Hitchens and mortality...

june gloom on 8/8/2010 at 19:35

No no no I get bored with religion debates as is. That and I get tired of having to defend religious people who've done nothing wrong from snobby assholes who think they're a lower form of life just because they're religious.

CCCToad on 8/8/2010 at 19:49

Quote Posted by SD

Are you agnostic about leprechauns too?

Anyway, agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive positions.

I may or may not be agnostic about leprechauns, who may or may not exist.

Chimpy Chompy on 8/8/2010 at 22:35

I'm rather more agnostic about creators than fairies. Not sure why such stances would be equivalent.

Quote Posted by dethtoll

That and I get tired of having to defend religious people who've done nothing wrong from snobby assholes who think they're a lower form of life just because they're religious.

Yeah. I don't think they get why placing so much emphasis on a "more rational than thou" cock-waving competition makes them look like jerks.

I've known one or two people with faith and, I dunno, maybe it's silly and they're completely wrong. But as far as I can tell atheism has nothing to offer them and their becoming atheists would bring no improvement to the world. They do their thing, they pray to their god, they go on being decent people.

SD on 8/8/2010 at 23:27

Quote Posted by CCCToad

I may or may not be agnostic about leprechauns, who may or may not exist.

I know that RBJ has already taken you to task for this sort of thing where politics and economics is concerned, but it's kind of reassuring to see that your crass fence-sitting and abdication of thought extends to the supernatural too.

Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy

I'm rather more agnostic about creators than fairies. Not sure why such stances would be equivalent.

There is the same level of evidence for Tinkerbell as there is Allah. Hence, they are equivalent.

Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy

I've known one or two people with faith and, I dunno, maybe it's silly and they're completely wrong. But as far as I can tell atheism has nothing to offer them and their becoming atheists would bring no improvement to the world. They do their thing, they pray to their god, they go on being decent people.

It's fair to say I don't mind that kind of believer so much, and when their fellow believers stop flying planes into buildings and picketing the funerals of AIDS victims, I'll probably be inclined to cut them more slack.

Zygoptera on 9/8/2010 at 00:23

If I supported Liverpool and England I wouldn't believe in god(s) either.

Harvester on 9/8/2010 at 00:38

Quote Posted by SD

Come on, SD, CCCToad's post was a joke. Lighten up.

Quote Posted by Epos Nix

Sometimes I wonder if this stuff is scripted...

No, it's not scripted, or at least the script hasn't been completed yet, because we haven't seen the "all Christians are hypocrites because they're not stoning prostitutes to death and following all other Old Testament laws anymore" and the "I stubbed my toe when getting out of bed this morning, a just and loving God would never allow that to happen so if He exists, He's not worth following" arguments yet. :p

Harvester on 9/8/2010 at 01:02

Quote Posted by dethtoll

I would argue that apatheism is more logical. In many ways it's like agnosticism, but instead of saying "I don't know if there is a God or not, I can't really make that call," apatheism says, "Who gives a shit?"

So are you saying that even if you knew for certain that God existed, you still wouldn't follow Him, and you'd continue to live your life like He doesn't exist? Does that mean you wouldn't care about the various afterlifes promised? Personally, if I was presented with irrefutable evidence that a certain deity exists (the biblical God or any other deity), I'd at least look into the matter of what said deity is like and what the consequences of following or not following that deity are.

Quote Posted by fett

QFT. That's what I've officially decided I am. It pretty much kills any attempts to re-convert me. Even if you could present irrefutable evidence that a God/gods exist, my attitude would still pretty much be, "I don't fucking care."

Really? So if you knew for certain the biblical God does exist after all and everything the Bible says is true, you would flat out reject Him, knowing full well the punishment for such an act? I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm honestly interested in your reaction, because from your de-conversion thread, I got the feeling that you came to disbelieve in the existence of God over time, but did your feelings also change from believing the biblical God is just and loving, to believing the biblical God is not a just, loving God that is worth following? Because it seems to me there's a difference between stopping to believe in God and not even wanting to follow Him even if you knew He does exist after all, and I'm curious to know where you stand and why.

BTW, now is the time for someone to accuse me of only being religious because of a fear of hell. Go ahead.

Chimpy Chompy on 9/8/2010 at 01:14

Quote Posted by SD

There is the same level of evidence for Tinkerbell as there is Allah. Hence, they are equivalent.

People come up with the idea of a god because they're faced with questions that appear to be currently unanswered. That's the difference; we don't need sprites in the garden to answer anything.

So it might be an of-the-gaps thing, and I'm rather skeptical of how personal and human a face people put on their creators. But I'm still happy to be agnostic about it. Some gaps I don't see being closed in the near future. The point where I want evidence is when someone tells me I have to follow their specific interpretation or face eternal torment. Otherwise i'll leave them to it.

DDL on 9/8/2010 at 11:05

Quote Posted by Harvester

Really? So if you knew for certain the biblical God does exist after all and everything the Bible says is true, you would flat out reject Him, knowing full well the punishment for such an act?

Well...biblical god is a bit of a dick.

Think of it as analogous to striking for better pay/working conditions. "Your creation is a bit shit, and your rules are fucking stupid. More carrot, less stick. Improve, or I shall continue to reject you, fuckface."

Also, come on: who would turn up the chance to tell an ACTUAL, FACTUAL GOD to fuck right off?

Beleg Cúthalion on 9/8/2010 at 11:31

Just as a little sidenote and to increase the religious posts count on TTLG:

Quote Posted by SD

There is the same level of evidence for Tinkerbell as there is Allah. Hence, they are equivalent.

I thought about the same thing when I read Dawkins who thinks that he can wipe off the "god thing" by presenting a fairy/unicorn "analogy". Then I noticed that most of these fantastical/mythological creatures are supposed to have a shape which renders them a bit less probable than a transcendent god. While theoretically their existence is equally unproven, in this case the probability argument seems to me more sustainable than Dawkin's probability argument about god. But then again, this isn't hard to achieve anyway.