though they are ignorant and we are not (just again to clarify I am being sarcastic).
    your pink elephants argument is a bit garbled so I will try and sort something out. if god is so unimportant to atheists why do they make such a big deal out of not believing in him just the same way the other mouthy holders of the truth - creationists etc make a big deal out of believing in him. Creationists would not really exist as a movement if there was no theory of evolution. Just as atheists wouldn't exist if they did not have to say 'I don't believe in god' so god obviously touches something in them. Agnostics wouldn't need to exist if there was no reason to exclude themselves from taking sides in the lunacy of god vs non-god debate however, the majority of people seem to be able to see evolution and religion co-existing. Some of these people are religious some of them are atheistic some are indifferent.
    God is not important to me so I don't need to say I do or don't believe in him whereas he obviously is important to you or then why do you need to say you are an atheist. If you say there is a possibility he exists then why come down against him as opposed give him the benefit of the doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "God is not important to me so I don't need to say I do or don't believe in him "

    You simply refuse to reveal the truth... that you are either an atheist or a theist. But you are one of them for sure at this very moment. At least I'm honest enough to admit that.

    If someone asks you "Do you believe in a god?" You're simply not honest enough to say yes or no. You say you don't believe in pixies. So you're telling me pixies are "important enough" to you to say you're apixiest, but gods... who people fight wars over... aren't important enough to you for you to say you're an atheist? What a load of dishonest bullcrap.

    You say gods are not of importance to you... yet you are in an atheist blog making long comments. You are just as "guilty" as atheists finding god "important" (lol) enough to call themselves atheists because your agnostism is a god-belief reference as well. I find it odd that you didn't realize that.

    "I am not an atheist as I do not need to believe there is no god"

    Atheism is not the belief that there is no god. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. In other words, there may be one, but if you don't believe there is one, you're an atheist. Please, please, pleeease educate yourself on what atheism means.

    You are being rather assumptuous about way too many things. You think this is a war where we want to attack you once we find out which "side" you're on. It's the year 2007. If you would take a look around, you'd find that atheists and theists are friends in many situations. When you come into a blog making crazy generalizations about everyone, it drags into you the realm of zealotry as well.

    "if god is so unimportant to atheists why do they make such a big deal out of not believing in him."

    When the majority of the population believes in something and thinks you should too, that's what makes it a big deal. How hard is that to understand? Theists made it a big deal. If you could have been killed over the issue, it's a big deal. How hard is that to understand?

    You maintain your stand as an apixiest because you know no one cares enough to bother you about it. Your claim to be neither theist nor atheist is a statement of cowardice and dishonesty.

    You're an atheist, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hey, I have a question. Who gives a flying crap?? Does it really matter if he believes in the possibility of some being that created the universe? No. People can believe whatever they want. I really don't care what or who people believe in as long as it does not harm someone else. This entire blog makes me laugh because, as I stated before, science can disprove religion as well as math can correct grammar. I do enjoy a good debate, but this has turned into a mud slinging match.

    Also, in the end, Jesus was a cool dude. Whether you believe he was god, or you just like his feelings on the whole "love thy neighbor" thing.

    I mean, seriously people, haven't you guys heard of peace on earth and good will towards men?

    ReplyDelete
  24. nebulous whatever man. yes crazy generalizations like fence sitting cowards and people are either atheist or theist but hey sorry I didn't realise the rules only existed for some people not others.

    Just to make you happy, If someone asks me in the future, if I believe in god I will in future say-
    'I don't know, but some guy on the internet reckons I am an atheist, as apparently the default in nature (as in cats) is being an atheist'.
    and when the person replies 'oh you don't know if you believe in god, why then would you label yourself an atheist and not agnostic'?
    'why' I will say, 'because apparently if I don't believe or disbelieve in god then I am an atheist'.

    however, just because I can never bow out gracefully, I thought I would look up agnosticism on wikipedia and among all the other pedantic descriptions of what is permitted to label yourself there is one called apathetic agnosticism. this is more what I am if you must know but if that doesn't satisfy you then yes I concede I am an atheist if that makes you happy.

    so is there is any use for the term agnostic anymore. as really we are all agnostic because we can never say for certain there is no god. but you say this is atheism. Hmmm so if we all agree we are really atheists or to use my terminology agnostics which one of us are fence sitting cowards does that not mean we all are? I am confused. what would be the point of posting something about agnostics being fence sitting cowards if all unbelieving agnostics are atheists so that rules out half of the agnostic population the other half by the same logic must be theists so who are the fence sitting cowards?

    I come on atheist sites as they usually are a little more intelligent than creationist ones. I found this one whilst on digg and then I read the usual piffle on this particular post (not nescessarily the other ones) - I thought I will defend agnosticism (being a follower) as it always comes under quite vicious criticisms. I thought I would begin with the arrogance of atheists how they have to force people into little easily manageble boxes ,and their running down of other peoples beliefs, as atheists believe they hold the truth. I realise now thanks to you, atheists do hold the truth and I have been a fool all of these years to think otherwise. I now know apparently even they know what I believe more than I do thats amazing. Thank you my atheist or is that my agnostic friend nebulous.

    d
    sorry man if this has ended up in mudslinging but I am a sucker for bating dawkinsians and creationists I have read your posts on this blog and they are hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I enjoy your posts as well. Now when you say 'hilarious' do you mean 'hilariously bad arguments' or the fact that I try to be as sarcastic as possible?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I don't know about cowardice, but I do call fence sitting on agnostics.

    I thoroughly agree with nebulous here, BTW.

    And di agnostic, yes, you don't know (gnosticism), but do you believe? (a/theism).

    It's that simple. How can you not know if you believe or if you don't? That's why you're either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
    I notice that you refer to the singular god when you discuss the possibility. Do you rule out the possibility of more than one?

    And cats, if they could, would believe in themselves as gods.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The whole cat thing is totally erroneous. They do not have the mental capacity to reason like human beings do.

    Karen, imagine it like this. You are sitting at a donut/bagel shop. You have enough money for either one donut or one bagel. You walk in and you think, "do I want a bagel, or a donut?" You can be "on the fence." in that sense. Both donuts and bagels are good, but you aren't sure which one you are in the mood for.

    I know its a simple and flawed analogy, but it's the best I can come up with on such short notice.

    ReplyDelete
  28. We are of course assuming that sitting on the fence is a bad thing.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Di Agnostic,

    Cool, we came to an agreement. However, there is still a huge misunderstanding here.

    "so is there is any use for the term agnostic anymore. as really we are all agnostic because we can never say for certain there is no god. but you say this is atheism."

    No, not everyone is agnostic. I am gnostic and an atheist. As far as being an atheist, You don't have to say for certain that there is no god. You simply don't believe there is one at this time, whether it's because you need more evidence in order to believe or whatever reason, which makes you an atheist.

    And then, if you also believe you can't know that there is a god, you are agnostic.

    Note the difference... atheism=no belief, agnosticism=no knowledge.

