Support NeoGAF

[Yagharek]

That's a bit extreme of a view. Think of it this way, your friend at work has a better opportunity in another town, and decides to move on. You know it's better for them, but you still feel bad because they're gone.

In death's case, if you believe in Heaven and they do, you know they'll be happy and safe, but at the same time you'll miss them and wish you had more time with them.

But by the same token, if you believe in an afterlife that lasts FOREVER, the intervening time is hardly going to matter in comparison. I think the reaction - grief - is entirely natural and betrays the fact that if people really sat and thought about it - they wouldn't really believe in what they profess to.

I mean, to be completely honest, next time someone close to you dies, ask yourself if you really believe you will see them again. It's not a nice thought at all, and most people are uncomfortable with the idea of death. But we all have to deal with it and I think we like to ignore it as much as possible.

That other species of animal are seen to undergo grief processes as well belies the origin of the behaviour.

 

[Tamanon]

But by the same token, if you believe in an afterlife that lasts FOREVER, the intervening time is hardly going to matter in comparison. I think the reaction - grief - is entirely natural and betrays the fact that if people really sat and thought about it - they wouldn't really believe in what they profess to.

I mean, to be completely honest, next time someone close to you dies, ask yourself if you really believe you will see them again. It's not a nice thought at all, and most people are uncomfortable with the idea of death. But we all have to deal with it and I think we like to ignore it as much as possible.

That other species of animal are seen to undergo grief processes as well belies the origin of the behaviour.

I think you just don't understand, and that's ok, because everyone thinks differently. I'm not a religious man, but I believe in something more after death. Maybe you really shouldn't pick your battles over religion being wrong at the most painful time in a person's life. And for the record, yes I asked myself that when my dad died, and it only made me more fervently and hopefully believe.

 

[Yagharek]

Oops, deleted my reply thought it was a double post :lol

I just come to a different conclusion than you, but I do understand what you are getting at.

Would I ask someone who was grieving whether they really thought they would see their loved one again? No. Why? Because it's not a nice thing to do and it's hardly the time where you could get a rational debate going. Though in some cases one might.

Death is something that we all see, so in principle it is a fair question to ask or to at least ask yourself. It might prompt an uncomfortable answer, but the corollary is the chance to recognise the value of every moment with someone before they die. Not that this is always the case.

But my question still stands in that I doubt all people who profess belief would actually believe they would see their loved ones when they themselves die.

 

[Meliorism]

Nihilism is everything.

 

[slidewinder]

Anybody who believes in an afterlife hasn't been paying much attention to the actual, living world around him, and is thus a fine dupe and a business opportunity. American capitalism in a nutshell.

 

[TOM f'N CRUISE]

im not a religious man but i can agree that religion can be beatiful and its cool when people love god and his beliefs. but it sucks when even though im treating a person with respect and kindness they still talk to me like im going to hell just becuase i dont baleave what they baleave.

 

[gofreak]

How can anyone be 'absolutely certain' regarding their belief in God?

Belief is not knowledge, it necessitates some uncertainty. If there's no uncertainty it ceases to be belief, and becomes knowledge.

 

[Haunted]

Fifty-nine percent said that homosexuality should be accepted by society, compared with 50% of people nationwide who hold that view.

50% of people believe homosexuals should be accepted by society?

Only 50 fucking percent?

wow.

 

[gofreak]

50% of people believe homosexuals should be accepted by society?

Only 50 fucking percent?

wow.

If you see the question wording, I think it becomes clearer:

Question wording: Now I'm going to read you a few pairs of statements. For each pair, tell me whether the FIRST statement or the SECOND statement comes closer to your own views -- even if neither is exactly right. 1 - Homosexuality is a way of life that should be accepted by society, OR 2 - Homosexuality is a way of life that should be discouraged by society.

The second option is not the exact opposite of the first. I actually think it's arguable the question wording is trying to push one response more than the other.

People might simultaneously think that homosexuality should be accepted, but also discouraged..or at least not encouraged. I can easily imagine a lot of people, faced with this question, thinking they can't pick option number 1, because that would suggest (by their rejection of question 2), that they think homosexuality should somehow be encouraged by society. That by placing the first option against the second, it implies in this context that acceptance means encouragement (which it does not).

It's also a twisting of the question wording in how it's being reported here. I don't know if that's the LA Times, or how the survey presented it in their summary. But those percentages didn't say homosexuality should not be accepted - they chose the option that homosexuality should be discouraged. Which, again, is not the precise counter point to "homosexuality should be accepted in society".

The more I think about it, the more I think that part of the survey is quite fishy. I don't know about this group, but would they be the type that would have a certain agenda?

