Finally, the FSM gets some face time...

[Drea]

Wilber, ideally I would like to see all religion shoved to the basements of old museums.

Back in the day when I went to church they said "just hand all your problems over to Jesus and you will be okay".

If I would have done that then I would not be where I am today. I would still be a single mom living on eggs and rice, praying for Jesus to come along and save me from my fate.

I respect the Chinese because their beliefs are all about the inner self. There is no handing over of problems, no one is going to save you but yourself.

I respect that.

I do not respect that a person can go through his or her life as a mean nasty bastard and still get into "heaven" simply by saying "Jesus I invite you into my heart" on their deathbed.

No need to take responsibility and be a good person, just beg for forgiveness (and get it) at the end. That is utterly the most pathetic excuse for bad behaviour on the planet.

Yet the person who lives a good life and never hurts a single person, goes to hell because they don't "believe in Jesus". Sick sick sick IMO.

Karma is much "fairer" -- be an a-hole and it'll come right back atcha.

[Wilber]

Drea

The existence of a god can be neither physically proved or disproved. In that respect I see no difference between an atheist and a believer. They are both acting on faith.

I agree that a person should try to lead a "moral" life, but one should also reflect from time to time on where those morals originated. Often as not, they have their roots in some religion.

[cybercoma]

Drea

The existence of a god can be neither physically proved or disproved. In that respect I see no difference between an atheist and a believer. They are both acting on faith.

Except for that little sticking point that a "believer" is jumping to a conclusion without evidence. One doesn't act on faith when they simply don't believe in something.

I could make up some absurd creature off the top of my head, then claim you're acting on faith by not believing it exists. That's really not the case at all. When there is no evidence of its existence, you don't believe because there isn't enough evidence to do so.

I'm sorry, but that's not at all the same thing as just saying, "there's not enough evidence, so I might as well believe it exists."

[Wilber]

Except for that little sticking point that a "believer" is jumping to a conclusion without evidence. One doesn't act on faith when they simply don't believe in something.

I could make up some absurd creature off the top of my head, then claim you're acting on faith by not believing it exists. That's really not the case at all. When there is no evidence of its existence, you don't believe because there isn't enough evidence to do so.

I'm sorry, but that's not at all the same thing as just saying, "there's not enough evidence, so I might as well believe it exists."

If you don't believe something exists and can't prove it, that is acting on faith just as much as someone who does. The atheist jumps to a conclusion every bit as much as the believer.

Neither the believer or the atheist can prove their claim. In that respect they are the same.

The fact that we may believe something cannot exist means nothing. Mankind has always believed certain things to be impossible, only to be proved wrong time and time again.

Until either the atheist or the believer is shown to be right, the only reasonable conclusion is to be an agnostic.

[cybercoma]

If you don't believe something exists and can't prove it, that is acting on faith just as much as someone who does. The atheist jumps to a conclusion every bit as much as the believer.

You can't prove anything DOESN'T exist. I can't prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean it's at all reasonable to assume she does.

Look at one point in time it was believed that all swans were white. It was generally accepted that black swans did not exist. That was of course, until they found black swans and could prove their existence.

Atheists and agnostics live as though God doesn't exist and until that time that it is shown that there is a God, they'll continue to do so. It is patently absurd to simply believe in something because someone says it's real without any logical evidence indicating it so.

You don't believe in any of the other possible Gods and for those reasons, the atheists and agnostics live their lives believing in one fewer than you.

Neither the believer or the atheist can prove their claim. In that respect they are the same.

They are not at all the same. It is not up to the person who doesn't believe to explain why. It's up to the believer to show proof of what they believe in.

The fact that we may believe something cannot exist means nothing. Mankind has always believed certain things to be impossible, only to be proved wrong time and time again.

Until either the atheist or the believer is shown to be right, the only reasonable conclusion is to be an agnostic.

Agnosticism is a nice way of appeasing religious moderates. In all reality, the agnostic lives the same way as the atheist; they live their lives as though there is no god. Most agnostics are atheists without committing to that title because of the social stigma of that label.

An agnostic, who allows the shred of a possibility that a God exists (because it's impossible to prove with any certainty that anything doesn't exist), but lives their life without theism, without religion, is an atheist.

There comes a point when something is so far from being likely to exist, that you may as well say it doesn't.

It's impossible to say that unicorns don't exist, but that doesn't stop most people from conceding that they don't. What they truly mean is, it is so unlikely that they exist, that until someone proves that they do, it's safe to assume they don't.

The same is true for agnostics and atheists. Until someone proves the existence of God, it is so unlikely that God exists, the two As live their lives as though it doesn't.