    I am a gnostic atheist. You can say that there is no god when the word "god" is actually defined. The Christian god, for example, does not and cannot exist. For a thing to be able to exist, it must be a thing. The Christian god's characteristics cancel themselves out. It really is ridiculously simple... as simple as noting that the all-powerful being can't do certain things. Is it an all powerful being? Or is it limited? It can't be both, and because it is neither one of those things, it is nothing. No-thing. It is not even a thing, therefore it cannot ever exist, let alone be an it.

    I have yet to see anyone provide a definition of a god that could possibly exist. That's why I'm gnostic. Now if you say there were extraterrestrial beings who interfered with the natural process of evolution, I'll allow that possibility. But that's nothing like a magic cloud man who hates women and goes on killing sprees.

    Just because people toss a meaningless word around (god) doesn't give it the possibility of existing.

    "If someone asks me in the future, if I believe in god I will in future say-
    'I don't know
    "

    The honest answer for you would be, "I don't believe in a god at this time, but if you show me convincing evidence, I'm more than willing to change my mind."

    D,

    Some of us enjoy engaging in debate and exercising our use of logic. However, I respect your preference to avoid confrontations. Why do we give a crap? Why do people watch football games? I think it's a waste of time, but other people enjoy it. What are you gonna do?

    Jesus was not a cool dude. He is considered to either be the Christian god in man-form (lol, Transformers! More than meets the eye!) or a representative of that god. And that god was a woman-hating terrorist. Not cool at all.

    Are you seriously impressed because some guy supposedly said, "Hey, you should be nice"? That's brilliant. Forget Jesus. If you want to praise someone for giving relationship advice, John Gray kicks Jesus's ass anyday.

    Jesus also disrespected animals and viewed them as inferior. He forced pigs to become demon hosts and commit suicide by drowning. If Jesus was so cool, he could have just snapped his fingers and said, "demons be gone!"

    The donut/bagle (atheism/theism) analogy is flawed because you don't choose atheism. It is the default position from birth until you decide otherwise. I'm sure you understand this since you acknowledge that cats don't have the capacity to reason as humans do, nor do infants have the capacity to understand what religion is. If Di Agnostic has not yet accepted a belief in any one of the available gods, it follows that he is still an atheist, as he was at birth. Atheism is not a donut that he has yet to devour.

    ReplyDelete
  30. D
    Choosing between a bagel and a donut is completely different from knowing whether I believe in something or not.

    The only way I can compare it to belief is to picture an agnostic with a list of gods to rule in or out. Column A correlates to donuts and contains gods such as Zeus, the FSM, Allah, Odin, Thor, Isis, the Aztec gods, etc. Column B correlates to the bagel and contains Muhammad, Kokopelli, Ra, Jesus, Athena, etc.
    The poor agnostic looks at the list , two gods at a time and asks himself, do I believe in this one, or this one? And crosses it off or puts a check or question mark beside it, until he gets thru the 2000 or so gods that have been invented thus far.

    How else could it take any time to figure out if you believe or not?

    Besides, as nebulous points out, atheism is the default position.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Actually, some believe that Jesus was just a normal person, spread regular beliefs of peace and love, and then after everything happened people got the message screwed up and made him into this god-man person.

    And that god was a woman-hating terrorist. Not cool at all.

    Where in the Bible does it say 'God hates women?" I want to hear what it says in the original language of the text. Because even in the original Hebrew, nowhere in the Bible does it condemn homosexuality.

    Now, I will not lie, I only learned about John Gray via Wikipedia right now. Here's what it says. "Gray sees volition, and hence morality, as an illusion, and portrays humanity as a rapacious species engaged in wiping out other forms of life while destroying its natural environment."

    He really is spreading the message of peace and love there.

    Atheism is not the default position because even you said that children do not have the capacity to reason like that. We will never know what the 'default position' is because humans are constantly being influenced by outside sources.

    Jesus also disrespected animals and viewed them as inferior.

    hate to break it to ya, animals are inferior. It was much better to have a bunch of useless pigs die (who were seen as disease ridden back then, thats why it was pigs) than a bunch of humans.

    How else could it take any time to figure out if you believe or not?

    ever think about it this way? The agnostic sits down, thinks "ya know, I don't think any religion got it right. There may be something that created the universe, but I have no clue what it is. But yet again, there may not be. Who knows? Not me, nor does anyone else on this earth. No person can say for 100% surety there is a god or there is not a god. Why? because we haven't discovered everything there is to know about our universe. Nobody can be certain unless we have learned everything there is to learn. Ever.

    ReplyDelete
  32. d
    I mean hilarious as in I almost cracked a rib from laughing.
    Karen
    why are you picking on me about cats? nebulous said they were all atheists. I, albeit sarcastically wanted to know where his proof is jees you atheists are touchy. Who cares or knows if cats believe in god.
    I conceded in my last post to nebulous that I was a born again atheist (even though I am not but so as we don't get into more mudslinging I will concede for the sake of argument). please ignore my references to being an agnostic in this post as now I am confused as to what the difference is.

    Your argument about the poor agnostic looking at the pantheon of the deities and despairing is not how I would look at this particular aspect of religion. This is how one would look at it if you were an atheist being forced to choose amongst the gods.
    I am agnostic (but really an atheist so don't hit me) because throughout history many very intelligent civilisations, (i for one don't think they were paranoid, afraid and always ignorant) some more enlightened civilisations than our own, believed in gods and goddessess. This is true right across the world. now some time in the ancient middle east someone decided to catelogue all of these deities in order to classify them. They realised that many gods from around the place were in actual fact the same god and that many gods also overlapped such as dionysus and bacchus. they concluded that maybe there aren't millions of gods there is in fact only one but with many faces and so the first montheistic religions were born. Hinduism is a classic example of a religion with one god but with many faces. Now I think yeah if there is such a thing as divinity then maybe the above is true. So before we get the usual pixies argument. Pixies, fairies, gnomes etc are part of ancient folklore. I have never seen one, I have never met anyone who has seen one, and I have never read a serious study on them so I with my cynical mind have concluded there are none and therefore apixiest agnomest and afairiest or in actual fact i am agnostic apixiest etc as I don't believe as I have no knowledge.
    My agnostic argument is not like choosing bagels or doughnuts its more like pepsi and coke. some people are coke people some people are pepsi drinkers I think both drinks are foul but I do like drinks. I see there is great mystery and wonder in being alive and the universe etc but I try and not cloud it by imposing my beliefs on it or negate other peoples experiences by imposing my beliefs on them by saying I alone have the truth. as these posts are testimony I don't always succeed but hell I am only human.

