Support NeoGAF

[Asmodai]

Now and forever an agnostic

Out of curiosity (I don't know any agnostics), how is an agnostic different from Colbert's definition of them, which is "Atheists without balls"? :lol

Are you using agnostic in the definition of "I don't know whether there is a god or not?" Because that's actually atheism, it's a myth that atheists are certain there are no divine entities, they simply admit that they don't know.

this article is relevant to this thread. I know it made my jaw drop.
New Jersey atheist couple forced to give up their adopted son because they dont believe in god.

American courts are a joke so very often. That's the most pathetic ruling I've ever heard of.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

this article is relevant to this thread. I know it made my jaw drop.
New Jersey atheist couple forced to give up their adopted son because they dont believe in god.

must have been all that atheist vitriol they were afraid of! *takes tongue out of cheek.
That is fucking ridiculously retarded and depressing.

 

[charlequin]

Every single thing you mention here is reducible to a very clear statement about reality which is objectively true or objectively false. That you believe otherwise is just a symptom of semantic confusion.

Attributing disagreement to "confusion" is a really annoying habit, I'd appreciate it if you would not do that in the future.

That aside: I don't broadly disagree with the things you attribute as statements of fact, but I think you have rather gone aside from my actual point in raising the example. Let me take a slightly different tack.

Would you agree that the statement "the First Brandenburg Concerto is the best work of Baroque composition" is "untestable" in the scientific sense?

If so, would you agree that to hold an opinion formulated in that fashion is "irrational"?

If so, what business does any person have making factual statements about the quality of any artistic work, or ever attempting to argue with another person regarding such statements? Shouldn't all artistic analysis that attempts to extract meaning from such works then be empty, and shouldn't all such statements be limited to verifiable statements like "my current perception is that in the process of most recently experiencing the First Brandenburg Concerto I greatly enjoyed it, moreso than my memory of enjoying any other Baroque compositions I recall previously hearing"?

 

[charlequin]

this article is relevant to this thread. I know it made my jaw drop.
New Jersey atheist couple forced to give up their adopted son because they dont believe in god.

This is indeed a fascinating piece of history, but I don't think it would be right to let people read this story without also informing them that this happened in 1970.

 

[Fusebox]

This is true, and I agree that the older a story is the more irrelevant it is. See also, Bible, Koran, Tanakh...

 

[Souldriver]

Out of curiosity (I don't know any agnostics), how is an agnostic different from Colbert's definition of them, which is "Atheists without balls"? :lol

Are you using agnostic in the definition of "I don't know whether there is a god or not?" Because that's actually atheism, it's a myth that atheists are certain there are no divine entities, they simply admit that they don't know.

It's not because you say atheism and agnosticism are the same, that they -by definition- are.

Agnostics don't say or know whether or not things like a god are real so prefer to take no stance on the matter.
Atheists are sure there isn't a god.


I see it as kind of a continuum. I'm an atheist in the sense that I'm fairly sure a god doesn't exist because there is just no evidence for it, but I realize that taking the agnostic stance is "safer" since you can't say for certain if it's one or another. If we're talking about the "god" as presented by organised religion, the chances are slim to null that any of it is true. I'm fully atheist when talking about that. If we're talking about a "higher power" whatever that might be, I'd categorize myself quicker towards agnostic. The broader you make the definition of a god, the bigger the chance it might be partly true, no matter how small that actual chance might still be.


However, if we're having a discussion, I have no problem with people categorizing me as an atheist to keep things clear and simple.

This is true, and I agree that the older a story is the more irrelevant it is. See also, Bible, Koran, Tanakh...

Oh shiii :lol

 

[charlequin]

This is true, and I agree that the older a story is the more irrelevant it is. See also, Bible, Koran, Tanakh...

Haha, very clever! :lol

More importantly, the NJ Supreme Court unanimously overturned the decision and they got to keep their kid, because pretty much everyone but that one judge knew that he was being retarded.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

Out of curiosity (I don't know any agnostics), how is an agnostic different from Colbert's definition of them, which is "Atheists without balls"? :lol

Are you using agnostic in the definition of "I don't know whether there is a god or not?" Because that's actually atheism, it's a myth that atheists are certain there are no divine entities, they simply admit that they don't know.

agnostic - a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

atheist - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Looks like you've been associating with the wrong group. :lol

 

[thetrin]

I don't see where he said that .

Too many everyone's in every place, assume they know something is the truth when in reality it is not the truth.