You seem to think that both sides are equally obligated to prove their position. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Atheists and agnostics make no claim, they simply refuse the claim that believers are making. If believers are unable to prove their claim, then it should be dismissed by rational minds. That doesn't mean those who are dismissing are required to prove their dismissal. It is suffice to say, there is not enough evidence to believe that. Atheism and agnosticism are both an absent of belief. The agnostic by saying there is not enough evidence in either direction is in fact unwilling to believe. Most atheists I know, say they'll believe in a God when a God is proved to them.

Does this make any sense?

Atheism and agnosticism are the default position until a claim is made. They are default until someone makes the leap in logic to believe in something based on faith alone.

Edited December 30, 2007 by cybercoma

[charter.rights]

You can't prove anything DOESN'T exist. I can't prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean it's at all reasonable to assume she does.

Look at one point in time it was believed that all swans were white. It was generally accepted that black swans did not exist. That was of course, until they found black swans and could prove their existence.

Atheists and agnostics live as though God doesn't exist and until that time that it is shown that there is a God, they'll continue to do so. It is patently absurd to simply believe in something because someone says it's real without any logical evidence indicating it so.

You don't believe in any of the other possible Gods and for those reasons, the atheists and agnostics live their lives believing in one fewer than you.

They are not at all the same. It is not up to the person who doesn't believe to explain why. It's up to the believer to show proof of what they believe in.

Agnosticism is a nice way of appeasing religious moderates. In all reality, the agnostic lives the same way as the atheist; they live their lives as though there is no god. Most agnostics are atheists without committing to that title because of the social stigma of that label.

An agnostic, who allows the shred of a possibility that a God exists (because it's impossible to prove with any certainty that anything doesn't exist), but lives their life without theism, without religion, is an atheist.

There comes a point when something is so far from being likely to exist, that you may as well say it doesn't.

It's impossible to say that unicorns don't exist, but that doesn't stop most people from conceding that they don't. What they truly mean is, it is so unlikely that they exist, that until someone proves that they do, it's safe to assume they don't.

The same is true for agnostics and atheists. Until someone proves the existence of God, it is so unlikely that God exists, the two As live their lives as though it doesn't.

You seem to think that both sides are equally obligated to prove their position. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Atheists and agnostics make no claim, they simply refuse the claim that believers are making. If believers are unable to prove their claim, then it should be dismissed by rational minds. That doesn't mean those who are dismissing are required to prove their dismissal. It is suffice to say, there is not enough evidence to believe that. Atheism and agnosticism are both an absent of belief. The agnostic by saying there is not enough evidence in either direction is in fact unwilling to believe. Most atheists I know, say they'll believe in a God when a God is proved to them.

Does this make any sense?

Atheism and agnosticism are the default position until a claim is made. They are default until someone makes the leap in logic to believe in something based on faith alone.

One does not need to prove to others that God exists. One need only satisfy themselves that they have enough faith to know God exists.

[Wilber]

You seem to think that both sides are equally obligated to prove their position. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Atheists and agnostics make no claim, they simply refuse the claim that believers are making.

Both sides are equally obligated to prove their position. The moment you say that your position is the only answer, you are obligated to prove it. Put up or shut up as the old saying goes. A believer says there is a god. An atheist says there is no god. They both claim to have the answer. Neither has the evidence to prove their position. An agnostic is honest enough to admit that they don't know and will keep looking.

Look at one point in time it was believed that all swans were white. It was generally accepted that black swans did not exist. That was of course, until they found black swans and could prove their existence.

My point exactly. Before black swans were discovered the religious person would have believed they existed. The atheist would have believed they didn't. Whether they existed or not, both beliefs were based on faith, not facts. Religion and atheism are both based on belief, not evidence. The agnostic would have kept looking for black swans.

If it wasn't for people who decided that a lack of evidence wasn't a valid excuse to stop looking for answers, we would still be mired in the stone age.

[cybercoma]

Or you could ignore everything I've said.

If the possibility of the existence of God was on a scale from 1 to 10, 1 being there definitely is no God and 10 being there definitly is a God, most atheists clock in around a 2 or 3. That is to say they live their life as though there is no God, but when asked if he doesn't exist, most will say you can't ever prove something doesn't exist. This is usually the same position an agnostic takes, when they're saying "we just don't know."

You can sit here and argue with me all you want, but the atheist position does NOT mean it is not even possible for God to exist. Atheists simply don't believe in any God and do not deny God's existence. If he is shown to exist, great! Once again, agnostics are the same in the sense that they don't believe in any particular God because they are unsure as to whether or not one exists and what kind of God it may be if it does exist. This is nearly identical to the atheist position and is something people usually say to appease the religious.

