Are YOU an atheist?

[Solkern]

Solkern pulled out the oldest joke in the book.

Just saying.

atleast somone realized it

[Mabus]

All the research you will ever need is in THE OFFICIAL GOD FAQ (http://www.400monkeys.com/God/).

[Clove]

You do realize that, given Faent's description of the case, the proposition that (either religion R is wrong or religion R* is wrong) must be true? I know you said you didn't want to see any more symbolization (or something near to that), but just to be very (perhaps overly) explicit:

1. Start by assuming that it's not the case that (either R is wrong or R* is wrong).
2. If it's not the case that R is wrong, then p. (From the description of the case)
3. If it's not the case that R* is wrong, then not-p. (Ditto)
4. If it is not the case that (either R is wrong or R* is wrong), then it's not the case that R is wrong and it's not the case that R* is wrong. (This is just an application of one half of DeMorgan's Law)
5. So, it's not the case that R is wrong and it's not the case that R* is wrong. (From 1, 4)
6. But then, it's not the case that R is wrong. (From 5)
7. So, p. (From 2, 6)
8. But also, it's not the case that R* is wrong. (From 5)
9. So, not-p. (From 3, 8)
10. Therefore, p and not-p. (From 7, 9)
11. But it is not the case that (p and not-p). [I could've stopped at line 10, strictly speaking, but I figured this line was worth stating as well. This is a necessary truth; there is no case where p is both true and false at the same time.]
12. So, either R is wrong or R* is wrong. (Reductio, 1-11)You realize that the question wasn't if either R or R* was wrong. The question was whether it was egotistic to assume any given R was wrong. My answer: only if P can be known. Although in terms of egoism I suppose it would only be egotistical if P can NOT be known.

[Mathari]

The question was whether it was egotistic to assume any given R was wrong.
No, the question was whether it would be egotistical to assert that (either religion R is wrong or religion R* is wrong). This is not to assert (or assume) that any particular religion is wrong. Hence our reactions.

[Clove]

No, the question was whether it would be egotistical to assert that (either religion R is wrong or religion R* is wrong). This is not to assert (or assume) that any particular religion is wrong. Hence our reactions.It would be egotistical if you couldn't know WHICH religion was wrong. Which was CT's point in the first place. It's necessary that any given religion must be wrong. It's a flat fact that "a religion must be incorrect if only one can be correct or they directly oppose each other". But to place a lens on CT's outrage. Tsa'ah can only be disgusted by a religion that is "wrong" if he can prove its wrongness. Not if he can prove a religion can be wrong. If we go by the example proofs so far they also imply that a religion can be right. If we can't know P we can't know which is right or which is wrong. So it is equally egotistical to say "that religion is wrong" as it is to say "my religion is right". It all hangs on P baby.

[Fallen]

I think the answer is Q`

Fuck an asterisk

[Mathari]

It would be egotistical if you couldn't know WHICH religion was wrong.
But you don't need to know which religion is wrong to know that (either religion R is wrong or religion R* is wrong). The latter proposition does not entail that R is wrong, and it does not entail that R* is wrong. Now, it's correct that this proposition is true only if at least one member (we don't have to say which) of the set {R, R*} is wrong. But again, since the denial of the latter claim (given the description of the case) entails that contradictions are true, we can know that the denial of this claim is false (since contradictions aren't true), regardless of whether or not p can be known, and without saying anything about which religion is wrong.


It's necessary that any given religion must be wrong.
Now, here I wonder if you're suggesting that, in fact, it may be that both p and not-p are true?

[CrystalTears]

You two sicken me. Tsh`it is egotistical regardless of conversation. In this instance, he insulted one "brand" of religion. In Tsh`it land, mocking and ridiculing a religion is fine but it doesn't make it wrong! The fucker.

No one can prove that any religion has it right or not.