 

[Gattsu25]

Read up on this yesterday. I found the data, on tolerance of others' beliefs, particularly interesting.

 

[gofreak]

I've looked at the other questions in the social and political views category, and there doesn't seem to be too much of a problem with the other ones.

But I think the question on homosexuality, the way it was put and the way it was phrased (e.g. "way of life") stinks, and was designed to favour one option over the other.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

92% of americans are stupid AM I RITE?

I think that number is way too high personally. I dont buy it, maybe more like 80%

hrmm as I think about how many people in my communities went to church while i was a child (this includes philadelphia, detroit, east lansing, LA, San Diego, VA Beach, New London Conn, etc )...yes im a navy brat. Compared to how many i see these days...no not even 80%, maybe in certain enclaves and communities where things havent changed much....from the 50's but other than that nah.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

I'm choosing my words poorly. I've been around, I know this community isn't "civil." But anytime there is a chance to take a shot at religion, Christianity, God, whatever, even in a completely unrelated thread, it is taken, and it goes unpunished. Frankly, when the insult has little to do with whatever is being discussed...that should be a ban.

If posters went hunting through threads looking for opportunities to take shots at homosexuality, race, etc., the hammer would come down and hard. For whatever reason religion-bashing gets a pass. Hell I remember a little bit ago when Amir0x sorta said bans would start to be doled out when that happened and it ended up getting scaled back quite a bit, or rescinded...don't really remember.

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with you, "civil" would definitely be a poor descriptor of the OT-GAF community...BUT I do feel that it is particularly venomous when it comes to God "issues" and I think that's a shame.

Yep. Everything appears to be in order in this thread.

 

[TheHeretic]

Reading this poll again, it makes an absolute tonne of errors in the way its structured. The people who designed it clearly had little knowledge of statistics.

 

[HolyStar]

That seems weird. I live in the bible belt, and only about half of the people go to church regularly, and there is literally a church on every corner. Also, "god" is a pretty generic term. It is not necessarily Christian, so much as it is "Do you have a belief in a higher power.

 

[C4Lukins]

42% of Americans are stupid.

I would say that the 56% who do not realize that reality television is making the world a worse place to live are the stupid ones.

 

[Mumei]

I don't think I'd ever use my faith to outright prove the existence of God; that's just kind of silly. However, any kind of argument I would make is ultimately based on faith, just as the atheist's arguments are based in that which is concrete.

So, as a for instance, let's say I claim that it is preposterous to believe that all of the energy in the universe exploded into being without the guidance of a supreme consciousness, and even more preposterous to believe that Earth and all we know of life came to be without that same guidance. The atheist accuses me of bringing faith into the argument because I can't express an argument for that supreme consciousness in concrete terms.

So, it's not really a fair trade, is it? It's a given that the atheist's arguments will never be confined by that "lack of faith" because the atheist is only concerned with the rational; with those things that can be proven according to a set of rules or laws. It's simply not fair to ask the religious person to do the same thing. I know that's hard to understand from the perspective of the atheist, if not impossible, and that is the basis of what I'm saying. The discourse itself is utterly pointless; it cannot exist in a frame that is satisfactory to both the faithful and the atheist.

No, you're missing something; I realize that the faithful are constrained by being forced to give evidence for belief. I do not, however, believe that I am being unfair in asking you to do so. It is simply a part of the terms of any debate - you argue based on reason and evidence. If there is no evidence, you simply concede that there is no evidence and acknowledge that you believe for other reasons (whatever they might be).

I don't really see the problem with this.

Also, some interesting things you might like to read:


The Argument from Reason

Critical Review of Victor Reppert's Defense of the Argument from Reason


A Response to Richard Carrier's Review of C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea

That is a good debate on the existence of God; debates like that do not work on a message board such as this.

Ha ha, no joke. Can't possibly disagree with you of course. However, this is sort of the purpose of a forum like this; we should be able to have such discussions respectfully and, more importantly, treat each other with respect in general. We rarely clash over other issues of identity here in the OT; why is the religion-bashing accepted so easily?

It has something to do with the fact that the bashing of atheists (even among those who limit their bashing to so-called "GAF atheists") is just as prevalent, I would imagine. If it were nothing but the bashing of the religious, it would be cracked down on more, I think. Because it is largely mutual, it seems to get less attention.

In this particular thread, for instance, it has been back-and-forth; it is not the poor, faithful masses huddled against in a corner being assaulted again and again by the mean, disrespectful atheists, but both sides going at it.