    nebulous
    I am sorry but I still think you are still being pedantic about definitions we all no atheism means without belief and agnostic means without knowledge gnostic means with knowledge etc. but for the purposes of debate atheists tend to mean people who disbelieve in god, theists believe in god, agnostics are the fence sitting cowards in between. what I believe is theists believe in god thats fine there are no qualms there, but atheists actively disbelieve in god in my mind. does not make me right. I distinguish myself from this argument by saying I don't buy into either side i dont believe but don't actively disbelieve. I mean I don't mean to be mean to you, but how can you be a gnostic atheist have you had some divine revelation that god, as laid out in the bible, doesn't exist. if you are allowed to be gnostic atheist I want my title of agnostic back.
    Now people, we have seen enough of my fence sitting cowardice
    back to the case in hand so we have established - atheists never say there is no god but it is highly unlikely as there is no evidence for one. agreed. I brought to the table one example of the fact that the reason there is no evidence is that it is how we interpret the data. yet to be decded. Neurotheology, (a subject about which I know little but have thanks to this blog know something more about than I did before) is a way material science can study the phenomena of religious experiences.contentious issue. So here material science has had to recognise that religious experiences are a genuine phenomena and try and study them. Of course these aren't real experiences they are illusions created by the brain (putting on my best atheistic and material science tone). However,I am saying is it not plausible that religious experiences are genuine experiences of the divine nature of reality and qed there is the tiniest prima facie evidence that there is a god enough to warrant the case being thrown out of court. and so is it not in the interest of science to remain agnostic so avoiding the pre-empting of the possibility of future evidence coming to light and science being discredited as the politics ridden biased mode of thinking that it is becoing thanks to among others Holy Richard.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Thanks, I try to add some humor to my arguments. It makes them more fun.

    ReplyDelete
  34. di agnostic

    I'm sorry. I was not picking on you about cats and did not mean for it to come across that way. If I were to elevate anything to the throne of god, it would be cats. I was just saying that they think the same of themselves.

    Would love to discuss the other bits, but a Steeler game is starting.

    ReplyDelete
  35. D,

    Ever read the Bible? Lol. You'll find that its god highly favors men over women...

    You say animals are inferior. Have any reasoning to back that up? Between a loyal family dog and a serial rapist, would you rather the dog be used as a host for demons and forced to drown, since you think animals are inferior? Pigs are kept by many as pets just as dogs are, shown to be intelligent and able to be trained. And these animals feel pain just as we do. Your way of thinking is that of a racist except on a species level. Better for those loving, loyal animals to die than a serial rapist, right? If I was you, I would be disgusted with myself for thinking that way.

    Wrong John Gray. Ever hear of "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus"?

    "ever think about it this way? The agnostic sits down, thinks "ya know, I don't think any religion got it right."

    What are you getting at? I'm familiar with the agnostic stance. Di Agnostic is still an agnostic atheist. Who cares what the agnostic knows or doesn't know? This one doesn't believe in a god. Atheist. End of story.

    " No person can say for 100% surety there is a god or there is not a god. Why? because we haven't discovered everything there is to know about our universe."

    What is a god? Would you care to define it or are you just going to pretend you're open minded by throwing a meaningless word around? When a god is given definition, like the Christian god, it's pretty simple to prove that it does not and cannot exist.

    What you're basically saying is, "We can never know there is a asjdfhkjsafhdd because we don't know everything."

    Well, I'll throw my two cents in then. We'll also never know if there's a schmauirnlajdfu. Because we'll never know everything about the universe. EVER.

    And the thing about never knowing everything about the universe, ever: How do you know? If you don't know everything, how can you say we'll never know everything? Wouldn't you have to know everything to make that conclusion?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Di Agnostic,

    It's all good man! You are agnostic AND atheist. One does not replace the other. It's been fun talking with you. See you around the blogosphere!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ever read the Bible? Lol. You'll find that its god highly favors men over women...

    Yes I have. What passage are you talking about?

    Between a loyal family dog and a serial rapist, would you rather the dog be used as a host for demons and forced to drown, since you think animals are inferior?

    There were no serial rapists around at the time...

    And these animals feel pain just as we do. Your way of thinking is that of a racist except on a species level.

    Here we go with the mudslinging again. Apparently I'm like a racist. I'm sorry ants and pigs aren't as important to me as another person. You are right. I am terrible horrible person. I mean, feeling pain is obviously the deciding factor, not having the ability to reason on a highly evolved level. On another note: pork chops are amazingly tasty. I regret nothing from eating them.

    Wrong John Gray. Ever hear of "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus"?

    Oh, my mistake. It was late and I was tired so I didn't feel like browsing all of wikipedia for the answer. I have heard of it, but I have never read it or anything. Maybe I will pick it up sooner or later.

    Would you care to define it or are you just going to pretend you're open minded by throwing a meaningless word around?

    As hilarious as it would be to just leave it around, I will have to explain myself. Once again, I was tired and wasn't at my best. I believe that God is a being from somewhere outside of the universe that created it. He/she/it has intricate knowledge of the workings of universes and has been able to obtain enough power in another universe to create this one. If you have ever played the card game Magic the Gathering, god could easily be some kinda plainswalker.


    When a god is given definition, like the Christian god, it's pretty simple to prove that it does not and cannot exist.

    then prove it. give me definite 100% infallible logical proof that God does not exist.

    We'll also never know if there's a schmauirnlajdfu.

    there may be. I dunno. If there are other inhabited worlds out there, which is very likely, there may be a creature that, when pronounced in english, sounds like that. Heck, there may even be fairy type creatures out there. It is highly possible.


    And the thing about never knowing everything about the universe, ever: How do you know? If you don't know everything, how can you say we'll never know everything? Wouldn't you have to know everything to make that conclusion?

    who says I don't know everything?? Well, me for one. I don't know, but it is a pretty safe assumption because we won't be able to go into a black hole because everything gets crushed. No element in our universe can go into a black hole and survive, so its a pretty safe assumption.

    And if we we don't know everything about our universe, right there you are admitting that there is a chance that we could find proof of God. Maybe like an intergalactic post-it note or something. Maybe it will say something like
    "Nice job humans. You made it all the way out here. I knew you would.
    Signed,
    God."

    that would be pretty damn funny.

    ReplyDelete
  38. D Said:

    I believe that God is a being from somewhere outside of the universe that created it.

    He/she/it has intricate knowledge of the workings of universes and has been able to obtain enough power in another universe to create this one.


    I am curious D where you get you evidence for the above. Do you just believe or ...?

    ReplyDelete
  39. I am curious D where you get you evidence for the above. Do you just believe or ...?

    Well, we don't know what other universes, if there are any, are like. So there could be one that is totally spiritual. It is difficult to explain, but I just kinda believe it. Science says there could be multiple universes, so it stands to reason that if God exists, which I believe he does, and he is not part of this universe, he must be part of another universe. Get what I am trying to say??

    ReplyDelete
  40. D,

    Men in the bible are praised by God for impregnating as many women as possible (even their own children and relatives) while women are punished for even looking at other men. When God has his "people" destroy the villages of his enemies, he has them kill the men, but tells them to keep the women and have their way with them. God is a man, he creates men first, women come second and are blamed for the downfall of all living things. Women are expected to be submissive to their husbands. I am not going to go quote hunting. If you've read the Bible, you should know this stuff, and pretending to be oblivious to it either means you haven't read the Bible or you're not being honest. I have dug up the passages time and time again and I refuse to believe that someone claiming to have read the Bible knows nothing about the woman-hatred within.

    Although, to be fair, since you think animals are inferior maybe you think women are too and the stories in the Bible just don't strike you as misogynistic.

