Why Atheists Have *MUCH* more Faith than any Believer....
obscurity
[xposted & followups set]
On 27 Apr 1998 00:53:24 GMT, Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
> obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> wrote:
>
> : Do you want to hear about my theory on why atheists have *much* more faith
> : than any believer ?
>
> Ah, =FINALLY= a topic worthy of net.religion.flame....
(Yeah, that's why I didn't post it there :) )
Anyway, the theory :
If the believer is wrong, then they look a little foolish.
If the atheist is wrong, then they are in *big* trouble.
Therefore, it takes a *lot* more faith to proclam 'God does not exist'
than it does to proclaim 'God does exist'.
--
obscurity. God does not exi<Zzap!> NO CARRIER
"Only the great masters of style ever succeed in being obscure." - Oscar Wilde
Nick Manka
In article <Apr-27-02.36...@burnout.demon.co.uk>,
obsc...@obscure.org (obscurity) writes:
> [xposted & followups set]
>
> On 27 Apr 1998 00:53:24 GMT, Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
>> obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> wrote:
>>
<sets the "cynical, sardonic, and downright mean dial to '11'>
> Anyway, the theory :
> If the believer is wrong, then they look a little foolish.
> If the atheist is wrong, then they are in *big* trouble.
> Therefore, it takes a *lot* more faith to proclam 'God does not exist'
> than it does to proclaim 'God does exist'.
I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. It's like .. a lame reinterpretation
of the silly logic Pascal used for his Gambit [1].
One glaringly obvious flaw is that there are about eight hundred
religions, most of which are fairly incompatible and a good number
of which prophesize eternal damnation for everyone else. Do you
know how many devils/daemons are gods in other religions? I think
that a god would go a lot easier on a non-believer that a heretical
paganistic heathen devil worshipper, don't you?
I mean, what happens when your religion is from a seafaring nation
who reveres the Sea Goddess Bustia while the landlocked nation next
door thinks she's the vile (but awfully good looking in a haltertop)
temptress of death and damnation? Which religion are you going to
play your cards on?
Come on, total abscence of faith cannot be faith. I could understand
phrasing this:
"It takes a lot more balls to say there is no god"
or
"It takes a lot more thought to say there is no god"
or
"It takes someone who took an introduction to statistics class to
say there is an insignificant chance of a god existing"
or
"Hi, I never bothered to look up what faith meant before I started
accusing people of it"
Atheism, fundamentally, is absence of faith. I can say, as an
athiest, "I have faith a bunch of zealots are gonna flame me for
this,", but that is a figure of speech indicating a teaspoon of
statistical analysis and a tiny bit of logical assumption and my
having read the Followups-To: line. Take it from me, atheism implies
"no faith" - really, I'm sure, been there, done that, have souveniers.
If the believer is wrong, it proves they were gullible. If the
athiest is wrong, we've ALL got a rough ride ahead, because we're
at the whim of some omnipotent being who couldn't conjure up the
power to actually generate any proof of his existence and also
never bothered to create a self-consistent universe.
[1] Here's that gambit, paraphrased:
If the believer is wrong, and God does not exist, he just dies.
If the athiest is wrong, and God does exist, he pays the eternal price.
Pascal, strongly typed religion with little direct reality addressing.
--
Nick
I am not an atomic playboy.
Peter da Silva
In article <6i0tc2$j...@bonkers.taronga.com>,
You were going real well up to here. Look up "agnostic".
>If the believer is wrong, it proves they were gullible. If the
>athiest is wrong, we've ALL got a rough ride ahead, because we're
>at the whim of some omnipotent being who couldn't conjure up the
>power to actually generate any proof of his existence and also
>never bothered to create a self-consistent universe.
Gene Roddenberry.
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
| "Open": a warning label on a product or organization to let you know that |
| it is more proprietary and restrictive than its competitors. |
carpe carpus
In article <Apr-27-02.36...@burnout.demon.co.uk>,
obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> wrote:
>Anyway, the theory :
> If the believer is wrong, then they look a little foolish.
> If the atheist is wrong, then they are in *big* trouble.
> Therefore, it takes a *lot* more faith to proclam 'God does not exist'
> than it does to proclaim 'God does exist'.