[Clove]

But you don't need to know which religion is wrong to know that (either religion R is wrong or religion R* is wrong). The latter proposition does not entail that R is wrong, and it does not entail that R* is wrong. Now, it's correct that this proposition is true only if at least one member (we don't have to say which) of the set {R, R*} is wrong. But again, since the denial of the latter claim (given the description of the case) entails that contradictions are true, we can know that the denial of this claim is false (since contradictions aren't true), regardless of whether or not p can be known, and without saying anything about which religion is wrong.


Now, here I wonder if you're suggesting that, in fact, it may be that both p and not-p are true?No, I'm suggesting that the argument is moot in context to CT's statement. We can say "one of these religions is wrong" if they logically contradict each other. But without knowing P it would be as egotistical to say R* is wrong as it would be to say R* is right. Which is what Tsa'ah was doing.

[Stanley Burrell]

I wish Mr. Chupon from Final Fantasy III (edited to Add: VI in Japan) would sneeze on this thread. That would FUCKING ROCK.

Also, these religion threads are getting older than the crust in yo mama's underwear, so here's some Ultros:

http://uffsite.net/ff6/images/ultros.jpg

You can tell he's Ultros because he is awesome. He be all like, "Don't tease the octopus kids!" Or Imp-imp-imp-imp imp! Be confused! When I wake up and read this thread in all of its holy merit I'll make more off-topic posts. Final Fantasy III (edited to Add: VI in Japan) is the best video game ever.

[Stanley Burrell]

Fffffffffffuck.

[Stanley Burrell]

As I was saying, this whole thread is retarded because you can be an Atheist and identify with a religion and be a member of that religion. I mean shit, you could go to Church every day not believing in God and still bathe in holy water. You'd just be willfully breaking the First Commandment (I think belief in the Abrahamic Judeo-Christian God is the First Commandment for you guys too: I am the Eternal your God, who let you out of Egypt to be your God, there is no other?)

Anyway, both Islam and Christianity are Judaism v.2.0 and this thread isn't that retarded because SHAFT is Shinto like me and we will come for your pet goldfish in the night with our multiracial black magic.

I have to go play with that cube and summon Leviathan.

[Danical]

No one can prove that any religion has it right or not.

This.

While I think metaphysical questions are important, something (hopefully) every human ponders overs at least once in their lifetime, I find the end result maddening. It's why in my 3rd year of my philosophy degree I became totally disillusioned with metaphysics and epistemology and instead plunged headlong into ethics and started my second degree in applied social psychology. Ethics has real world application and it seemed to solve a few metaphysical questions in a roundabout way.

How does this apply to belief in a Deity?

My conception of a God is mostly a Christian one since that's what I was indoctrinated with growing up. However, I've studied all the major western and eastern religions at college too. All seem to have a general underlying omni-benevolent figure or core. As I said about 200 posts ago, despite which religion has it "right," I like to think whichever Deity answers the Door will note the merits of a "good" life and grant salvation. Leading a good life can be summed up as doing/causing no harm while at the same time doing/increasing happiness of others; the Deity will have access to this performance evaluation. It's what I like to call, "Don't be a Dick." While I think Christian ethics are childlike in post-modernity there is overlap between the ethics I subscribe to and Christian ethical tenets. To this end, I don't think belief in a God is necessary; therefore, the question of God's existence is mostly irrelevant for me so I don't try to prove others "wrong." I don't care what you believe in as long as you, "Don't be a Dick."

(I don't plan on elaborating on my "Don't be a Dick" ethics because I don't want to have to get my Frankena texts out).


I've only neg repped Faent in this thread. Only because I find him/her unbearably pretentious

Until now! Dun, Dun, Dunnnn.

Are YOU an atheist? 02-25-2009 09:25 AM Shut up for chrissake. Tisket.

[Clove]

Right. It isn't necessary to believe or disbelieve in god(s) to not be a dick. If anything a belief that there is no god(s) or afterlife is even more inspiration to DBAD with the limited experience you have.