What would you be 'afraid' of us assuming we know for example? And your wording implies you'd be more afraid of 'us' (I hate implying that all Atheists are a part of a group, we're not, no more than all people who don't fly kites are a part of a non-kite flying group) - than you would be of religious people who think they know things for truth but to do not (see - major conflicts in American politics/Middle East).

That attitude of just... leaving everyone alone is a very nice one to have, but completely unrealistic. Discussion is important, secluding yourself and isolating your beliefs in your own personal world where you aren't threatened and are always right is silly. At least I think so. Growth as an individual and a society requires out ability to listen and communicate.

We do have a group, and we meet on the third sunday of every month. We then sit in chairs and politely converse, trying our best to resist the urge to fly a kite, even while indoors.

 

[X26]

Out of curiosity (I don't know any agnostics), how is an agnostic different from Colbert's definition of them, which is "Atheists without balls"? :lol

Are you using agnostic in the definition of "I don't know whether there is a god or not?" Because that's actually atheism, it's a myth that atheists are certain there are no divine entities, they simply admit that they don't know.

I've always seen atheists as being adamant there is no god/higher power. I consider myself agnostic because I don't care either way. Whether it's the proper term, I dunno, but I'm neither religious or atheist so what other term is there

 

[Ionas]

The conversation's moved on a bit, but I'd just like to add, from a Christian perspective, that charlequin's assessment of the average self-identified Christian's actual theological beliefs seems pretty apt. Granted, it's not always a good idea to infer personal beliefs from observed behaviors, but I don't think we're offending anybody here

 

[gerg]

People who claim that science is the bastion of rationality need to read Hume.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

People who claim that science is the bastion of rationality need to read Hume.

as a minor of Philosophy, I admire Hume's work and tenacity, he is definetely a personal hero of mine; but I think scientific research has evolved quite a bit from the 1700's.

 

[gerg]

as a minor of Philosophy, I admire Hume's work and tenacity, he is definetely a personal hero of mine; but I think scientific research has evolved quite a bit from the 1700's.

What? Because we've defeated the Problem of Induction?

 

[ChoklitReign]

People who claim that science is the bastion of rationality need to read Hume.

And Descartes. I don't agree with him 100% but he does give some good examples of why you shouldn't believe everything you can see.

 

[Souldriver]

And Descartes. I don't agree with him 100% but he does give some good examples of why you shouldn't believe everything with your eyes.

I'm pretty sure science doesn't claim you should just "believe your eyes". In fact, it tries to prevent us from blindly (pun not intended) doing it.

 

[da_wump]

What? Because we've defeated the Problem of Induction?

Yeah, gonna have to agree with gerg, here. Reason is a slave to the passions. If you have read any recent research on moral judgments, you'll find that they're anything but rational. And no matter how far science advances, it can never describe something as good or bad. Science is amoral.

 

[kevm3]

Since some of the atheists here believe that eradication of religion will automatically create a better society, what do you have to say about secular China and North Korea or, at the time, the secular Soviet Union? Why did their secularism not magically move them to the land of supreme tolerance and heightened humanity?

 

[Count Dookkake]

Since some of the atheists here believe that eradication of religion will automatically create a better society, what do you have to say about secular China and North Korea or, at the time, the secular Soviet Union? Why did their secularism not magically move them to the land of supreme tolerance and heightened humanity?

Because they replaced one kind of magical thinking with another kind of magical thinking.

 

[kevm3]

Because they replaced one kind of magical thinking with another kind of magical thinking.

But I thought the eradication of religion would necessitate the automatic improvement of society since religion is such a vile and intolerant thing?

 

[Souldriver]

Since some of the atheists here believe that eradication of religion will automatically create a better society, what do you have to say about secular China and North Korea or, at the time, the secular Soviet Union? Why did their secularism not magically move them to the land of supreme tolerance and heightened humanity?

Because those were all cruel dictatorships with a cult surrounding the leader, which has a high resemblance with....

 

[Count Dookkake]

But I thought the eradication of religion would necessitate the automatic improvement of society since religion is such a vile and intolerant thing?

Unfortunately they replaced religion with religion.

 

[KHarvey16]

Since some of the atheists here believe that eradication of religion will automatically create a better society, what do you have to say about secular China and North Korea or, at the time, the secular Soviet Union? Why did their secularism not magically move them to the land of supreme tolerance and heightened humanity?

This is like smothering a fire with burning hot oil and then asking, "what, I thought you said not being on fire would make you feel better?"

 

[kevm3]

Because those were all cruel dictatorships with a cult surrounding the leader, which has a high resemblance with....

So in other words, you are basically admitting that intolerance is not exclusive to 'religion' but rather a product of humans desiring power and control...