Faith is the wrong word there. So your theory falls apart.
rone
--
I am ahead
I am advanced
I am the first mammal to wear pants
Kai Henningsen
ni...@taronga.com (Nick Manka) wrote on 27.04.98 in <6i0tc2$j...@bonkers.taronga.com>:
> I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. It's like .. a lame reinterpretation
> of the silly logic Pascal used for his Gambit [1].
For some silly reason, religious people arguing against not-believing-at-
all always seem to make this error, just as if they all thought it was
quite obvious which god to believe in. Mysteriously, atheists or agnostics
never seem to buy that.
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)
Nick Manka
In article <6i1p7e$s...@bonkers.taronga.com>,
pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> In article <6i0tc2$j...@bonkers.taronga.com>,
> Nick Manka <ni...@taronga.com> wrote:
>>Atheism, fundamentally, is absence of faith.
>
> You were going real well up to here. Look up "agnostic".
I see your point, but I think the statement makes sense either way
unless you decide to get into particulars, which is really beyond
the scope of what I said, unless we want to have an Oprah moment
with a bunch of atheists and agnostics coming forward to speak
their minds and excersize their necks.
>>If the believer is wrong, it proves they were gullible. If the
>>athiest is wrong, we've ALL got a rough ride ahead, because we're
>>at the whim of some omnipotent being who couldn't conjure up the
>>power to actually generate any proof of his existence and also
>>never bothered to create a self-consistent universe.
>
> Gene Roddenberry.
Ouch. Too true.
--
Nick "Who needs god, I've got an HP calculator"
obscurity
On 27 Apr 1998 03:17:22 GMT, Nick Manka <ni...@taronga.com> wrote:
> In article <Apr-27-02.36...@burnout.demon.co.uk>,
> obsc...@obscure.org (obscurity) writes:
>
> <sets the "cynical, sardonic, and downright mean dial to '11'>
Now, you're just *begging* me to reply along the lines of "Shame you forgot
the thought dial", aren't you ? Well, I'm not going to do it. So there. :)
> > Anyway, the theory :
> > If the believer is wrong, then they look a little foolish.
> > If the atheist is wrong, then they are in *big* trouble.
> > Therefore, it takes a *lot* more faith to proclam 'God does not exist'
> > than it does to proclaim 'God does exist'.
>
>
> I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. It's like .. a lame reinterpretation
> of the silly logic Pascal used for his Gambit [1].
Whatever else it may be, it's not a reinterpretation of anything. It's
something that occured to me independantly, without having heard of Pascal's
Gambit. (Sounds like an opening move in chess.). I take full responsibility
for my own lameness ! :)
> One glaringly obvious flaw is that there are about eight hundred
> religions, most of which are fairly incompatible and a good number
> of which prophesize eternal damnation for everyone else. Do you
> know how many devils/daemons are gods in other religions? I think
> that a god would go a lot easier on a non-believer that a heretical
> paganistic heathen devil worshipper, don't you?
So what's he gonna do - send me halfway to hell ? Perhaps some timeshare
system where I get two weeks a year in heaven ?
But I'll grant that the existence of multiple religions makes it a less
cut-and-dry scenario than I originally painted, so let's look at it in a
little more depth :
The believer can either :
Look foolish (in a half-decomposed kinda way), as there is no god,
be lucky, as he believed in the right god
or be in big trouble, as he believed in the wrong god.
The atheist can either :
Look smug (in a half-decomposed kinda way) as there is no god,
or be in big trouble, as he didn't believe in god.
Now, the chance of there being a god is the same for both the believer and
the atheist. Let's say it's 50% (it really doesn't matter what percent you
choose). That gives the atheist a 50% chance of decomposing, and a 50%
chance of being in deep doo-doo. The believer has a 50% chance of
decomposing, an x% chance of being lucky, and a (50-x)% chance of being
damned unlucky. As there is possibility of the believer picking the right
god, x has to be greater than zero. So even if the believer has a chance of
being damned, it's less than the chance of the atheist.
I'll freely admit that this theory does fall somewhat flat on it's face when
you come to the religions that have no concept of heaven and hell, so take
'believer' to mean those that *do* believe in a heaven/hell religion.
> Come on, total abscence of faith cannot be faith.
You seem to think atheism is the absence of faith. I think you may be
mistaking it for agnosticism.