    "Between a loyal family dog and a serial rapist, would you rather the dog be used as a host for demons and forced to drown, since you think animals are inferior?

    There were no serial rapists around at the time...
    "

    Oh, I'm sure there weren't... NOT. Have any evidence of that? And by the way, now that there are serial rapists, what is your defense? Is the loyal family dog inferior to the serial rapist? Way to dodge the question.

    "You are right. I am terrible horrible person. I mean, feeling pain is obviously the deciding factor, not having the ability to reason on a highly evolved level. On another note: pork chops are amazingly tasty. I regret nothing from eating them."

    Good, at least you admit it. Dogs and pigs and cows can reason on a level higher than retarded humans (and some with lower IQ) and even young children. So, retarded humans have lesser rights than others? Their suffering doesn't matter?

    Between a cow minding her own business, nurturing her young and chewing on some grass, and a perverted old criminal robbing young girls of their youth and innocence, I have to say the cow is the superior being. Yet people consider it inhumane to kill the rapist and prefer to keep him in jail, while they gladly disregard the cow's desire to live because they think it tastes good. I have realized that you are okay with your twisted sense of morality, just as racist slave owners were. But you will be remembered just like them, as you should be... an obsolete and irrational part of our species.

    I have proven the non-existance of the Christian god in two of my previous posts. Is this god unlimited? Is it all powerful? Saying a thing is unlimited makes it a non-thing immediately. For it to have any characteristic at all, it cannot be the opposite of that characteristic, making it limited. So is it limited or unlimited? It can't be both, so it is a nothing. A no-thing, a non-thing. A non-thing can't even exist, let alone be conceived of.

    You say gods could be some "being" with greater intelligence out there... somewhere. Maybe there were other humans somewhere. Of course, if we're just saying they have greater intelligence and create things, humans are gods too on another scale. I don't buy into that definition. Gods are either supernatural in nature or otherwise we are gods ourselves.

    "And if we we don't know everything about our universe, right there you are admitting that there is a chance that we could find proof of God."

    You can't find proof of a non-thing.

    ReplyDelete
  41. God is a man, he creates men first, women come second and are blamed for the downfall of all living things.

    WRONG! Read Genesis 1:27 "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Created them at the same time. Women were not blamed, that's a common misconception. Adam blames Eve, who blames the serpent. God does not place the blame on Eve, otherwise she would have been the only one who was punished, but they were all punished.

    Women are expected to be submissive to their husbands

    as they were in every culture. But not all the time. Jesus often praised women and reprimanded his apostles for telling women to be submissive.

    You also have probably only read it in english. I have too, but in order to study it correctly you have to read it in its original language, because we lose things when we translate.

    Although, to be fair, since you think animals are inferior maybe you think women are too and the stories in the Bible just don't strike you as misogynistic.

    Your comment was erroneous and insulting. I thought we were all adults here and didn't have to result to petty name-calling.

    Oh, I'm sure there weren't... NOT.

    I meant at the time Jesus was throwing the pigs into the sea.

    Is the loyal family dog inferior to the serial rapist? Way to dodge the question.

    Yes. Humans have inalienable rights. Dogs do not. Read John Locke sometime.

    So, retarded humans have lesser rights than others? Their suffering doesn't matter?

    inalienable rights of humans. Yes it does matter.

    Yet people consider it inhumane to kill the rapist and prefer to keep him in jail

    I am not a fan of the death penalty because I want the rapist to rot in jail for years. If I had a choice, I would much rather chose death over life with no parole.

    . I have realized that you are okay with your twisted sense of morality, just as racist slave owners were. But you will be remembered just like them, as you should be... an obsolete and irrational part of our species.

    Jeez, you are really mad. I didn't know cows were that important to you. Interesting.

    Is this god unlimited? Is it all powerful? Saying a thing is unlimited makes it a non-thing immediately. For it to have any characteristic at all, it cannot be the opposite of that characteristic, making it limited.

    I didn't know that every universe had the same rules. Maybe in another universe everything is infinite. And this brings me to another point. You say that everything has to be limited, ok, I can see the rationality of that. Now, where did the speck of super-condensed matter that started the big bang come from? It couldn't have been here forever, because that would have made it infinite and thus we couldn't be here talking about it because it was non-existent. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, so, if the matter that was there was not there forever, how did it get here? It had to have gotten here somehow, and it couldn't have appeared out of nowhere.

    Saying a thing is unlimited makes it a non-thing immediately.

    how so??

    You say gods could be some "being" with greater intelligence out there... somewhere.

    greater intelligence and the capability to create worlds and universes. Humans cannot do that.

    Gods are either supernatural in nature or otherwise we are gods ourselves.

    God is supernatural, but I am trying, and apparently failing, to put a scientific spin on it.

    ReplyDelete
  42. D,

    Why would I care what John Locke says? If he condones torturing and murdering animals unnecessarily, then I disagree with him on that point too. Locke's supposed "authority" means nothing to me. Wrong is wrong.

    About the Genesis quote you mention: That's one of two accounts of Genesis. Apparently you agree that it counts as one of the contradictions in the Bible, because in the other account, Adam is made first, then he finds the animals unsuitable for company, so God then creates Eve from Adam's rib. Guess your Bible isn't very reliable.

    Lol... it's funny that you accuse me of name calling when I did no such thing. I said you considered animals inferior and so you might consider women inferior as well. Where's the name calling in that? There's no "dummy" or "stupid" in there at all (we'll leave that to Fred Phelps). Do you find it insulting that you irrationally consider other beings to be inferior and deserving of death and suffering? Good. But I'm not name calling. I'm just pointing out a demonstrable fact about you.

    So would you care to tell us why you value a serial rapist more than a loyal family dog? And actually make your own argument this time? Don't just say, "John Locke said so."

    If Jesus was so cool, why didn't he just make the demons disappear without killing the pigs? And if the pigs were diseased, why didn't he cure them? Seems a rather grotesque thing for a "holy" man to do. Not that being holy ever meant being moral. He was simply an invention of ethically inferior men... acting as the reflection of their own human ideals.

    "Jeez, you are really mad. I didn't know cows were that important to you. Interesting."

    We don't want to be hurt, and neither do the cows. You're a fan of the "golden rule", but a hypocrite when it comes to animals. I'm as mad as I would be if you were a racist slave owner. Back then, they thought just like you: "It's our inalienable right." No rational basis whatsoever for thinking that, but oh well. Now most of us consider them a$$holes, and they'll be stuck in history like that.

    "I didn't know that every universe had the same rules. Maybe in another universe everything is infinite."

    So in another universe, nothing exists? Wow. Lol. We're gonna have a really hard time finding the non-existant universe where nothing is finite and therefore nothing is identifiable or even a thing...