[cybercoma]

Wilber, this is an excellent article on what atheism is and how people who don't understand it get confused by the different types of atheists. Please take the time to read it.

What is atheism?

And to better understand the difference between actual atheism (not this concept that atheists deny the existence of God) and agnosticism, check this article out.

Atheism vs Agnosticism

Maybe this writer's explanations will make more sense than what I'm saying.

Edited December 30, 2007 by cybercoma

[Leafless]

Drea

The existence of a god can be neither physically proved or disproved. In that respect I see no difference between an atheist and a believer. They are both acting on faith.

Faith cannot be applied to an atheist as faith applies to a belief in religious doctrines.

To believe in a faith, you do not need proof to in the existence of God.

[Wilber]

Faith cannot be applied to an atheist as faith applies to a belief in religious doctrines.

To believe in a faith, you do not need proof to in the existence of God.

Look up the definition of faith. While it can apply to religion it also means believing in something that hasn't been proved. Webster: :

firm belief in something for which there is no proof

In a word Trust That definition applies to an athiest as much as a believer. Trust is not proof.

According to Webster

Atheist:

one who believes there is no diety.

Cambridge

Atheist:

someone who believes that God does not exist

Oxford

Atheism:

the belief that god does not exist

An atheist believes in something he cannot prove. In that respect he is the same as a believer.

Agnostic:

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

[cybercoma]

or you could read the links I've posted.

[kengs333]

You've made it quite clear through the bulk of your posts where your beliefs would lead our society. Your debasement of women and homosexuals is all I need to know that YOUR brand of Christianity is doing more harm than good in society.

You know, I'm wonder when you are going to start dealing with the reality of the opinions expressed in my posts, rather then always engaging in this fanciful misrepresentation based on your own ignorance and biases. No, I do not believe in the "debasement of women"--as a Christian I want all people to rise above sin. Moreover, expecting the wife to take on the role of raising the children is not "debasement" because I don't view children or child-rearing to be "base"--providing a sound and stable family structure, one in which there is always a loving and attentive mother, and a just and providing father is a good thing. And as anyone who has studied this topic will tell you, the traditional nuclear family is and always has been the best means of raising children. It really makes one wonder what kind of person would object to such a thing as children being raised properly and in a loving environment... As for homosexuals--people who engage in that kind of lifestyle "debase" themselves; they are always free to leave that lifestyle and raise themselves up again.

[Wilber]

or you could read the links I've posted.

The links you posted are one mans opinion, not a definition.

[Drea]

You know, I'm wonder when you are going to start dealing with the reality of the opinions expressed in my posts, rather then always engaging in this fanciful misrepresentation based on your own ignorance and biases. No, I do not believe in the "debasement of women"--as a Christian I want all people to rise above sin. Moreover, expecting the wife to take on the role of raising the children is not "debasement" because I don't view children or child-rearing to be "base"--providing a sound and stable family structure, one in which there is always a loving and attentive mother, and a just and providing father is a good thing. And as anyone who has studied this topic will tell you, the traditional nuclear family is and always has been the best means of raising children. It really makes one wonder what kind of person would object to such a thing as children being raised properly and in a loving environment... As for homosexuals--people who engage in that kind of lifestyle "debase" themselves; they are always free to leave that lifestyle and raise themselves up again.

But you openly debase women who are not stay at home mothers; you seem to look down upon women who raise a family and have a career or job. You openly debase women who are not virgins at marriage; women who choose to explore their "personhood" seem abhorent to you. I am sure that you have been told time and again that forced roles for each gender simply do not work in the long run. The only way it worked before was that women did not have the freedom to be unmarried and were essentially trapped. You may say "they liked it". But you are wrong. No one, not even you, likes to have no choices. Choices make people happy. Having control over one's self and life makes people happy. And happy people raise happy well adjusted children.

Edited December 31, 2007 by Drea

[guyser]

As for homosexuals--people who engage in that kind of lifestyle "debase" themselves; they are always free to leave that lifestyle and raise themselves up again.

Yes the love you have for homosexuals is so apparent.

Hey maybe Ted Haggerty, you know....the christian minister, can do go back in the closet and lie all over again , but as mental health pros will tell you, it cannot be done.

I know I know, Haggerty is not a christian because he did gay stuff. Any christian that strays you put down to being not christian. I have to say it does work for you.

The rest of us see right through it.