> I could understand
> phrasing this:
[snip]
> or
> "Hi, I never bothered to look up what faith meant before I started
> accusing people of it"
From the Concise Oxford (8th Edition) :
Faith n. 1 Complete trust or confidence.
2 Firm belief esp. without logical proof.
3a a system of religious belief
3b belief in religious doctrines
4 duty or commitment to fulfil a trust, promise etc.
5 (attrib.) concerned with a supposed ability to cure by faith
rather than treatment (faith-healing)
I have complete confidence that there is no god. I have a firm belief that
there is no god, yet I have no logical proof. Using both the first and
second definitions given above, I have faith that there is no god.
> Atheism, fundamentally, is absence of faith.
That would be "Hi, I never bothered to look up what atheism meant before I
started accusing people of it", would it ?
I can say, as an
> athiest, "I have faith a bunch of zealots are gonna flame me for
> this,", but that is a figure of speech indicating a teaspoon of
> statistical analysis and a tiny bit of logical assumption and my
> having read the Followups-To: line. Take it from me, atheism implies
> "no faith" - really, I'm sure, been there, done that, have souveniers.
I'd rather take it from a dictionary, thanks all the same. They seem
somewhat better informed.
> If the believer is wrong, it proves they were gullible. If the
> athiest is wrong, we've ALL got a rough ride ahead, because we're
> at the whim of some omnipotent being who couldn't conjure up the
> power to actually generate any proof of his existence and also
> never bothered to create a self-consistent universe.
So what your saying is that if the believer is wrong, they look silly, and
if the believer is right, they're in trouble ? That still doesn't imply a
great deal of faith (just insanity :) ).
PS: There should probably have been a smiley attached to the theory - it's a
kinda playful thing. It's not one that I'm gonna go on a holy war to defend
- if you hadn't made it so easy, I probably wouldn't have bothered :)
--
obscurity. Selling ruin to the ruined.
obscurity
On 27 Apr 1998 10:51:44 -0700, carpe carpus <rone+...@ennui.org> wrote:
> In article <Apr-27-02.36...@burnout.demon.co.uk>,
> >Anyway, the theory :
> > If the believer is wrong, then they look a little foolish.
> > If the atheist is wrong, then they are in *big* trouble.
> > Therefore, it takes a *lot* more faith to proclam 'God does not exist'
> > than it does to proclaim 'God does exist'.
>
Really ? In what way ? And what, do you suggest, is the right word ?
(I'm using it in the 'complete trust or confidence' sense.)
--
obscurity.
carpe carpus
In article <Apr-27-22.48...@burnout.demon.co.uk>,
obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> wrote:
>On 27 Apr 1998 10:51:44 -0700, carpe carpus <rone+...@ennui.org> wrote:
>> In article <Apr-27-02.36...@burnout.demon.co.uk>,
>> obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> wrote:
>> >Anyway, the theory :
>> > If the believer is wrong, then they look a little foolish.
>> > If the atheist is wrong, then they are in *big* trouble.
>> > Therefore, it takes a *lot* more faith to proclam 'God does not exist'
>> > than it does to proclaim 'God does exist'.
>> Faith is the wrong word there. So your theory falls apart.
>Really ? In what way ? And what, do you suggest, is the right word ?
>(I'm using it in the 'complete trust or confidence' sense.)
Well, i asked the Episcopal priest during Sunday's sermon[1] what she
thought was the difference between trust and faith. She said that
faith carries a more religious meaning, as well as the fact that trust
is something that is built between people, whereas faith is what leads
to understanding one's Creator more closely.
Theorem: An atheist does not have faith. To wit: He may have utter
confidence in the inexistence of God, but that does not equate faith,
usually because he has intellectualized the circumstances regarding
the status of such a deity in our reality. Intellectualization
precludes faith. Q.E.D.
rone
[1]: yes, i go to sunday sermon on occasion, it's very interesting to
hear. plus the priests at the church are extra cool.
Peter da Silva
In article <Apr-27-21.21...@burnout.demon.co.uk>,
obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> wrote:
>So what's he gonna do - send me halfway to hell ? Perhaps some timeshare
>system where I get two weeks a year in heaven ?
