posted
Who the hell pissed in your cheerios? I said that, to me, atheists and agnostics are the same, only varying in degrees. It's obviously a semantic argument. Who are you to tell me that I'm certain in the nonexistence of a god?
You came in on the end of a long argument where any claims of agnosticism on my part were being explained away as being really just theism or atheism. You appeared to be blurring the lines I thought I was drawing, so I lashed out in your direction. Please accept my apologies. I don't agree with your definition of atheism, but since I've been fighting to be able to define my own beliefs I shouldn't be picking on others for doing the same.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*angry bunny stance in front of Tom* He's mine, and don't you forget it! He can come over to play, but at the end of the day, he's ALL MINE. Posts: 1777 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Angry Bunny stance, while often underestimated, is one of the most powerful martial arts stances. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I prefer the Drunken Panda mode personally.
I don't think Xaposert has been rude especially, just tedious in trying to pigeonhole all agnostics into his definitions.
King of Men, I was surprised in your earlier posts when you skipped over the clearest case of of a Christian God violating human morals and ethics: The Great Flood of Noah. The Big Kahuna of all genocides. No human middleman like Joshua to do the deed, just God as cosmic hit man, wiping out EVERY HUMAN AND LAND-DWELLING ANIMAL, except for the lucky few that could fit on a small, smelly boat.
I wonder sometimes at a religion that would worship such a God.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very good point, actually. Now that you mention it, I'm surprised too. Maybe I'd have thought of it if the thread hadn't derailed into a tedious discussion of semantics.
On the subject of "I don't understand the prophets' intentions" and "Revelations must be interpreted", why is it not just as valid for me to claim that religious people do not understand what is meant by "sitting on the right hand of God," for example? For all you know, that means "doing all the scutwork." Or even "...where he can easily smack you around if he feels like it." The latter would be more in character.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, whom are you addressing when you write your posts? The reason I ask is that it seems unlikely that you're trying to persuade Christians when you include lines like "the latter would be more in character."
posted
Why, all the world's a stage, and we are but players, that have our day upon it... My thoughts are meant for the world entire; they are far too lofty to be addressed to any one individual, or even class of individuals.
In any case, I was not particularly trying to convince, just setting forth my thoughts for others to respond to, or not. I didn't bother to edit them for rhetorical effectiveness.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Not only are there often enormous costs to believing in something (assuming it has effect on their behavior), do you really believe people believe in "what seems most likely to be true?"--Morbo --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Have you ever believed in something that you didn't consider to seem most likely true? If so, I'd really wonder why ---xaposert
I have unexamined beliefs that don't make much sense in the light of day. I think almost every one does, it's in the nature of the human mind that core beliefs are formed early in life and are impossible or incredibly difficult to change. It's one thing that gives us continuity of consciousness.
As far as liklihood of religious beliefs, suppose I stipulate for the sake of argument that God exists, and that he created the Universe, all 12 billion light years of it. Do you really consider "most likely true" that God was a burning bush addressing the leader of a nomadic tribe? Or that he caused a virgin to be impregnated, and her child was the incarnation of the Creator of the Universe? Or, to pick on Islam for a moment, that Mohammad went from Arabia to Jerusalam in a single night flight? My point is that any supernatural event is never the "most likely true," by definition and their very nature such an event has zero probability of occurance without supernatural intervention, and hence is completely unpredictable by mortals and therefore not "most likely true." Which does not prove they didn't happen.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
@ ElJay![[Wink]](wink.gif)
@ Christy