[Stanley Burrell]

Religion, like any other belief system, is about as intelligent or stupid or in-between as the people who follow said belief system. Yayyy.

[Danical]

Right. It isn't necessary to believe or disbelieve in god(s) to not be a dick. If anything a belief that there is no god(s) or afterlife is even more inspiration to DBAD with the limited experience you have.

That also gets to another issue that bugs me. Are religious people doing "good" things because they are intrinsically motivated or because of extrinsic motivations (fear of damnation/eternal salvation). Or perhaps simply because it's what God commands (Divine Command Theory).

Another thread though.

[Clove]

That also gets to another issue that bugs me. Are religious people doing "good" things because they are intrinsically motivated or because of extrinsic motivations (fear of damnation/eternal salvation). Or perhaps simply because it's what God commands (Divine Command Theory).

Another thread though.Kant and his supposition that no human endeavor is ever pure of selfish motivation.

[Danical]

Kant and his supposition that no human endeavor is ever pure of selfish motivation.

lulz @ Kant.

Even if he were right to assume no endeavor is completely selfless, it doesn't cut to the heart of the matter, what's the driving motivation for the behavior, or rather, the 51+% of motivation?

[Clove]

That's easy. Not being on fire. Because (with the possible exception of freezing to death) there isn't a human condition that can't be made worse by being ignited.

[Danical]

That's easy. Not being on fire. Because (with the possible exception of freezing to death) there isn't a human condition that can't be made worse by being ignited.

We're talking about two different things; being on fire doesn't have much to do with societal/ethical treatment of others.

[Clove]

Not being on fire is the prime mover. Why do you think people don't want to go to the Lake of Fire?!

[Tisket]

Another thread though.

Just what the PC needs...another religion thread.

[Danical]

Not being on fire is the prime mover. Why do you think people don't want to go to the Lake of Fire?!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Well played.

[SHAFT]

Who started this madness?

[Clove]

You.

[Stanley Burrell]

Who started this madness?

http://bp2.blogger.com/_LRQaZTU1fPc/SHUX8VP2mlI/AAAAAAAAAQw/hEAs9t8MQN4/s400/this+is+madness+with+kitten+blood!%5D.JPG

.

Oh and the Jews. Definitely the Jews.

[Tsa`ah]

No, I'm suggesting that the argument is moot in context to CT's statement. We can say "one of these religions is wrong" if they logically contradict each other. But without knowing P it would be as egotistical to say R* is wrong as it would be to say R* is right. Which is what Tsa'ah was doing.

Actually no.

You, just as CT did, completely misread or were/are incapable of understanding what was posted.

[Tsa`ah]

Are YOU an atheist? 02-25-2009 06:08 PM You're a fucking fool.

Are YOU an atheist? 02-24-2009 01:39 PM yor a cockend - Dbusiness

NO U!

Lol ... you guys are a riot.

[Clove]

Actually no.

You, just as CT did, completely misread or were/are incapable of understanding what was posted.You don't even know what you're talking about. Read a book.
It's also extremely annoying, not to mention bathed in ignorance...

...I find it wholly detestable that some child molesting, goat fucking, slack jaw is going to make it into "heaven" because he believes and each time he molests a child or fucks some unwilling farm animal ... he's forgiven simply because he asks to be. To put the cherry on top of it all ... he can do it all over again because he has faith and because he asks for forgiveness.Bathed in ignorance. Not unlike your grasp of Christianity.

What good does it do, my brothers, if someone claims to have faith but does not prove it with actions? This kind of faith cannot save him, can it? Suppose a brother or sister does not have any clothes or daily food and one of you tells them, “Go in peace! Stay warm and eat heartily.” If you do not provide for their bodily needs, what good does it do? In the same way, faith by itself, if it does not prove itself with actions, is dead.

James 2:14-17
Oh and the whine about your rep thread is over there.

[Tsa`ah]

You just really need some help ... or at the very least some major time without an internet connection.