No, stick you in a nastier place than you would have been if you were a mere
agnostic. Check out the Inferno some time. Unbelievers got limbo. Heretics
got ... I don't recall, but trying to walk around with a pitchfork in an
uncomfortable place was one of the options.
Jeremy.
In net.religion.flame, Peter da Silva (pe...@taronga.com) said...
>Nick Manka <ni...@taronga.com> wrote:
>>Is doing thinly veiled personal attacks wrapped in petty hypocrisy
>>en vogue now?
>
>This is a FLAME group. Of COURSE it is.
Oh, you want to shout about it? :-)
-J.
(they have the religion part w/o the flamage, I figure we ca get a good
fight started w/o the religion and it'll all balance out).
--
No lover's ever faithful / No contract truly signed...
Never take a stranger's advice / Never let a friend fool you twice...
Never stay a minute too long / Don't forget the best will go wrong.
--"Nobody's on Nobody's Side", _Chess_
Nick Manka
In article <Apr-27-21.21...@burnout.demon.co.uk>,
obsc...@obscure.org (obscurity) writes:
>> <sets the "cynical, sardonic, and downright mean dial to '11'>
>
> Now, you're just *begging* me to reply along the lines of "Shame you forgot
> the thought dial", aren't you ? Well, I'm not going to do it. So there. :)
Is doing thinly veiled personal attacks wrapped in petty hypocrisy
en vogue now?
> But I'll grant that the existence of multiple religions makes it a less
> cut-and-dry scenario than I originally painted, so let's look at it in a
> little more depth :
Please, do.
> The believer can either :
> Look foolish (in a half-decomposed kinda way), as there is no god,
> be lucky, as he believed in the right god
> or be in big trouble, as he believed in the wrong god.
> The atheist can either :
> Look smug (in a half-decomposed kinda way) as there is no god,
> or be in big trouble, as he didn't believe in god.
I thought you were going into depth?
> Now, the chance of there being a god is the same for both the believer and
> the atheist. Let's say it's 50% (it really doesn't matter what percent you
> choose).
Actually, it does. If there is a .000000000000000000000000000000001%
chance that god exists (which is lenient if you ask me), your little
proof fails, because regardlesss of the hypothetical value of x
the atheist has probability on his side. Your formula only works
at values of god greater than or equal to 50%.
> That gives the atheist a 50% chance of decomposing, and a 50%
> chance of being in deep doo-doo. The believer has a 50% chance of
> decomposing, an x% chance of being lucky, and a (50-x)% chance of being
> damned unlucky. As there is possibility of the believer picking the right
> god, x has to be greater than zero. So even if the believer has a chance of
> being damned, it's less than the chance of the atheist.
Your situation is poorly constructed, but for the sake of argument:
x = 50 / number of gods. That number will rapidly approach zero,
and is insignificant with only a thousand gods.
> I'll freely admit that this theory does fall somewhat flat on it's face when
> you come to the religions that have no concept of heaven and hell, so take
> 'believer' to mean those that *do* believe in a heaven/hell religion.
>
>> Come on, total abscence of faith cannot be faith.
>
> You seem to think atheism is the absence of faith. I think you may be
> mistaking it for agnosticism.
No, I was taking for granted the idea that betting on a sure thing
requires no faith to expect to win. I'm sure a meteorite isn't
going to smack into me on the freeway. I have no faith that it
won't, but externally it resembles the same thing.
I was also taking for granted that all atheists will have rationalized
the lack of a deity, which means that don't need any faith - they've
got all the facts or statistics they need, and nobody else has got
any. I have the whole universe to tell me that there is no god.
How much faith can it require to agree with it?
>> I could understand
>> phrasing this:
> [snip]
>> or
>> "Hi, I never bothered to look up what faith meant before I started
>> accusing people of it"
>
> From the Concise Oxford (8th Edition) :
Meta:
If you really wanted to be bitchy you should have gotten the latest
Black's Law. That one really pisses people off. At least you didn't
used an abridged Webster's, so, bravo.
EOM
> Faith n. 1 Complete trust or confidence.
Yes, as an atheist, I have none of that. I could be proved wrong about
there not being a god. I'm not holding my breath waiting.
>> Atheism, fundamentally, is absence of faith.
>
> That would be "Hi, I never bothered to look up what atheism meant before I
> started accusing people of it", would it ?
