Breaking news; the tea party is retarded

Belief is a basis for behavior. Those that do not believe God exists, will actively behave according to that belief. For instance, take an action that is considered to be immoral by religions, but is not illegal. What reason would an atheist have to not do it? Especially if he/she has a reason to do it and were never raised to believe that it was wrong? A person who was uncertain about whether or not God exists might not do the action because of the possiblity that God exists, but someone who *believes* that God doesn't exist will no motivation for not doing it because of their certainity that God doesn't exist.

How can they have the answer of IDK when they never heard the question? Did you not understand my point that was demonstrated by the behavior of light? The absence of choice creates a third outcome that is different from a choice being made. There is a deterministic difference between making a choice and not making a choice; therefore, there is a difference between not making a choice whether or not to believe that God exists and a choice to believe that God doesn't exist.



Key difference of behavior in the question at hand is the difference between "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." (Psalm 14:1) and "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." (Proverbs 1:7)

Gross, though tormented, fears God (perhaps reclucantly) which is indicated by the wisdom that he speaks and his willingness to put his deeds in the light. Smuel values his pride over wisdom & instruction, and speaks the same foolishness over and over again while resisting those who would teach him anything that requires that he admit he's wrong.

Jojobobo spoke of me providing miracles... Here is a miracle that proves Jesus has power to perform such (and the authority to share his power with his followers) -- Gross's torments coming to an end. How the miracle is to be performed? Gross must believe in the power of Jesus' name to save him from his torments by repenting of his wrongdoings and being water baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost by immersion as a public testimony of your faith in the power of Jesus.

Gross, do you think that the test is worth it? Does the hope of being without your torments give you the courage to test God and see if God is good? All you have to do is turn from wrong doing (which I believe that you are already doing) and get water baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Isn't getting wet worth it? If you truly and without repentence accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, God will give you the spiritual gifts necessary to combat your torments. If you want to try to end your torments on your own, you can continue to do so, but be aware that this promise will be available to you whenever you choose it.

May the Lord who is heaven testify of the power that He has given and make this so.

 

You can learn about morals from other sources than religion, you know.

 

Oh you wanna talk about behavior and how it comes from religion? A person can be made to do anything of his own free will no matter of his religion or political views, you know that right?

 

Care to bring example of "omfg atheists are breaking religion moral rules" behavior?

 

"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man:" 1 Corinthians 10:13a

Behaviors that may be used to illustrate such is drunkness, blasphemy, anarchists (which is contrary to the Noahide command to establish governments) and sexual immorality (such as adultery). You know, basic moral rules that are advocated by religion but not secularism.

 

Lacking belief before a concept is introduced isn't a choice, though, unless you count a choice as being made for you via it happening in your own future upon introduction. Whether or not a concept has or hasn't proof to back it is irrelevant, because after knowledge of the initial idea comes the choice. This is where we differ. You can have as much evidence as you want for a physical origin of the universe, but there's still a select group of people who won't believe in that origin once the concept is introduced because it doesn't fit what they already know. You can call them idiots if you want, but bear in mind they'll call you any variant of a religious condemnation. It's the same issue on differing sides, and religious influence was so strong at one point in time that any serious atheist was considered in denial, as in, "God is a fact. You're denying the truth." You're saying nearly the same thing to people who tell you there is actually a god, but only because now you know it's a concept. If you didn't have the idea introduced, it wouldn't be a topic of discussion as to whether or not there is/is not an ultimate creator. The reason your point makes no sense is because you're equating default ignorance with a choice being made upon discovery. It's not "disbelief" if you've never heard of it, it's a lack of knowledge.

What? Agnostic atheist says, "I don't readily accept the concept of any known deity because such a being is incomprehensible."

Dogmatic atheist says, "There is no God, and you're wasting time praying to nothing."

It's not the relative belief in the concept, it's how a person reaches it. Wouldn't you notice there's a definite distinction in those two conclusions about the existence of God? Those opinions exist, Smuel, and those two people aren't both agnostic.

We had an argument about me being an atheist, and I accepted that I am. However, I'v reached that conclusion through a lack of knowledge on a specific idea and admit that should there be a God, I certainly wouldn't know the difference between there being or not being one simply because it's not a knowable issue.