[Danical]

text.

I think if you just said, "I think 'absolution' is a problematic christian tenet; how do you get around that?"

Instead of, "lolololretardslolololol." I get that you were only categorizing a specific group of Christians but still, just saying.

(How do you get around absolution without it being problematic? e.g., the murderer accepts Jesus into his heart and is granted absolution/salvation but the atheist that led a good life isn't)

[Tsa`ah]

I think if you just said, "I think 'absolution' is a problematic christian tenet; how do you get around that?"

Instead of, "lolololretardslolololol." I get that you were only categorizing a specific group of Christians but still, just saying.

(How do you get around absolution without it being problematic? e.g., the murderer accepts Jesus into his heart and is granted absolution/salvation but the atheist that led a good life isn't)

Now so much a group, rather a type.

Absolution in Christianity is often oversimplified to acceptance and prayer which leads to this notion of "I'm a sinner ... born into original sin ... therefore so long as I pray and believe, I don't have to try not sinning".

Or even the removal of personal responsibility via transference to satan. So my grievance is with the type and that can run parallel to the "What if you're wrong" crowd.

Absolution in Christianity, the way I see it, is by far more in depth than that.

[Elementz]

Just what the PC needs...another religion thread.

:ohshit: !!! I'll be back after work to post!!

[Apotheosis]

I think if you just said, "I think 'absolution' is a problematic christian tenet; how do you get around that?"

Instead of, "lolololretardslolololol." I get that you were only categorizing a specific group of Christians but still, just saying.

(How do you get around absolution without it being problematic? e.g., the murderer accepts Jesus into his heart and is granted absolution/salvation but the atheist that led a good life isn't)

Well, the complexity in "Salvation" is that there are about 40,000+ christian denominations out there claiming they all know the way to salvation.. all of them interpret the bible differently, many conservative, many liberal.

I tend to look at the Orthodox and Catholic churches definitions as a bit more solid, because well, the pretty much have a 2,000 year tradition which explains the point.

So, the Roman Catholic Church + Orthodox Church never presume anyone's salvation: Jew, Muslim, Pagan, Athiest: clearly that's between God & the person.... RCC and Orthodox Church is more of an "intermediary" and claims that their way, their ethos, creed, etc.. is more in line with biblical + traditional path towards salvation.

People seem to take issue with the fact that someone could be a mass murderer, but at the end of their life find some form of repentance and are "saved", however, a concept of a being that is infinitely merciful is kind've hard to wrap your head around....

[Tsa`ah]

People seem to take issue with the fact that someone could be a mass murderer, but at the end of their life find some form of repentance and are "saved", however, a concept of a being that is infinitely merciful is kind've hard to wrap your head around....

Ah ... now you're touching on something that is painfully absent in the crowd I was referring to, repentance ... and sincerity being another.

I'm Jewish ... heaven, hell, salvation .... all sort of odd to me considering atonement doesn't seem to be part of the process. I can respect sincere repentance, I can accept the notion of being Christ like, I can accept prayer ... and all of these things leading up to salvation.

I can't wrap my head around "forgive me lord ... I cheated on my wife again ... for the fifth time, with hookers and blow at the HoJo" ... and soon to be the sixth.

I can understand someone changing their life, and as such, being forgiven ... or whatever ... I can't understand repetitious behavior with each accounting being forgiven.

[CrystalTears]

People seem to take issue with the fact that someone could be a mass murderer, but at the end of their life find some form of repentance and are "saved", however, a concept of a being that is infinitely merciful is kind've hard to wrap your head around....
Except you would have to either know for sure or assume that said repentant murderer actually made it into heaven. Just because he went to confession and some priest said he was forgiven doesn't automatically mean that he was convincing enough to be let into heaven.

[Clove]

Except you would have to either know for sure or assume that said repentant murderer actually made it into heaven. Just because he went to confession and some priest said he was forgiven doesn't automatically mean that he was convincing enough to be let into heaven.Or even if any of us are any better than the murderer.