And with that I am off to have a gay old time at the cottage, alcohol involved hot tub women and music. Hell , there might even be some debauchery. Should be fun.

happy new year.

[kengs333]

Yes the love you have for homosexuals is so apparent.

Hey maybe Ted Haggerty, you know....the christian minister, can do go back in the closet and lie all over again , but as mental health pros will tell you, it cannot be done.

I know I know, Haggerty is not a christian because he did gay stuff. Any christian that strays you put down to being not christian. I have to say it does work for you.

The rest of us see right through it.

And with that I am off to have a gay old time at the cottage, alcohol involved hot tub women and music. Hell , there might even be some debauchery. Should be fun.

happy new year.

It's interesting how you, like your buddy cybercoma, prefer to base you opinions on what you think I mean instead of the facts. Haggerty lived a lie, he was a sinner, and he midlead and deceived many people. That's how sinners work, but now that this has come to light, and he has admitted his faults, if he sincerely attempts to overcome this problem and eventually succeeds, then all will be well. But in the end there will now always be doubt, and only he can know in his heart whether he is sincere in overcoming his homosexuality as others have already proven can be done--just as people overcome addictions to drug, alcohol, pornography, etc. In the end God will decide what his fate is, not me or anyone else. Sadly, people like you would prefer to believe that people can't overcome their sins, that they are condemned to living in sin; and yet you feel that you can mouth off about the evils of Christianity when it's people like you that allow evil and sin to reign on this planet.

[margrace]

It's interesting how you, like your buddy cybercoma, prefer to base you opinions on what you think I mean instead of the facts. Haggerty lived a lie, he was a sinner, and he midlead and deceived many people. That's how sinners work, but now that this has come to light, and he has admitted his faults, if he sincerely attempts to overcome this problem and eventually succeeds, then all will be well. But in the end there will now always be doubt, and only he can know in his heart whether he is sincere in overcoming his homosexuality as others have already proven can be done--just as people overcome addictions to drug, alcohol, pornography, etc. In the end God will decide what his fate is, not me or anyone else. Sadly, people like you would prefer to believe that people can't overcome their sins, that they are condemned to living in sin; and yet you feel that you can mouth off about the evils of Christianity when it's people like you that allow evil and sin to reign on this planet.

Except that homosecuality is not a sin, you are the sinner for condemning people who are a life style they can do nothing about. except hide it from persecuters such as you.

[noahbody]

Except that homosecuality is not a sin,

Neither is incest.

[cybercoma]

Neither is incest.

It certainly wasn't a problem when Lot got drunk and raped his daughters then blamed them for it.

[Melanie_]

And as anyone who has studied this topic will tell you, the traditional nuclear family is and always has been the best means of raising children. It really makes one wonder what kind of person would object to such a thing as children being raised properly and in a loving environment...

How much time have you actually spent studying the topic of family? The "traditional" nuclear family is an anomoly of our times and culture. The truly traditional family structure consists of extended family units, with multiple generations living together under one roof, or in nearby homes. Often these "traditional" families are ruled by a patriarch, so that the women's lives are controlled by men. No thanks. Tradition can stay in the past!

Edited January 1, 2008 by Melanie_

[kimmy]

The lack of depth of atheistic "thought" never ceases to amaze me. Sometimes I think it's just strawmanism, but there just doesn't seem to be much more than that to be found, no matter how hard one looks for more behind the trite mockery.

It's not an attempt at mockery. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is an intellectual exercise that challenges people to address questions about religion, belief, and matters of faith. Followers of religions-- any religion-- should be able to articulate what separates their faith from the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Bokonism, or the Church of the Subgenius.

I'm sure that some followers of any given faith could provide good reasons why their religion is different, but I suspect that for many religious people the answers they would give are along the lines of "it says so in this book" or "our religion has been around for many years" or "millions of people believe in it." These are statements which could be made by Scientologists or Mormons just as easily as by Catholics or Shiites.

If someone wished to incorporate a church of FSM, and receive the tax status available to "real" religions, what should the response be? "Sorry, but no. You're not a real religion." The .. uh, pastor replies: "Oh yeah? Why not?" And what do you tell him then? Request pasta miracles? Demand proof of Pastafarian beliefs? How does our society decide what qualifies as a religion? Is it a pointless hypothetical exercise? Well, maybe it's a hypothetical question with regard to the Pastafarians, but it's not a hypothetical when you have to address the same questions with regard to the Scientologists and with other cults that spring up from time to time.

-k

[Brain Candy]

I do not mock something if

i truly believe that it does

not exist.

What about mocking something because so many others believe it exists?