    "Now, where did the speck of super-condensed matter that started the big bang come from? It couldn't have been here forever, because that would have made it infinite "

    We are not talking about an infinite amount of time, or the concept of an undefined duration. We're talking about infinite things. Objects, beings, things, etc. In-finite - meaning "not finite", in other words, not defined. The speck of super-condensed matter is defined. It's... a speck of super-condensed matter. It is not the opposite of itself. A=A. It is limited, defined, finite. Existing for an infinite amount of does not make the thing infinite. It would mean the duration of its existance was infinite. An infinitely existing finite thing.

    The Christian god is often defined as an infinite being. "He" has no limitations. This concept is instantly demolished by the fact that in being anything, a limitation is placed on this god, for "He" cannot be the opposite of what he is. A=A. If God is male, then he is not female, for example. But he is unlimited! Well, is he male, or is he unlimited? Because he cannot be either at the same time, he is a non-thing... much like the square-circle. Make sense? Not only does this god not exist, it can never exist.

    How do you know humans can't create universes? What if universe creating humans live among us? Obviously their knowledge would allow them to exist without us figuring it out. I have personally experienced advanced "medical" technology that does not currently exist in our medical world, and I'm very, very skeptical (as you can tell). And I have physical evidence. I was very, very skeptical in my analysis of the situation. For one, I have never, ever passed out in my lifetime aside from this incident. Two, there were absolutely NO sharp objects nearby that I could have somehow gouged myself with while unconscious. Three, if I had gouged myself, I would have had to had access to advanced technology that allows me to remove a cylinder of flesh from my arm and instantly cauterize the wound, leaving no spillage or smears of blood or even a remote sign of bleeding. Four, if it was an animal or insect of some kind, okay... then maybe there is an animal out there that can sneak into houses undetected, knock you unconscious, and cauterize you while it eats a perfect pencil sized diameter circle in your flesh. At least half an inch deep. I woke up with my arm resting on my pillow, which had no blood on it, no blood on the sheets, no blood anywhere. Over 15 years later, I still have a thick scar under my arm in the same perfect circle shape. It's okay if you think it's crazy, but I personally think something is up. And no, I am not one of those "someone is watching me!" people. Like there's anything to see... I mean, really.

    So we agree that a god would be supernatural. The only problem is, this god would be unknowable and unable to interact with us because it exists outside of the natural realm. We exist inside of the natural realm. We'd never know it and it would never know us.

    So far, no working definition of a god that is anything more than an irrational concept. :)

    ReplyDelete
  43. Why would I care what John Locke says? If he condones torturing and murdering animals unnecessarily, then I disagree with him on that point too. Locke's supposed "authority" means nothing to me.

    The same could be said about you or about Richard Dawkins or anyone.

    Adam is made first, then he finds the animals unsuitable for company, so God then creates Eve from Adam's rib.

    Well I knew you were going to mention that, and to that I say this. God created people to be better than animals. It doesn't matter if he created man or woman second. Technically, he made animals first and they aren't superior. They are inferior, even by evolution standards, humans are better, and we can eat them because we are the top of the food chain.

    I said you considered animals inferior and so you might consider women inferior as well.

    Which was insulting. You said that I was probably a misogynist when you have ZERO basis for such a claim. You don't even know me so you can shut the hell up.

    So would you care to tell us why you value a serial rapist more than a loyal family dog? And actually make your own argument this time?

    I personally would save the dog, because if there was a serial rapist in my house he would have broken in. However, humans have inalienable rights and animals do not. And I cannot make 'my own' argument because everything that I have said has probably been said before, making it 'not mine.'

    If Jesus was so cool, why didn't he just make the demons disappear without killing the pigs?

    Better useless pigs than humans.

    Seems a rather grotesque thing for a "holy" man to do.

    But it doesn't matter, because it was better pigs than innocent people, who, if they had the demons in them, might have become serial rapists. I am not claiming that all serial rapists are inhabited by demons, but since I believe in demons, I bet that at least one person who has been inhabited by demons has become a serial rapist.

    No rational basis whatsoever for thinking that, but oh well.

    Well, we have the ability to reason as humans, which makes us automatically better than animals. Thank you evolution.

    Finte does not mean definable it means
    1. having bounds or limits; not infinite; measurable.
    2. Mathematics.
    a. (of a set of elements) capable of being completely counted.
    b. not infinite or infinitesimal.
    c. not zero.
    3. subject to limitations or conditions, as of space, time, circumstances, or the laws of nature: man's finite existence on earth.

    Also, your whole argument is null and void because you are thinking about it in limited human form, not in supernatural times.

    We call god "he" becuase as limited humans we cannot possibly understand the complexity of god.

    Well, pics or it didn't happen. You could be lying for all I know. But anyways, believe what you want. advanced humans or whatever, it doesn't matter, you believe what you want, let me believe what I want. I'm not hurting anyone.

    So far, no working definition of a god that is anything more than an irrational concept.

    Because you are thinking of God in the rules of this universe, not on another 'universe.'

    An infinitely existing finite thing.

    Wrong, because it is not having bounds or limits; not infinite

    Also, if you continue to call me, or say I probably am, a misogynist and racist I will not respond to what you have to say because I have better things to do than sit here and be harassed by another person over the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  44. d
    Dude- or dudette- whatever, you believe in demons???

    Wow. Angels too, I suppose? Why?

    And you haven't given an answer about the pigs. Christ, if he was a god, could have simply done away with the demons as nebulous said. ABsolutely no need to inject them into the pigs. That was just pure animal abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  45. First of all, dude.

    Wow. Angels too, I suppose? Why?

    Why? Many reasons. First, the answer I know you all want even though its only a half-truth. Because the Church said so. Also, many near death experiences of people have reported seeing angels and demons. Thirdly, they appear in the gospels and I believe in the 4 gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

    About the pigs, the demons actually asked Jesus to put them in the pigs. Secondly, Jesus never made the pigs run into the ocean. The sudden shock of being possessed made them run into the sea becuase they couldn't handle it. Finally, when the pigs died the demons were sent to the abyss, so it was better to have them be sent to the abyss than roam the earth. The end justified the means.

    ReplyDelete
  46. D,

    Okay, it would have been better if you had let me know you were a religious nut up front. "I do what I want to animals because the Bible tells me I can." You may as well be a misogynist because the Bible says you're superior to women too. Stone children to death, etc. Why would you find it insulting? Even your god killed infants if he thought they were evil. Being a jerk makes you godlike.

    "Well, we have the ability to reason as humans, which makes us automatically better than animals. Thank you evolution."

    So, dogs can't reason? Pigs, cows and chickens can't reason? And when the human use of reason results in suffering and destruction far beyond what animals are capable of, how does that make humans superior? How superior is a creature that inhales toxic fumes for pleasure (cigarettes) and impairs itself by drinking alcohol? How superior is a creature that can be tricked into commiting suicide by blowing itself up because "you'll get a reward after you die?" Not very superior. So much for human reasoning.

    1. Educate yourself about animals, please.

    "“Chickens exist in stable social groups. They can recognize each other by their facial features. They have 24 distinct cries that communicate a wealth of information to one other, including separate alarm calls depending on whether a predator is traveling by land or sea. They are good at solving problems. ‘As a trick at conferences I sometimes list these attributes, without mentioning chickens, and people think I’m talking about monkeys,’ Mr. Evans said.