I see value in the ideal world, but such discussion is rarely fruitful. One of the frustrating things about such a sensitive discussion is it's difficult to get all your cards on the table right from the top. Your example of evangelism (something that doesn't interest me) is a good one, but another is the specific beliefs of the person you are talking to. There is such a wide spectrum of belief among the faithful - have you noticed how I have been very careful not to describe myself as a Christian? That's because I don't consider myself to be one; in the words of the great theologian Karen Armstrong, I'm a "freelance monotheist."

That sounds so... wishy-washy.

Explain; I'm too lazy to look it up right now.

 

[Azih]

That sounds so... wishy-washy.

Explain; I'm too lazy to look it up right now.

Believing in a omnipotent, omniscient, creator being without all the other baggage that comes from Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.

 

[Mumei]

Believing in a omnipotent, omniscient, creator being without all the other baggage that comes from Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.

Is it a personal God or an impersonal one?

 

[Evander]

Who'd they poll, people walking out of Church on Sunday?

I think these polls are very inaccurate. Religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are usually VERY personal and therefore not everyone is going to tell the truth or they just might not say anything at all.

The better question is,how did they phrase the question.

If ti was "Do you believe in the possibility of there being some kind of higher power", yeah, I'd believe those results, although they mean NOTHING.

 

[WrikaWrek]

If only priests were hot women. I mean seriously, they need a new plan. Old male priests ain't cutting it anymore.

It's time for change, hot, young women for priests! I'll sign up right away.

 

[ghst]

baffling.

 

[cyclonekruse]

How can anyone be 'absolutely certain' regarding their belief in God?

Belief is not knowledge, it necessitates some uncertainty. If there's no uncertainty it ceases to be belief, and becomes knowledge.

I don't think it's as big of a problem as you think it is. If you know 2+2=4, do you not also believe 2+2=4? If someone asked on the street asked you if you believe that the sun is in the sky, what do you answer with?

My problem is that people are saying they are "absolutely certain" about something in the first place. I, personally, can't say for certain whether anything exists beyond my own mind. I like to think they do but a brain in a vat of ooze could potentially make me experience the same phenomena and so I can't be certain.

 

[lexdysia]

That figure isn't a shot in the dark, they didn't run though the phone book and ask 36,000 people random people or whatever. It's a scientific poll and it's outcome is mathematically verifiable.

Any good science experiment / poll will be random. Except the control group, which isn't the group you are testing. That's the point.

NOTE: Random within the group you are testing. Obviously, if this poll is testing U.S. citizens, randomly calling up some Brits wouldn't be smart. Just nipping this potential "counter-point" here and now.

 

[Evander]

I don't think it's as big of a problem as you think it is. If you know 2+2=4, do you not also believe 2+2=4? If someone asked on the street asked you if you believe that the sun is in the sky, what do you answer with?

My problem is that people are saying they are "absolutely certain" about something in the first place. I, personally, can't say for certain whether anything exists beyond my own mind. I like to think they do but a brain in a vat of ooze could potentially make me experience the same phenomena and so I can't be certain.

I think the point is that, in order to KNOW that 2 and 2 make 4, I only need to count. In order to "KNOW" that god exists, I have to backpeddal in to philosophy where I questionthe definition of knowledge and existance in the first place.

 

[travisbickle]

I talked to God in a phonebox on my way home.

 

[Diablos]

"Hey you doing anything this weekend?" "No, because the Lord Jesus Christ is my Savior"

Hey, if someone wants to say that, they can. I don't take offense to it. I'd find it sad, but I wouldn't take offense to it.

 

[gkryhewy]

becuase i dont baleave what they baleave.

There is no hell, but if there were, you would deserve a special place in it.

I'm just kidding, jupiter! Please don't zap me!

 

[Skellig Gra]

We live in a country dominated by Britney watch and a glut of reality TV and this is what signals to you guys most Americans are idiots?

Edit: Also, results don't surprise me.

 

[Azih]

Is it a personal God or an impersonal one?

Edit: Actually this is a pretty Karen Armstrong specific term and I am putting words in her mouth at this point. I think it's a personal God for her.

 

[Baryn]

92% of GAFfers believe in The Patriots.

 

[speculawyer]

The bible is a great piece of fiction. That God guy, he sounds like he'd be a pretty upstanding person if he actually existed.

Jesus was an upstanding guy. God is a nasty SOB.

 

[Walshicus]

There is no hell, but if there were, you would deserve a special place in it.

I'm just kidding, jupiter! Please don't zap me!

Oh he'll get you... spill a cup of coffee on your lap? That's Jupiter's vengeance. Girlfriend leaves you? Blame it on the big man. Run over by a bus? You know who did it.