 

[KHarvey16]

So in other words, you are basically admitting that intolerance is not exclusive to 'religion' but rather a product of humans desiring power and control...

Was it ever argued that wasn't the case?

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

Since some of the atheists here believe that eradication of religion will automatically create a better society, what do you have to say about secular China and North Korea or, at the time, the secular Soviet Union? Why did their secularism not magically move them to the land of supreme tolerance and heightened humanity?

Great examples! And Hitler, Stalin and Mao killed in the name of atheism too! Wooooo logic baby!

 

[kevm3]

This is like smothering a fire with burning hot oil and then asking, "what, I thought you said not being on fire would make you feel better?"

So only those who happen to believe in a religion can be posed with riddles and laughed at for a lack of examinations of their beliefs, but atheists are free from such scrutiny?

 

[KHarvey16]

So only those who happen to believe in a religion can be posed with riddles and laughed at for a lack of examinations of their beliefs, but atheists are free from such scrutiny?

The hell are you talking about? You're not arguing with anything anyone has actually said.

 

[Always-honest]

good. religion is for dummies.

 

[Souldriver]

So only those who happen to believe in a religion can be posed with riddles and laughed at for a lack of examinations of their beliefs, but atheists are free from such scrutiny?

Atheism isn't a believe, it doesn't require a leap of faith. However, off course atheists should examine their "beliefs". They do it all the time. What are you getting at anyway? You're all over the place.


Also, nobody is saying there would be no evil in the world without religion, but if you're going to go with the classic Hitler/Mao/Stalin/Kim Il Sung argument, don't expect to get a serious response.

 

[gerg]

Was it ever argued that wasn't the case?

Yes. Many people believe that the true problem with (some) religious belief is the content of that belief, and not the laziness in holding it. Religion isn't the problem. Illogical thinking is.

 

[kevm3]

Great examples! And Hitler, Stalin and Mao killed in the name of atheism too! Wooooo logic baby!

But I thought the eradication of religion would magically make society better! Logic indeed!

If I put 10 people with an IQ of around 75 in a room together, would it be feasible for them to research and put together a supercomputer from scratch? If there is such a low chance of that happening, why is it feasible for something infinitely dumber than that, IE nonintelligence, to put together something that is way more complex than even what the brightest amongst humankind have created?

 

[Count Dookkake]

If I put 10 people with an IQ of around 75 in a room together, would it be feasible for them to research and put together a supercomputer from scratch? If there is such a low chance of that happening, why is it feasible for something infinitely dumber than that, IE nonintelligence, to put together something that is way more complex than even what the brightest amongst humankind have created?

:lol

 

[methos75]

You know what would actually make for an better society, if Atheist let me think the way I want while I in return allow them to waddle in their thoughts, that is what would maker for an better society and not the eradication of either side which is something only fools and Hitler think

 

[gerg]

If I put 10 people with an IQ of around 75 in a room together, would it be feasible for them to research and put together a supercomputer from scratch? If there is such a low chance of that happening, why is it feasible for something infinitely dumber than that, IE nonintelligence, to put together something that is way more complex than even what the brightest amongst humankind have created?

With many repetitions, it is unlikely that unlikely events do not occur.

You know what would actually make for an better society, if Atheist let me think the way I want while I in return allow them to waddle in their thoughts, that is what would maker for an better society and not the eradication of either side which is something only fools and Hitler think

I don't care what you think, as long as you act rationally.

 

[KHarvey16]

But I thought the eradication of religion would magically make society better! Logic indeed!

If I put 10 people with an IQ of around 75 in a room together, would it be feasible for them to research and put together a supercomputer from scratch? If there is such a low chance of that happening, why is it feasible for something infinitely dumber than that, IE nonintelligence, to put together something that is way more complex than even what the brightest amongst humankind have created?

Read a book? Framing a question like this is always hilarious to me. It's like a huge sign that says "I don't know what I'm talking about."

 

[kevm3]

The hell are you talking about? You're not arguing with anything anyone has actually said.

Oh ok, so NO ONE in this thread is insinuating that those who happen to hold religious beliefs are of inferior intellect and that the nation would be better off moving towards increased secularism in lieu of the neanderthalish fairy tales of the religious?

 

[speculawyer]

You know what would actually make for an better society, if Atheist let me think the way I want while I in return allow them to waddle in their thoughts, that is what would maker for an better society and not the eradication of either side which is something only fools and Hitler think

So why did you click on the thread? :lol

And how many atheists have come to your door to convert you . . . and how many Mormons & Jehovas Witnesses?