I do recall disagreeing with you several times about distinctions between atheists, and we both have said that atheists don't all come to the same conclusion in an identical way, a.k.a. don't think the same things. I've also several times used the word agnostic to delineate myself from people who share the same base idea but adamantly reject the possibility if that idea being false. I don't see how you can yourself make a distinction between active (aka strong or dogmatic) atheists and passive (aka weak or agnostic) atheists without realizing yourself that they're not the same thing.

Another interesting note is you automatically equated atheist with areligious, and both are not always hand in hand.

However, I ended up curious about one thing during our discussion - there were several things you stopped arguing about as the conversation evolved. I was doing the same thing initially, but I decided to start giving people a heads up when I agreed with something as opposed to agreeing and dropping it, because I understand the confusion (especially now). Do you agree or disagree with those things?

God helps those who help themselves, which is a rather circular statement - who's doing the work? I was baptized shortly after I was born. Whatever gifts are to be given I would guess I already possess to some degree, allowing me to succeed. Now, in light of that, perhaps by God helping those who help themselves, it's meant that people are born with whatever gifts they feel are "given" at a later date, and by having discovered them and eventually using them, that is how they are helped.

Humans are fallible, and I can't deny my moral shortcomings any more than the next person, but I've already chosen to live a life both for myself and people I care for/will care for in the future. Should there be something after this life of mine is over, I would think I won't be judged harshly. If there's not anything, then I lived a good life and my family will remember what I've done. So perhaps, should a big enough statement be made in one person's life, they do attain a form of immortality, but a lack of sentience - as they live on in people's memories.

If you forget your life once in heaven, actually being near God is so incredible you don't need to remember what you've done to be happy, though I find being robbed of the experiences I had gained in my body somewhat disappointing. No love, no anger, no fear, no happiness, for what is described as eternity. I fear no longer being myself as I have come to understand.

 

That's all very well and good, Xyle, but you still can't give me an example of such an action.

None of these work, because there are religious people who get drunk, commit blasphemy, are against government, and commit adultery. Just because you see a man getting drunk, you can't reasonably conclude that he is an atheist.

No, see, there are two different types of making a choice. There are "A or B" type choices, and there are "A or not" type choices. An "A or B" type choice is "Would you like vanilla or chocolate pudding?" In this scenario, you are going to have some pudding, and the choice is between two equal things. An "A or not" type choice is "Would you like some pudding?" Here the question is not between two equal things - because having pudding is not equal to not having it.

The key difference between these two types of choice is that the "A or not" type has a default option, which is the same as not making the choice at all. In the case of "A or not", if you avoid the question or can't make your mind up, you'll end up with the "not" option, because that's the option you started with before the choice was introduced. Whereas in the case of "A or B", putting off the decision means you don't get either. In fact, "A or B" is usually "A or B or not", with "not" being the default.

In the case of religion, atheism is the "not" case. You can actively choose to be a christian or a muslim or a hindu, but if you don't make any choice at all then you end up as an atheist, which is what you started as.

No, there isn't - both result in not believing in God.

Given that I've already said that I changed my mind about what "agnostic" means, I don't think this is a fair characterization of me. Also, I've carefully laid out exactly the kind of example you would need to produce in order to invalidate my argument. The fact that you seem unable to do so has nothing to do with my pride.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

So what? Lacking belief before a concept is introduced is lacking belief. Lacking belief after a concept is introduced is also lacking belief. What's the difference in the end result?

no u. The reason that your position doesn't add up is that there is no difference in the end result. Imagine a world where religion was never invented. Everyone would be atheist, right? Through ignorance, says you, but still - they're all atheists. Now imagine a world like ours, but where religion has already completely died out, except for a handful of believers clinging to their old beliefs. What's the difference between those two worlds? I mean, really? They're both full of atheists doing atheisty things like not going to church and not praying. If it were the case that atheists in our world had to keep remembering to be atheist, desperately keeping the concept of God at bay lest they fall into inevitable theism, then you might have a point, but that's not what being an atheist is like.