 

[MrPing1000]

USA has a population of 304,420,000

survey = 36,000.

92% of 36,000 = 33120

33120 = 0.00011%


so thus 0.00011% of Americans believe in god.

 

[Tamanon]

Only 60% of GAF understands statistics it seems.

 

[MattKeil]

Jesus was an upstanding guy. God is a nasty SOB.

Eh. Depends who's writing him.

 

[way more]

USA has a population of 304,420,000

survey = 36,000.

92% of 36,000 = 33120

33120 = 0.00011%


so thus 0.00011% of Americans believe in god.

I've heard stories about how people like this will get up and interrupt an entire lecture because they don't understand statistics. I hope if that ever happens I'll just laugh at them like I am now.

 

[snacknuts]

USA has a population of 304,420,000

survey = 36,000.

92% of 36,000 = 33120

33120 = 0.00011%


so thus 0.00011% of Americans believe in god.

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

 

[Dan]

I would say that the 56% who do not realize that reality television is making the world a worse place to live are the stupid ones.

Reality TV does suck, but it sure as hell doesn't threaten my values.

 

[WrikaWrek]

"Why have you abandoned me father?"

Isn't that a very curious line? I always thought so.

 

[MrPing1000]

So statistical based humour doesn't work in the internet.

Noted.

 

[Tamanon]

So statistical based humour doesn't work in the internet.

Noted.

Well considering that quite a few folks before you actually legitimately were taking that tact. One going so far as to say in a survey of 35k, you probably couldn't trust the results because teens at the dinner table wouldn't admit their atheism, and that's where the polling probably took place

 

[MrPing1000]

Well considering that quite a few folks before you actually legitimately were taking that tact. One going so far as to say in a survey of 35k, you probably couldn't trust the results because teens at the dinner table wouldn't admit their atheism, and that's where the polling probably took place

Laziness on my part then.

 

[gofreak]

I don't think it's as big of a problem as you think it is. If you know 2+2=4, do you not also believe 2+2=4? If someone asked on the street asked you if you believe that the sun is in the sky, what do you answer with?

My problem is that people are saying they are "absolutely certain" about something in the first place. I, personally, can't say for certain whether anything exists beyond my own mind. I like to think they do but a brain in a vat of ooze could potentially make me experience the same phenomena and so I can't be certain.

Hehe, it's a good point. But beyond "is it all in my head" type uncertainties, we tend to take it as knowledge things we see ourselves, can measure, can be proven by scientific method etc. Barring those 'is it all in my head?' questions, I would say I can know the sun is in the sky because I can see it. But perhaps for, say, a blind man, it's a matter of belief.

With God, there's nothing one can point to except their own belief and/or the belief of others. There is no physical manifestation. There is no 'proof' (again, if we can have proof and our whole existence isn't a figment of imagination), hence any religion requires faith.

 

[Kitschkraft]

That God guy, he sounds like he'd be a pretty upstanding person if he actually existed.

To be honest, he's always came off as somewhat of a dick to me personally.

If by some (what I find to be) very highly unlikely chance that there is an afterlife, and this afterlife happens to be heaven, then I hope that in this heaven, I am given the opportunity to sorta look after my own earth or earth like pet project. My planet will fucking own God's planet.

My World > This World

 

[AndresON777]

keep it civil guys, LOL. well i think that's way off...maybe they were polling old folks.

 

[The Elite]

Not at all. Many believe that living as a good, loving person will lead to some sort of heaven, regardless of religion.



Look. I honestly believe in evolution and all that jazz but as liberal as I am I refuse to believe that our civilization and planet is just an accident, I find us too impressive of a species to be an accident, but that's just me.

The problem with your statement is that you only have the species on our planet to compare with. Their could be far more impressive creatures in the cosmos than us.

 

[milanbaros]

Look. I honestly believe in evolution and all that jazz but as liberal as I am I refuse to believe that our civilization and planet is just an accident, I find us too impressive of a species to be an accident, but that's just me.

Calling it an accident makes it seem our development seem random. Mutations occur like clockwork and for thousands of years our unforgiving environment has meant only the best of these mutations has survived in the species.

Visions of grandeur of one's species/race/gender etc is not unique to you at all but is also a result of evolution.

 

[pel1300]

and yet most people are terrified of death.

 

[Frester]

Thread title is slightly misleading, but I'd believe it. I don't necessarily believe that there is or isn't a god/God, but that's more so that I just don't care at the moment. Most people are religious, whether they subscribe to an organized religion like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. or just define themselves as "spiritual".