[Proxy]

a being that is infinitely merciful

mercy is for losers, The vengeful All Knowing-Lord of Hosts-Master of Legions-smiter of Egypt and destroyer of kings = Win. Oh, I'm Jewish btw. :)

[BigWorm]

Except you would have to either know for sure or assume that said repentant murderer actually made it into heaven. Just because he went to confession and some priest said he was forgiven doesn't automatically mean that he was convincing enough to be let into heaven.

He doesn't have to be convincing; he must be sincerely remorseful to receive absolution. The omniscient part of the Christian god means that you can't 'fool' him since he already knows the truth.

[CrystalTears]

He doesn't have to be convincing; he must be sincerely remorseful to receive absolution. The omniscient part of the Christian god means that you can't 'fool' him since he already knows the truth.
Well I mean convincing enough to himself of his sincerity.

[Proxy]

just because you convince your self a big steaming pile of corn filled camel dung is actually a yummy ripe apple isn't going to change the taste. So eat up sinners!

[Apotheosis]

mercy is for losers, The vengeful All Knowing-Lord of Hosts-Master of Legions-smiter of Egypt and destroyer of kings = Win. Oh, I'm Jewish btw. :)

and while that's true, Christians consider Christianity a continuation of Judiasm, ie: a continuation of the pact God made with Abraham, Moses, etc..

the crux of the idea of is that since, original sin was an act on the part of original humans, adam/eve, that the only thing that could act in reparation for that sin was the crucifixion of Christ, ie: his shed blood.. That the actual "kingdom" being spoken of is a spiritual kingdom and not one of matter/material.

christian (or Catholic/Orthodox, to clarify) teaches that "sin" is an act that separates one from God, that it's an offense that is "infinite" in nature. Because man was made "finite" by his own action, to return/regain their infinite nature God had to descend, ie: become human while retaining His divine nature, then dying, shedding his own blood to break the bonds of sin.

[Apotheosis]

Ah ... now you're touching on something that is painfully absent in the crowd I was referring to, repentance ... and sincerity being another.

I'm Jewish ... heaven, hell, salvation .... all sort of odd to me considering atonement doesn't seem to be part of the process. I can respect sincere repentance, I can accept the notion of being Christ like, I can accept prayer ... and all of these things leading up to salvation.

I can't wrap my head around "forgive me lord ... I cheated on my wife again ... for the fifth time, with hookers and blow at the HoJo" ... and soon to be the sixth.

I can understand someone changing their life, and as such, being forgiven ... or whatever ... I can't understand repetitious behavior with each accounting being forgiven.

right, and clearly, it's an abuse to continue returning to God and use "His" forgiving nature as an excuse to continue living a life that is antithetical to Noahide law, however, even the old Israelites went through periods where they turned from God, were delivered to their enemies/started to crumble and upon returning to Him, were delivered from their enemies, etc.

Clearly this showed a generational pattern of falling/repenting..

on a side note, here's a pretty interesting link to a Catholic Encyclopedia explaining the "Atonement of Christ"... although it may be considered blasphemy in Judiasm... ::shrugs::

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

[ElanthianSiren]

The idea of original sin is probably one of the oldest stories; god has human characteristics in it, which falls in line with the surrounding gods and goddesses of that time. It's ironic that "in the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth" bit of genesis is obviously written chronologically much later in that it tends toward the amorphous idea of god and the universe.

How do we know however that original sin exists? Oh it must! It's in the documents! How do we know that god doesn't REALLY think that wearing pink is a heinous trespass? -Because a church/book hasn't told us. I simply can't move past that to thinking any organized religion has merit. I marvel at people, however, who are willing to put so much faith in a parcel of stories that are thousands of years old and have been translated, edited, and re-edited. That's amazing to me and is beyond my power of comprehension to be honest.

[Deathravin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkCuc34hvD4&feature=haxa_popt00us13