If you agree that there's no real difference between those two worlds, then we're only arguing about the path taken to get there, and that's not really so important to me.

I don't think there is any distinction worth mentioning. Both those guys don't believe in God. The agnostic atheist must also think it's a waste of time praying to nothing (because he's an atheist). The only difference is that he's phrased his opinion in a more polite way.

Are we really just arguing about politeness? I agree that there are polite atheists, and impolite atheists.

I think that all atheists are agnostic atheists. You're the one who says that, no, some of them are "dogmatic atheists". As far as I know I've never made that distinction, other than to say that some atheists appear more active because they write forum posts about it, whereas others are passive because they roll their eyes at the discussion instead. But that's not because there's a difference in the atheism - they just have diffierent attitudes towards debating on the internet.

Sorry, I'm not going to go back and review the whole thread to find all the things we agree on. But a few posts ago I wrote that the only thing we seemed to still disagree about was whether disbelief requires as much conviction as belief. That's still our only major sticking point as far as I know.

Apart from the crazy future dream stuff, obviously.

 

You changed your mind about the definition of agnostic? Win!

Who had money on a clear victory within 11 pages?

I consider Gross' win as my own, as we are both facets of the same hivemind.

Resistance is futile.

 

Every time I go back into this thread and see another 2 screen long vertical scroll-length post with about 7 embedded responses/counterarguments......

Well, I smile to myself and take another sip of my beer.

 

Now that's a happy shitfaced person if I've ever seen one.

 

You have a couch that you can't move by yourself, so you get help. If you have a difficulty accomplishing the impossible, you get God to help. If you ask someone for help then do nothing, that isn't asking for help that is asking that person to do it for you. The characteristic of the word "help" is such that it requires the asker and the helper to both perform the labor. So yes, if you ask God for help, He will wait until you are ready to carry your end of the "couch". But if you want God to do it for you so that He does all the work, then you better being willing to give God all of the glory, otherwise His anger will be kindled against you.

By immersion? And as a testimony of your faith that Jesus saves? A baby doesn't have a choice as to whether or not he is to be baptized. Therefore, the baptism of a baby doesn't serve as a testimony that the baptism is supposed to serve.

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Colossians 2:8

Jesus himself told of how we obtain heaven: "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5) Acts 2:38 tells us how to be born of the Spirit: "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Infant baptisms are not "being born of water" any more than losing my foreskin makes me a Jew. Just like the act of eating bread and drinking wine isn't communion unless you are performing the ritual of communion in order to remember Jesus' sacrifice, and saying "I do" isn't marriage unless you are engaged in the ritual of getting married. The rituals that we do aren't done for the sack of doing them, they form specific bonds (covenants) between us and another. All an infant baptism does is "betroth" you to God as that is the extent of your parents' authority, to "marry" God (that is, to be one with the body of Christ) you must enter into it of your own volition via the rituals that God prescribes which is baptism by water and baptism by Spirit.

The gifts of which I speak are not natural gifts that are the abilities God gives when we are born (because those glorify the flesh). The gifts of which I speak are the spiritual gifts that God gives when one is born of Spirit:

• "But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these works that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will." 1 Corinthians 12:7-11

How does your words convey Faith? "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11:6) & "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith." (Galatians 3:11) & "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." (James 2:26)

Where is your Faith? You can have doubts and still have faith, but you didn't add a "I believe in Jesus anyways" statement. Faith is a by-product of being born of Spirit (A "fruit of the Spirit", Galatians 5:22-23). If you don't produce fruit, you are a dead branch upon the vine of Jesus. "I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit." (John 15:1-2)

Perhaps you are saved and are equipped with spiritual gifts, in which case your torment isn't a by-product of your damnation, instead it is a product of spiritual warfare. In which case, my council shouldn't that you get saved, it should be to encourage you to find a church in order so that you can form a phalanx against the enemies attacks and to encourage you to equip yourself with the Armour of God (Ephesians 6:10-18 ).

• Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
  Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

Note the helmet of salvation. In order to protect your mind, you should equip yourself with the helmet of salvation -- when you doubt your own salvation, you become open to attacks upon your mind. If the source of doubt is the lack of adult baptism, get baptized. If the source of your doubt is uncertainty about spiritual gifts, find another to testify that you have the gift(s) that you believe that you have. For every attack there is a defense: "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." (1 Corinthians 10:13)

Those that are a part of Christ are a body, an entity, a single thing that grows or dies as one. Being part of a Christian community that has a solid foundation upon Christ is important because we are to edify one another (I Cor 12-14). As there is no cell that stands alone within the human body, nor is there any believer who stands without the support of the prayers of others.

A single stick is easily broken, but a bundle of sticks will prevent any from breaking.

 

Whenever I can't sleep at night, I look at this thread. It puts me out like none other.

Also: be aware that there is some minor post pruning going on. Since this thread is still somehow on topic (ish), I'll be removing all "LOLZ U R DUMB" or simply inflammatory posts that don't enhance the conversation.

If you're looking at this going "what post(s) did you delete?" then just realize I'm good at what I do.

 

Duh! That's why I gave the verse that I gave. But the question was on potential immoral behaviors that can be justified by atheistic perceptions and I didn't feel that it should be ignored.

Option A) Vanilla. Option B) Chocolate. Option C) No pudding. Option D) Both.

Option A) Yes. Option B) No. Option C) Later.

This understanding is a by-product of the three answers that pray provides: Yes, No, and Wait. Oftentimes, when Christians pray, the answer doesn't come when they expect it to; therefore, it has become necessary for pastors to remind their flock that sometimes the answer is "Wait".

Atheism is option B, and not option C. Those that are undecided are not atheists, they are those that who are delaying their choice.

For example, Life outside of earth: Nothing in science or scripture completely disproves the notion; however, nothing proves it either. People have three options with regards to ET life: Believe, Disbelieve, or Wait. I do not believe that life exists out in the cosmos, but I don't disbelieve that life exists out there either. The position of disbelieve is an active position that resists believe. The position of "wait" is a neutral position that is willing to accept the possibilities. A person who says "No" to the pudding will not be eating pudding. A person who says "wait" or "later" may be eating pudding at a later date.

I'm sorry. I was creating a dichotomy that served as a potential differential between two concepts in order to create an energy flow that I channeled in order to move the dialogue in a different direction (and I am also sorry about the "WTF explanation"). I should not have called you prideful because even prideful people can be humble... um, I am also sorry that my apology doesn't sound like an apology?

 

Somehow my posts mocking everybody and everything still stay in. I think DF has a crush on me!

 

Nah, he just agrees with you...

Our posts really are too long to read sober and "sane". With "sane" meaning uninterested in petty theological debates.

 

It's not the end result I'm arguing about, it's the process leading to that result. It's like saying there's no distinction between an echidna and a kiwi, because both animals lay eggs and live in Oceania. I could also take your logic and apply it to ruminants in general, because they all have more than one stomach and reprocess food before digesting it.

Also, you could have a nasty cut going across the back of your non-dominant hand. You could either stitch it up, or cut off your entire hand - what's the difference in the end result? None, because both processes result in the cut no longer being important, and both processes require maintenance to prevent infection.

We're arguing about the path, Smuel. That's been my disagreement the whole time. This planet of no gods, no religions, is the same as any one culture on earth that developed with no religion or god to idolize, and there are quite a few. They had no outside knowledge of such an idea until it was introduced, and upon introduction they invariably end up making a choice. The choice is an active process, lacking in a choice involves no decision.

It's not polite and impolite, because you can very easily be dogmatic and not get into theistic arguments with a "No thanks. I don't talk about 'God'."

The agnostic is stating the "known" concept of God isn't believable given the scope of such a being, and is quite reticent to make a bold assertion about things that are unknown other than, "I don't know."

The dogmatic is stating there's no God. Period. No "I don't know," rather, "I do know God is imaginary."

That's no so much of a passive or active ideology so much as it's a personality. Given your explanation, I understand what you said in the previous post much more accurately and apologize for putting words in your mouth. There's a clear distinction between "strong" and "weak" atheism, however = which is why I continue attempting to tell you there are both dogmatic and agnostic atheists.