 

[Souldriver]

But I thought the eradication of religion would magically make society better! Logic indeed!

If I put 10 people with an IQ of around 75 in a room together, would it be feasible for them to research and put together a supercomputer from scratch? If there is such a low chance of that happening, why is it feasible for something infinitely dumber than that, IE nonintelligence, to put together something that is way more complex than even what the brightest amongst humankind have created?

The fuck :lol

 

[Fusebox]

If I put 10 people with an IQ of around 75 in a room together, would it be feasible for them to research and put together a supercomputer from scratch? If there is such a low chance of that happening, why is it feasible for something infinitely dumber than that, IE nonintelligence, to put together something that is way more complex than even what the brightest amongst humankind have created?

I said wow. o_0

 

[Count Dookkake]

So why did you click on the thread? :lol

The devil made him do it.

 

[methos75]

So why did you click on the thread? :lol

i need a good laugh

 

[kevm3]

Read a book? Framing a question like this is always hilarious to me. It's like a huge sign that says "I don't know what I'm talking about."

This reply is not really that different than the religious saying "Go read the Bible! It's in there!"

It's an easy question to answer is it not?

 

[Extollere]

Since some of the atheists here believe that eradication of religion will automatically create a better society, what do you have to say about secular China and North Korea or, at the time, the secular Soviet Union? Why did their secularism not magically move them to the land of supreme tolerance and heightened humanity?

Unfortunately those societies still had nationalism, None of those societies succeeded because they weren't religious... it's because they weren't rational. What I would like to see is more rationality in society, hopefully that would also coincide with a lower percentage of religion. No country has ever had a war in the name of secularism. No country has ever suppressed their people in the name of secularism, but those things have been done time and time again in the name of God and religion. Secularism isn't another religion. It's just not religion at all. Getting rid of cancer doesn't automatically make you a healthy person, it just means you got rid of cancer, you can still be unhealthy and make bad decisions afterward.

 

[KHarvey16]

Oh ok, so NO ONE in this thread is insinuating that those who happen to hold religious beliefs are of inferior intellect and that the nation would be better off moving towards increased secularism in lieu of the neanderthalish fairy tales of the religious?

If one is arguing that no religion would be an improvement to civilization they are NOT saying eliminating religion will solve every problem, right every wrong, and allow peace to prosper the world over. That is you assuming.

This reply is not really that different than the religious saying "Go read the Bible! It's in there!"

It's an easy question to answer is it not?

The answer is evolution, driven by the process of natural selection.

 

[speculawyer]

i need a good laugh

You sure gave me one.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

i need a good laugh

here's a good place to start.

But I thought the eradication of religion would magically make society better! Logic indeed!

If I put 10 people with an IQ of around 75 in a room together, would it be feasible for them to research and put together a supercomputer from scratch? If there is such a low chance of that happening, why is it feasible for something infinitely dumber than that, IE nonintelligence, to put together something that is way more complex than even what the brightest amongst humankind have created?

Doesn't even deserve a response just a :lol like everyone else is giving it.

 

[Souldriver]

i need a good laugh

Then go shoot some more cats.

 

[kevm3]

If one is arguing that no religion would be an improvement to civilization they are NOT saying eliminating religion will solve every problem, right every wrong, and allow peace to prosper the world over. That is you assuming.



The answer is evolution, driven by the process of natural selection.

Why would complete nonintelligence construct a process of evolution? Nonintelligence has no concept of anything. However, the process of adapting is an intelligent process. In order to adapt , there has to be recognition of the environment, the trait that is lacking for optimal survival in that environment, and then there has to be a recognition of the process that would be necessary to transform said organism. How did this high level of intelligence derive from complete nonintelligence?

 

[Souldriver]

Unfortunately those societies still had nationalism, None of those societies succeeded because they weren't religious... it's because they weren't rational. What I would like to see is more rationality in society, hopefully that would also coincide with a lower percentage of religion. No country has ever had a war in the name of secularism. No country has ever suppressed their people in the name of secularism, but those things have been done time and time again in the name of God and religion. Secularism isn't another religion. It's just not religion at all. Getting rid of cancer doesn't automatically make you a healthy person, it just means you got rid of cancer, you can still be unhealthy and make bad decisions afterward.

Pretty much.

Religion is not a bad thing in se, but it is one of the sources for people to act irrational, and that is a ticket to shit going wrong. If you'd get rid of religion (which I think is impossible, cause there are always going to be people who want to believe in things without any proof) you'll get rid of a source of irrationality, but not all of it. But it still is a step forward.