No, it would be the aforementioned "I took for granted ... " My
mistake.
>> If the believer is wrong, it proves they were gullible. If the
>> athiest is wrong, we've ALL got a rough ride ahead, because we're
>> at the whim of some omnipotent being who couldn't conjure up the
>> power to actually generate any proof of his existence and also
>> never bothered to create a self-consistent universe.
>
> So what your saying is that if the believer is wrong, they look silly, and
> if the believer is right, they're in trouble ? That still doesn't imply a
> great deal of faith (just insanity :) ).
Believers insane? I'll buy that for a dollar. I'm assuming that
isn't what you meant. Unfortunately, I can't parse what you meant.
Clarify, please?
> - if you hadn't made it so easy, I probably wouldn't have bothered :)
Someday you're going to need to learn to either be mean or not,
because now you're failing at both, and coming off looking petty.
Ob :>
This was too meta for me.
--
Nick
Ryan Tucker
On 28 Apr 1998 00:00:15 -0500, Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> spewed:
>In article <6i3fg7$b...@bonkers.taronga.com>,
>Nick Manka <ni...@taronga.com> wrote:
>>Is doing thinly veiled personal attacks wrapped in petty hypocrisy
>>en vogue now?
>
Fuck you, and the crucifix you rode in on! -rt
--
Ryan Tucker <rtu...@ttgcitn.com> http://www.ttgcitn.com/~rtucker/
UIN: 1976881 VM/Fax: +15157712865 Box 57083, Pleasant Hill IA 50317
If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it.
-- Arthur Kasspe
Nick Manka
In article <6i3nov$g...@bonkers.taronga.com>,
> Nick Manka <ni...@taronga.com> wrote:
>>Is doing thinly veiled personal attacks wrapped in petty hypocrisy
>>en vogue now?
>
> This is a FLAME group. Of COURSE it is.
If you want to flame, you should flame - not pretend you're not flaming.
I would much rather hear "Fuck you, you squirrel molesting bastard,
and whomever sold you that horrid tie." than some lame attempt to
sound clever. Flame like a man! (or assertive, modern woman. Whatever.)
I want to hear accusation of sexual relationships with Hitler and
members of the Illuminati. Tell me I distribute the Anderson/Lee
video and took money from the poor and downtrodden. Scream out that
I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die (and pick his pocket).
Call me a fascist - I want you to.
(damn, that really needs the posh ultra-modern-post-industrial
black-and-white camera work.)
Bryan C. Andregg
On 27 Apr 1998 20:55:53 -0500, <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
> No, stick you in a nastier place than you would have been if you were a mere
> agnostic. Check out the Inferno some time. Unbelievers got limbo. Heretics
> got ... I don't recall, but trying to walk around with a pitchfork in an
> uncomfortable place was one of the options.
You forgot to mention the Allisium (sp?) Fields where 'unbaptized children and
good non-believers' go. It's in hell, but it is a heaven.
(And it wasn't unbelievers that got limbo, it was opportunists).
--
Bryan C. Andregg * <band...@redhat.com> * Red Hat Software
"Hey, wait a minute, you clowns are on dope!"
-- Owen Cheese in 'Shakes the Clown'
Catherine Hampton
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
: In article <6i3fg7$b...@bonkers.taronga.com>,
: Nick Manka <ni...@taronga.com> wrote:
:>Is doing thinly veiled personal attacks wrapped in petty hypocrisy
:>en vogue now?
: This is a FLAME group. Of COURSE it is.
What Peter said. I'm =SO= proud of myself -- I started my first
flamewar. ;>
Seriously, if people want a good, non-flaming discussion of religious
issues, try net.religion.interfaith. That's what it's there for. :)
--
Catherine Hampton <net-reli...@hrweb.org>
Net Religion Czar, Despot, Chief Cook and Bottlewasher ;>
(Please note that the address in the From: line exists, is valid,
and is also used as a spamtrap. Send email to the address in my
signature if you want me to see it any time soon.)
Kai Henningsen
obsc...@obscure.org (obscurity) wrote on 27.04.98 in <Apr-27-21.21...@burnout.demon.co.uk>:
> On 27 Apr 1998 03:17:22 GMT, Nick Manka <ni...@taronga.com> wrote:
> > In article <Apr-27-02.36...@burnout.demon.co.uk>,
> > obsc...@obscure.org (obscurity) writes:
> > > Anyway, the theory :
> > > If the believer is wrong, then they look a little foolish.