    Perhaps most persuasive is the chicken’s intriguing ability to understand that an object, when taken away and hidden, nevertheless continues to exist. This is beyond the capacity of small children.


    -Dr. Chris Evans, Professor of Psychology at Macquarie University, Australia

    2. Educate yourself about evolution. Evolution does not mean "changing for the better", it means modification through descent. The process of evolution signifies change that is often not beneficial at all.

    Racism was founded on ignorance, and so are your beliefs, as I have demonstrated.

    "They are inferior, even by evolution standards, humans are better, and we can eat them because we are the top of the food chain."

    You're on the top of the food chain, huh? Let's pit you against a wild grizzly bear and see who wins. How about a shark? You're so weak and defenseless that you'd have to use weapons developed over hundreds of years just to make up for your disadvantages. You are not on top of the food chain. In fact, you're quite a wuss. You enslave non-threatening, peaceful animals in farms and have them killed while they are minding their own business, and then you think you're some kind of bada$$. "Ooh, look at me. I have a Bible and I eat things that don't fight back... after someone else kills them for me."

    "Also, your whole argument is null and void because you are thinking about it in limited human form, not in supernatural times.

    If my argument is void because I don't think in "supernatural times" then all arguments about "god" are void and even knowledge of "god" is impossible because we can't think in such a way to be able to know anything about it. You can't believe in something you don't know anything about. Therefore we must all be atheists... try again.

    "you believe what you want, let me believe what I want. I'm not hurting anyone."

    Perpetuating the belief that one should act in accordance with whatever a religious authority says (no reasoning involved) hurts everyone. This is the same way of thinking that causes suffering and suppresion in other parts of the world today. It's the same way of thinking that led American colonists to believe the country was given to them by God and that it was their destiny to rule over it... even if it meant killing off the original inhabitants.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Karen,

    There you have it. Jesus respects demons more than pigs, lol.

    "About the pigs, the demons actually asked Jesus to put them in the pigs."

    Jesus could've instantly destroyed the demons with his god-powers, but he was kind enough to let the demons have their way with the pigs. Thanks Jesus! What a great guy.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Just where are demons on the food chain?

    Nebulous
    That Jesus, what a softie, falling for that old whining demon trick. Yeah, I want him having my back...unless I'm a pig!

    Interesting stuff about the chickens.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Okay, it would have been better if you had let me know you were a religious nut up front. "I do what I want to animals because the Bible tells me I can." You may as well be a misogynist because the Bible says you're superior to women too. Stone children to death, etc. Why would you find it insulting? Even your god killed infants if he thought they were evil. Being a jerk makes you godlike.

    Ok, I'm not a misogynist or a religious nut you stupid fucking idiot. And by your logic, you must be really godlike cause you are a jackass. Sorry about that, but you making erroneous comments like that when you don't even know me because you think you are so tough because you have anonymity.

    Once again, I will state this the Bible is about love. Period. If there is a passage that is not about love than either a) you have a faulty translation or b) you are misunderstanding the passage.

    So, dogs can't reason? Pigs, cows and chickens can't reason?

    Not to the extent humans can. Once dogs reason on the same level as us and write something, then I will say they can.

    And when the human use of reason results in suffering and destruction far beyond what animals are capable of, how does that make humans superior?

    Because they aren't using reason. Duh. Just because we have it doesn't mean we always use it.

    So much for human reasoning.

    Are you saying that humans aren't capable of reasoning?? Why don't you go have an intelligent conversation with a cow or chicken?

    About your point about chickens, a full grown chicken has knowledge like that, but a full grown adult has more knowledge. We can create stuff, which makes us better.

    The process of evolution signifies change that is often not beneficial at all.

    Yes, but evolution and survival of the fittest proved that humans are the best because we can make shit.

    Racism was founded on ignorance

    racism was founded on pride. They thought they were the shit and better than everyone else, so that made them take slaves.

    You're on the top of the food chain, huh? Let's pit you against a wild grizzly bear and see who wins. How about a shark? You're so weak and defenseless that you'd have to use weapons developed over hundreds of years just to make up for your disadvantages.

    Yes I would. I would have to use stuff humans created because we could to defeat them. It's what allows me to eat shark or bear if I wanted to.

    You enslave non-threatening, peaceful animals in farms and have them killed while they are minding their own business, and then you think you're some kind of bada$$.

    Damn straight I'm some kinda badass. It's what makes me awesome. That was a joke. Other animals do that, like Lions. Lions eat Zebras, are they assholes? No, they are just surviving. I am just surviving, why does it matter? What we do is just as inhumane as what lions do. The only difference is that we do it on a mass scale because humans have taken over the earth.


    "Ooh, look at me. I have a Bible and I eat things that don't fight back... after someone else kills them for me."

    Atheists eat meat too retard. It's not only religious people. Or, if you want to spin it this way, Hindus do not eat meat, are they stupid too, or do you respect them?

    sorry, supernatural TERMS once again, typo.

    You can't believe in something you don't know anything about.

    And that's where Revelation comes in. God inspires people and allows them to know something greater than the limited world view that they had.

    Perpetuating the belief that one should act in accordance with whatever a religious authority says (no reasoning involved) hurts everyone.

    I do reason. In fact, thinking about my religion and debating it makes me use my reason. I'm not spitting out stuff the Church says, I am mostly (obviously I follow what they Catholic Church says so I use some of their arguments.) using my own reasoning to debate it.

    It's the same way of thinking that led American colonists to believe the country was given to them by God and that it was their destiny to rule over it... even if it meant killing off the original inhabitants.

    No, that was Americans being prideful and thinking that they were the best, which we have the British to thank for that.

    In the end, I have this to say to you. For every animal you do not eat, I will eat three. Why? Because I am an omnivore and I can eat what I want when I want to.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "No, that was Americans being prideful and thinking that they were the best, which we have the British to thank for that."

    So these people committed atrocities not because of ignorance, but because they thought they were the best? Sounds like someone I know...

    "humans are the best because we can make shit.
    ."

    Thank you. You are no better than racist slave owners or those who committed genocide in the name of manifest destiny.

    Again for emphasis:

    "racism was founded on pride. They thought they were the shit and better than everyone else, so that made them take slaves."

    And you are exactly like a racist because you think:

    "humans are the best because we can make shit.
    ."

    You have no rational reason for your hateful attitude towards animals, only your claim that you are the best... because you can "make stuff". And everything else can suffer and die for your pleasure. Congratulations. You're as cool as a Nazi.

    "Once again, I will state this the Bible is about love."

    All the genocide, all the punishment, the flood, the slavery, the fatal stonings, the incest, the suppression of women, all about love. This way of thinking demonstrates the danger of religion precisely.

    " Lions eat Zebras, are they assholes? No, they are just surviving. I am just surviving, why does it matter? What we do is just as inhumane as what lions do."

    Wrong. Lions don't have a choice. You do. Funny how you claim that you are better than animals, and then you go on to say that you are surviving just like they are. And no, you are not surviving. You're living comfortably with internet access and you don't have to kill your own food. Because YOU have the choice not to kill, YOU are inhumane (thanks for admitting that, by the way). The lion is not.