You did say that, but you had dropped a few issues before and I didn't know why. I suppose if that's what you feel at this point, I do quite agree.

This, on the other hand, will need to wait until the Japanese perfect their dream viewing machine. You know, provided they don't keep it to themselves to make the world's best pornography.

 

I have a question for all religious people. Do you believe in everything people tell you? Because, you see, I'm a bit frustrated with your hypocritical tendancies to pick and choose what invisible, incomprehensible stuff you take for "truth". Is the epic of Gilgamesh real? Did the Greeks get it right with their demi-gods and whatnot? Are all religions true? And what about fairytales and folklore? Does dragons and trolls exist, too?

And if you don't believe any of these things exist, I'd like a damn good explanation why.

I'll continue with explaining why I don't believe in any of it. Reason one? It's hogwash. These stories and ideas were born in the mins of people who lived a long, long time ago. They understood less and little of their world, and in order to make things understandable or in order to set up rules of living they established these stories and such to help with the mind-numbing uncomprehensiveness of it all. We still do this, mind you, dreaming of aliens and abductions and fancy theories on the origin of the universe. The truth? We just don't know yet, but we have started on a path that will, hopefully, lead us to more truth and less fiction. That said, I don't believe blindly in every scientific theory. I see these theories as the furthest we've come this far, but I expect much more to come before we arrive at the truth (if we can ever reach it, that is). Why can you not see that the world view of people who lived more than two thousand years ago might be a bit outdated? We have made progress since then. Gods and dragons are the same thing, the stuff of myth.

Should we discard all the knowledge of our predecessors, then? Of course not. There is wisdom to be found in many of the things these people dreamed up, but we mustn't get caught up in the way they were trying to communicate their wisdom.

Why do I not believe in Gods, dragons or the spiritual world? Because we dreamed of them first, and not the other way around.

 

Crazy liberals with their gay marriages.

You're nearly there. The key point is that B) and C) are in effect the same thing. You are not having any pudding right now. Just because C) acknowledges that you may change your mind later, it doesn't alter the reality of your current choice, which is "no pudding". Even if you go for B) you might still change your mind later. Really, there is no effective difference between B) and C).

Again - there is no difference between "No" and "Wait". Both manifest themselves in the same way - your prayer is not being "answered" at the moment. Maybe it will be answered later, or maybe it won't, but you don't know, because there is no difference in what you experience.

See, I don't think it's actually possible to be neutral on that subject. Since there isn't any proof either way, the question is whether or not you think it's possible that such life could exist. If you're going for the "wait" option then you must think it's possible, because if you thought it was impossible then you would be in the "disbelieve" camp, by definition. So, weirdly, in this case the default "wait" option is the same as "believe".

I appreciate that you wrote this. But I note that you are still have not provided an example of an "atheist activity". Does that mean you accept that there is no such thing?

- - - - - - - - - -

Well then lets stop arguing, because I only care about the end result.

Yeah, see, we agre... what?

Erm... that in one case, you still have a hand? Honestly, these are not good examples of how different paths can lead to the same result.

Presumably you don't think that the planet where religion was never invented is the same as the one where religion has died out, because you think that the latter one is full of people with conviction about the matter. Do you think that each generation of parents tell their children "There's this concept called God that you mustn't believe in."? That doesn't seem right to me - I expect they just wouldn't mention it. And if they go around not mentioning it at all, and not really ever thinking about it, how can you say they have conviction?

I read that link with trepidation, thinking that it would contradict my position. But it actually says that all atheists are agnostic, by definition, and that a "strong" atheist is one who takes the "weak" lack of belief slightly further and actively denies the existence of specific Gods. This is what I've said before, and it also chimes with my experience which is that I've never encountered an atheist who is prepared to state categorically that a divine entity is impossible. If you catch one saying that, and you press them on the issue, it invariably turns out that what they mean is that all of the specific Gods that have been proposed by religion have turned out not to exist, so the chances are that none exist at all. This is a weaker assertion than "impossible" and I honestly don't see what you would find unreasonable about it.

Though I expect you read that link and decided it fully supported your position too. So we're probably going to have to disagree to agree, as usual.