> > > If the atheist is wrong, then they are in *big* trouble.
> > > Therefore, it takes a *lot* more faith to proclam 'God does not exist'
> > > than it does to proclaim 'God does exist'.
> >
> >
> > I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. It's like .. a lame reinterpretation
> > of the silly logic Pascal used for his Gambit [1].
>
> Whatever else it may be, it's not a reinterpretation of anything. It's
> something that occured to me independantly, without having heard of Pascal's
> Gambit. (Sounds like an opening move in chess.). I take full responsibility
> for my own lameness ! :)
What part of "like" do you have trouble with?
> So what's he gonna do - send me halfway to hell ? Perhaps some timeshare
> system where I get two weeks a year in heaven ?
There are religions that have some sort of answer along those lines,
incidentally. Among those large parts of Christianity.
> But I'll grant that the existence of multiple religions makes it a less
> cut-and-dry scenario than I originally painted, so let's look at it in a
> little more depth :
>
> The believer can either :
>
> Look foolish (in a half-decomposed kinda way), as there is no god,
> be lucky, as he believed in the right god
> or be in big trouble, as he believed in the wrong god.
In any case, he's going to pay while he's alive, following whatever
restrictions his selected religion has.
> The atheist can either :
>
> Look smug (in a half-decomposed kinda way) as there is no god,
> or be in big trouble, as he didn't believe in god.
In any case, he doesn't have to follow any religion's restrictions.
This part you forgot about is fairly important, IMO. Cost-Benefit analysis
and all that.
Furthermore, there's the standard response to Pascal's wager: if you
believe just because you think there may be a chance to profit from that,
most Gods I've heard about will not be amused about that.
> > Come on, total abscence of faith cannot be faith.
>
> You seem to think atheism is the absence of faith. I think you may be
> mistaking it for agnosticism.
No.
> From the Concise Oxford (8th Edition) :
>
> Faith n. 1 Complete trust or confidence.
> 2 Firm belief esp. without logical proof.
> 3a a system of religious belief
> 3b belief in religious doctrines
> 4 duty or commitment to fulfil a trust, promise etc.
> 5 (attrib.) concerned with a supposed ability to cure by faith
> rather than treatment (faith-healing)
Well, if we're talking about faith in a religious context (which we are),
1, 4, and 5 clearly don't apply. 3a doesn't match what we're talking
about, either (we're using the word "religion" for that).
2 and 3b are very similar in this context, and indeed match what we're
talking about. Unfortunately(?), neither is a good match for an atheist,
or even an agnostic.
> I have complete confidence that there is no god. I have a firm belief that
> there is no god, yet I have no logical proof. Using both the first and
> second definitions given above, I have faith that there is no god.
As my world view includes Occam's razor as a valid logical argument, I can
claim that I *have* logical proof that there is no god. Still, there's no
faith involved - in the unlikely case that I'm wrong, I'm fully prepared
to be convinced by uncontrovertible existance proof. I know of no one with
faith in religion who's similarly prepared, hence I claim that's a
significant difference to faith.
> > Atheism, fundamentally, is absence of faith.
Exactly. (So is Agnosticism. It's the details that differ, not the
fundamentals.)
Nick Manka
In article <slrn6kbrdb...@sideshow.redhat.com>,
br...@redhat.com (Bryan C. Andregg) writes:
> On 27 Apr 1998 20:55:53 -0500, <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
>> agnostic. Check out the Inferno some time. Unbelievers got limbo. Heretics
>> got ... I don't recall, but trying to walk around with a pitchfork in an
>> uncomfortable place was one of the options.
>
> You forgot to mention the Allisium (sp?) Fields where 'unbaptized children and
> good non-believers' go. It's in hell, but it is a heaven.
Elysium/ian, IIRC. Hellenic place, originally. Got a Hamilton's Mythology
lying about someplace, should probably bother to look it up.
It was a perfect place, except without God, as opposed to Heaven,
which is perfect with God, and therefore nicer smelling.