    "Atheists eat meat too retard. It's not only religious people. "

    Some atheists eat meat, but they don't use a Bible to excuse themselves for it. That's the point. Many people are raised eating meat and haven't had the chance to think about what they're really doing. You, on the other hand, have.

    "For every animal you do not eat, I will eat three. Why? Because I am an omnivore and I can eat what I want when I want to.

    Why? Because you copy lame sayings from T-shirts sold by Maddox and you're the new brand of racist.

    "And that's where Revelation comes in. God inspires people and allows them to know something greater than the limited world view that they had."

    God is supernatural so God cannot interact with our natural world at all. God wouldn't even know we exist. Supernatural things are not part of the natural world, period. The only explanation for you hearing voices in your head is that you have mental problems.

    Final point: Animals don't need to make anything. Why should they? They exist in a very efficient way, while humans do not. If you want to get technical, some animals make nests, some build dams, some collect shiny objects to impress potential mates, some make intricate webs, and some even make paintings. But what does it matter? You think you're the best just like all the other supremacists before you.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Sounds like someone I know...

    I wonder who it is. Prolly not me because you don't know jack shit about me. Funny how that is.

    Thank you. You are no better than racist slave owners or those who committed genocide in the name of manifest destiny.

    No, because they did it against other humans. Humans are not the same as animals.

    You have no rational reason for your hateful attitude towards animals

    I don't have a hateful attitude, I am in fact being very sarcastic with half the shit I say.

    You're as cool as a Nazi.

    Thanks, I thin they had the right idea. That was a total joke of course, I am not a Nazi because Nazis exterminated people, not ate food to survive.

    All the genocide, all the punishment, the flood, the slavery, the fatal stonings, the incest, the suppression of women, all about love. This way of thinking demonstrates the danger of religion precisely.

    Read the next line that I wrote.

    Wrong. Lions don't have a choice.

    Of course they have a choice. If they are equal to humans, which you think they are by your posts, they have a choice.

    You're living comfortably with internet access and you don't have to kill your own food.

    How do you know I don't hunt for food or live on a farm and kill the animals I raise? I might.

    Because YOU have the choice not to kill, YOU are inhumane (thanks for admitting that, by the way). The lion is not.

    No problem, I try to admit that I have flaws, unlike some lame blogger who thinks he is a goat.

    Some atheists eat meat, but they don't use a Bible to excuse themselves for it.

    I don't use the Bible as an excuse I eat meat because I like it and it is a great source of protein.

    You, on the other hand, have.

    And I still eat meat. Now, I am all for not abusing animals. Don't get me wrong. However, a bullet to the brain that will instantly kill an animal is not inhumane.

    Why? Because you copy lame sayings from T-shirts sold by Maddox and you're the new brand of racist.

    It was a joke, first of all, and second, since when are animals a race?? I guess exterminators who get rid of ant infestations are also racists??

    God is supernatural so God cannot interact with our natural world at all.

    You don't know that since you don't know what happens in the supernatural world since you have only seen the natural.

    Supernatural things are not part of the natural world, period.

    Right, but it doesn't mean it can't interact with us.

    The only explanation for you hearing voices in your head is that you have mental problems.

    I never have heard any voices in my head, thanks for your concern though.

    Animals don't need to make anything. some animals make nests, some build dams.

    contradiction anyone??

    You think you're the best just like all the other supremacists before you.

    You think so.


    Ok, I am going to make this point. Do animals have rights? You would probably say yes. Now, who makes rights? Humans? Or nature? If it is nature, why? If nature is purely scientific and does not have any spiritual connections, then nature, an inanimate thing, cannot make rights. So they must be man made. If they are man made, then they can be changed at any point in time and don't actually exist. So then, if rights are man made then nothing is right or wrong, if someone makes a law saying you have the right to kill someone, then if rights are man made, you can do it with no repercussions. But you have a sense of right and wrong. So, what is it? Are they man made and able to be changed at any time and thus nothing is right or wrong without someone in authority saying it is, or are they made by some higher power?
    QED

    ReplyDelete
  52. "Are they man made and able to be changed at any time and thus nothing is right or wrong without someone in authority saying it is, or are they made by some higher power?

    Right and wrong revolve around the idea of causing the least amount of unnecessary harm. I say unnecessary because, for example, people sometimes need surgery or to visit the dentist, both of which can be painful. Or risking your life to save the lives of others.

    You don't want to be hurt, and your neighbor doesn't want to be hurt, and so on, so when we create our morals based on the foundation of causing the least amount of unnecessary harm, it allows our society to thrive peacefully. No gods are required to figure this out or enforce this.

    You also present the notion that man-made morals can be changed at any time. Okay, why don't you try changing it and go walk in front of oncoming traffic, and tell me how well it worked for you, if you make it to the hospital. Avoiding unnecessary harm is always in our interest, therefore morals based on that foundation cannot simply be changed at any time... the goal is constant, so the morality is constant in order to achieve the goal. If you need "authority" to tell you not to jump in front of a train, you're a lost cause.

    If you think a "god" can lay down absolute morality, that is also incorrect. You, as an individual, have to make the subjective decision whether it is moral or not to obey that god. Theoretically, a "god" could threaten punishment, and that's all the god could do. Such a god is known as a terrorist or dictator, and if you think terrorists are trustworthy proponents of morality, well... I wouldn't be surprised, lol.

    "Of course they have a choice. If they are equal to humans, which you think they are by your posts, they have a choice."

    Lions are equally deserving of our respect, but obviously not exactly like humans. Nor are all humans exactly like one another. The point remains that lions are not able to choose not to eat meat.

    "No problem, I try to admit that I have flaws, unlike some lame blogger who thinks he is a goat."

    Clever, except when you decided to read my blog, you failed to notice "goat" as a reference to the Capricorn sign... or you think "goat" is an insult because, as we all know, you're an animal hater.

    You pride yourself on "admitting flaws" when all you're really doing is losing every argument you've made in this post.

    "Supernatural things are not part of the natural world, period.

    Right, but it doesn't mean it can't interact with us.
    "

    Think about it: how is it going to interact with us if it doesn't exist anywhere in the natural world?

    "Animals don't need to make anything. some animals make nests, some build dams.

    contradiction anyone??
    "

    What I meant was, animals don't need to make things like the things you prize humans for making, since I thought you would be intelligent enough to realize animals do make things... I thought you must have meant things that actually impress you like cars and computers. I guess I was wrong, lol. You apparently didn't know that they made anything.

    "And I still eat meat. Now, I am all for not abusing animals. Don't get me wrong. However, a bullet to the brain that will instantly kill an animal is not inhumane."

    How do you find that killing an animal just to taste it is not abuse? Now you're changing your story. You say that animals are inferior and it's ok for Jesus to let demons have their way with pigs who did not need to die or become demon hosts... and now you claim to be against animal abuse? Jesus abused the pigs! If you're changing your mind, that's cool with me.