Russ Allbery
Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> writes:
> Seriously, if people want a good, non-flaming discussion of religious
> issues, try net.religion.interfaith. That's what it's there for. :)
I think the reason why I didn't send followups there was because that
implied discussion between believers of different faiths, which isn't the
same as discussions between believers and atheists. :)
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Jim Kingdon
> Seriously, if people want a good, non-flaming discussion of religious
> issues, try net.religion.interfaith. That's what it's there for. :)
I guess for me that group sounded like it was about more organized
interfaith efforts (meetings and such) more so than general
discussion.
But wait. ARE YOU TRYING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GODDESS-GIVEN <uh oh,
religious content in a religion group; I'm treading on thin ice there>
RIGHT TO FLAME PEOPLE???
Help, help, I'm being oppressed!
Catherine Hampton
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
: Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> writes:
:> Seriously, if people want a good, non-flaming discussion of religious
:> issues, try net.religion.interfaith. That's what it's there for. :)
: I think the reason why I didn't send followups there was because that
: implied discussion between believers of different faiths, which isn't the
: same as discussions between believers and atheists. :)
Well then, I guess to you your theology and to me mine....
<sneaking away quietly before anyone notices>
--
The Sprite, aka
Catherine Hampton <ar...@tempest.boxmail.com>
(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)
Catherine Hampton
:> Seriously, if people want a good, non-flaming discussion of religious
:> issues, try net.religion.interfaith. That's what it's there for. :)
: But wait. ARE YOU TRYING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GODDESS-GIVEN <uh oh,
: religious content in a religion group; I'm treading on thin ice there>
: RIGHT TO FLAME PEOPLE???
Nah -- if I were, I'd rename this place net.religion.behave-yourselves!
;>
Jay Denebeim
> If the believer is wrong, then they look a little foolish.
>
> If the atheist is wrong, then they are in *big* trouble.
Not at all. The True Believer(tm) in the wrong religion is in much
more trouble than the athiest is. Imagine what the Aztek gods would
do to any Christians they got ahold of.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.ml.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.ml.org *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.ml.org *
Rachael Munns
In net.religion.flame, Kai Henningsen wrote:
>> On 27 Apr 1998 03:17:22 GMT, Nick Manka <ni...@taronga.com> wrote:
>> > Atheism, fundamentally, is absence of faith.
>Exactly. (So is Agnosticism. It's the details that differ, not the
>fundamentals.)
Not really. It's possible to be an agnostic theist, if one holds a god-
belief, but also holds that the question of the existence of gods cannot
be answered.
--
Rachael Munns oOo vas...@dream.org.uk oOo Fidonet 2:442/600
Jay Denebeim
>Now, the chance of there being a god is the same for both the believer and
>the atheist. Let's say it's 50% (it really doesn't matter what percent you
>choose). That gives the atheist a 50% chance of decomposing, and a 50%
>chance of being in deep doo-doo. The believer has a 50% chance of
>decomposing, an x% chance of being lucky, and a (50-x)% chance of being
>damned unlucky. As there is possibility of the believer picking the right
>god, x has to be greater than zero. So even if the believer has a chance of
>being damned, it's less than the chance of the atheist.
Well, let's do the math here, someone else mentioned there were 800
religions, so let's use that. In all cases there's a 50% probability
that everyone would be rotting happy, right? IOW both the athiest and
true believer died expecting an after life or not and with no after
life they never knew they were wrong or not. So, let's leave that.
Assuming there's 800 equally probable religions, that would give the
true believer a .125% chance of being right, and a 99.875% chance of
being a dead infedel. This is fine as far as it goes, but consider:
In many religions it's much better to not believe at all than to
believe in the wrong god. For instance, IIRC in catholocisim you go
the same place an unchrisined baby goes, to limbo. If you believe in
the wrong religion, you burn baby burn.
Considering christian's propensity for killing and/or converting
believers in other religions, they'll be in really deep do do after
they die if they're wrong. I can't imagine any diety would have a
warm place in their heart for a group that killed a good percentage of
their worshipers.
So, from an afterlife perspective, the way to bet is athiest IMO, sure
you've got no chance of being right, but the consequences of being
wrong are much less.
carpe carpus
In article <6iamos$tql$1...@marvin.deepthot.ml.org>,
Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.ml.org> wrote:
>So, from an afterlife perspective, the way to bet is atheist IMO, sure
>you've got no chance of being right, but the consequences of being
>wrong are much less.