    So now you've changed your argument... animals are now to be respected equally to humans when it comes to physical abuse.

    Why is that?

    If you can explain why, I think you'll be on the right track...

    ReplyDelete
  53. D,

    By the way, if you think most of the animals are killed with a quick bullet to the head, you need to see what really happens.

    You seem like someone who at least claims to think about various points of view, so why don't you watch this film:

    'Earthlings' - Watch the Full Film Here

    You'll hear a lot of the same points I've already made, but you'll also see how you get your food, if you've got the courage to watch the whole thing. It goes into a lot more issues than even I knew anything about.

    There are some smaller farms which might kill the animals more quickly (which is still wrong because we have plenty of other things to eat). But the majority of meat is the result of an unimaginable atrocity. I just thought I'd mention this since you are suddenly starting to claim that animals are not inferior and deserve respect.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Right and wrong revolve around the idea of causing the least amount of unnecessary harm.

    Who determines what is unnecessary? If we had to kill an entire race of people, as long as they were killed humanely, in order for there to be peace on earth is that necessary? Probably not because those people have a right to live.

    You don't want to be hurt, and your neighbor doesn't want to be hurt, and so on, so when we create our morals based on the foundation of causing the least amount of unnecessary harm, it allows our society to thrive peacefully.

    You are right, I don't, my neighbor doesn't. But what if he does? What if he is masochistic, does that make it right?

    You also present the notion that man-made morals can be changed at any time.

    I never said that. I said RIGHTS. I never never once said morals in this entire debate besides this post. Morals and rights are totally different. So that makes your entire paragraph right there null and void.

    If you need "authority" to tell you not to jump in front of a train, you're a lost cause.

    That is very untrue. People can change.

    You, as an individual, have to make the subjective decision whether it is moral or not to obey that god.

    So are you saying morals are subjective?

    Theoretically, a "god" could threaten punishment, and that's all the god could do. Such a god is known as a terrorist or dictator.

    Why? Terrorists, first of all, don't have authority. Dictators not only threaten but put into effect UNFAIR laws to keep them in power.

    The point remains that lions are not able to choose not to eat meat.

    Why can't they? Because they, as a species, are incapable of reason.

    Clever, except when you decided to read my blog, you failed to notice "goat" as a reference to the Capricorn sign... or you think "goat" is an insult because, as we all know, you're an animal hater.

    I am a scorpio, but you don't see me calling myself a scorpion. And I am not an animal hater because I do not hate humans or other animals. Thinking it is ok to eat meat does not make me an animal hater. It makes me either a) a carnivore, but I eat vegetables and fruits as well so it makes a b) omnivore.

    You pride yourself on "admitting flaws" when all you're really doing is losing every argument you've made in this post.

    I disagree, you merely changed the words I said around to make it seem like I am losing and have no sense of morality.

    Think about it: how is it going to interact with us if it doesn't exist anywhere in the natural world?

    Because God, being all powerful, is able to because he can do anything.

    since I thought you would be intelligent enough to realize animals do make things...

    I am. but you should be more specific.

    I thought you must have meant things that actually impress you like cars and computers.

    Dude, ant hills are amazing. I really respect ants for being able to build structures like that. However, I don't like them eating my house, so I kill them.

    You apparently didn't know that they made anything.

    Where, pray tell, did I say that?

    How do you find that killing an animal just to taste it is not abuse?

    I don't eat it JUST for taste, I eat it for sustenance.

    You say that animals are inferior and it's ok for Jesus to let demons have their way with pigs who did not need to die or become demon hosts... and now you claim to be against animal abuse? Jesus abused the pigs!

    No, he did not whip them, their death was painless. It was not abuse since the end, removing some demons from the earth, justified the means, killing some pigs.

    So now you've changed your argument... animals are now to be respected equally to humans when it comes to physical abuse.

    Why is that?


    No, because humans should not be killed period. It is not ok for one human to kill another. Torture is torture. Period. I never changed my argument, I never said animal abuse was ok, you said that I thought animal abuse was ok.

    By the way, if you think most of the animals are killed with a quick bullet to the head, you need to see what really happens.

    Who ever said I got my meat from factories. I may go hunting, you don't know.

    Now, I do not have the time to watch this tonight, because I have homework to do. I promise I will watch it as soon as I can.

    Also, you eat plants, I assume, because all humans need to eat and you are no exception. Did you ever think about what plants want? Plants are also hurt when you cut them down. They feel pain too. If we want equality for animals, why not plants as well? I'm sure they don't want to be chopped down slowly and then processed. We should stop building houses, stop using paper, stop using all products made from trees.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "Because God, being all powerful, is able to because he can do anything."

    Between believing you are dumb enough to make that argument or believing you're a troll, I have to give you the vote of confidence and label you a troll.

    Obviously as soon as I name one thing your god can't do, the only honest response for you will be to renounce your theism because your all-powerful god will be proven not to exist. God can't die, god can't lie (and if he can then you are screwed), god can't be anything opposite than what he is. Welcome to atheism.

    I'm not going to respond to your trolling about plants feeling pain like animals do (lol) or that being infested with demons is painless and causes no harm.

    I simply refuse to believe you are that stupid. And that's a compliment. Happy trolling, D.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Between believing you are dumb enough to make that argument or believing you're a troll, I have to give you the vote of confidence and label you a troll.


    I actually do believe God is all powerful.

    Obviously as soon as I name one thing your god can't do, the only honest response for you will be to renounce your theism because your all-powerful god will be proven not to exist. God can't die, god can't lie (and if he can then you are screwed), god can't be anything opposite than what he is. Welcome to atheism.

    God can't die because he is immortal, part of being all powerful. Mortal things die, immortal things do not. God can lie, he does not, however, because he is good and loves his creations. Now, your last point is very interesting, God can't be the opposite of what he is. Let me think about that for a minute. Well, I suppose, if he wanted to, he could. However, he doesn't want to, so he doesn't. And another point you may make. God can make a hot dog so hot he cannot eat it, however, as soon as he makes it, he is able to eat it.

    I'm not going to respond to your trolling about plants feeling pain like animals do (lol)

    Why?? They do. They have nerve endings. They feel pain.

    that being infested with demons is painless and causes no harm.

    I said their death was painless. Also, the end justified the means. You keep forgetting that.

    I simply refuse to believe you are that stupid. And that's a compliment. Happy trolling, nebulous.

    fix'd

    Also, if you could please respond to many of the other points I made in there. You simply took ones you could handle and left the others hanging there.

    ReplyDelete
  57. You make no sense about Agnostics fence sittig cowardness. Reasoning religious sufferings might be ok for Agnostics due to the fact we can´t prove God exists is a worm in Dawkins and your brain.

    Logicly spoken those same religious individuals should have used common sense and oppose due to the lack of proof of the existence of God. Just as the Agnostics.

    You can´t criticize agnostics for this. An agnost wouldn´t sit on the fence watching this happen by nature wouldn´t he?

    0 point, sorry, I still would love to see some TAGs on Zionism too, since all other maior believes are on there too. ty!

    ReplyDelete