You probably mean agnostic, since a god would be displeased if you
actively denied his existence, instead of humbly submitting you're
unable to make a decision.
rone
Jay Denebeim
In article <rone.ThuApr30140...@ennui.org>,
carpe carpus <rone+...@ennui.org> wrote:
>You probably mean agnostic, since a god would be displeased if you
>actively denied his existence, instead of humbly submitting you're
>unable to make a decision.
I'm not going to go there :-) jms and I have almost exactly the same
beliefs WRT gods, although he's adament about being an athiest and I'm
adament about being agnostic.
I believe you'll find that just about any athiest has a totally open
mind about incontrovertable proof that there is a god.
As far as I'm concerned, if god wants to play coy about showing
himself, it's his own damned fault that people don't believe in him.
Personally, I think religion is all a Vorlon plot anyway, and I think
Kevorkian is on the right track.
stare master
In article <6idpu5$e6o$1...@marvin.deepthot.ml.org>,
Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.ml.org> wrote:
>In article <rone.ThuApr30140...@ennui.org>,
>carpe carpus <rone+...@ennui.org> wrote:
>>You probably mean agnostic, since a god would be displeased if you
>>actively denied his existence, instead of humbly submitting you're
>>unable to make a decision.
>I'm not going to go there :-) jms and I have almost exactly the same
>beliefs WRT gods, although he's adament about being an athiest and I'm
>adament about being agnostic.
>I believe you'll find that just about any athiest has a totally open
>mind about incontrovertable proof that there is a god.
Which is a goofy notion, since proof and faith are oil and water.
>As far as I'm concerned, if god wants to play coy about showing
>himself, it's his own damned fault that people don't believe in him.
Nothing and Everything is God's fault. Responsibility, now, that's
something that's beyond God.
>Personally, I think religion is all a Vorlon plot anyway, and I think
>Kevorkian is on the right track.
I don't see what a tinkly voice and carbon monoxide have to do with
religion.
rone
--
fuck, i'm so fucking full of angst i think i'll go read generation x so many
times i have it memorized and it just oozes out of my pores like so much of
the empty pseudophilosphy and religion i willingly embrace and espouse to my
peers and mentors. - Patrick J. Finerty <zi...@zifi.genetics.utah.edu>
Jay Denebeim
In article <rone.FriMay1180...@ennui.org>,
stare master <rone+...@ennui.org> wrote:
>In article <6idpu5$e6o$1...@marvin.deepthot.ml.org>,
>Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.ml.org> wrote:
>>I believe you'll find that just about any athiest has a totally open
>>mind about incontrovertable proof that there is a god.
>
>Which is a goofy notion, since proof and faith are oil and water.
However, we wern't talking about faith, we were talking about the
existance of god(s). Athiests (and agnostics) don't buy into that
faith jazz.
>Nothing and Everything is God's fault. Responsibility, now, that's
>something that's beyond God.
So, god isn't responsible for his own actions? Real '90's kinda guy,
ain't he?
>>Personally, I think religion is all a Vorlon plot anyway, and I think
>>Kevorkian is on the right track.
>
>I don't see what a tinkly voice and carbon monoxide have to do with
>religion.
Well, the Vorlons used the god gambit to wow the primitives.
Kevorkian said reciently that we'd be much better off getting rid of
religion, burning all the books and so forth.
stare master
In article <6iechi$l4d$1...@marvin.deepthot.ml.org>,
Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.ml.org> wrote:
>>>I believe you'll find that just about any athiest has a totally open
>>>mind about incontrovertable proof that there is a god.
>>Which is a goofy notion, since proof and faith are oil and water.
>However, we wern't talking about faith, we were talking about the
>existance of god(s). Athiests (and agnostics) don't buy into that
>faith jazz.
When you say "existance[sic] of god", what exactly do you mean?
>>Nothing and Everything is God's fault. Responsibility, now, that's
>>something that's beyond God.
>So, god isn't responsible for his own actions? Real '90's kinda guy,
>ain't he?
Think about it. Who does he have to answer to in regards to his
actions? So why would he be responsible?
>Kevorkian said reciently that we'd be much better off getting rid of
>religion, burning all the books and so forth.
Maybe, but that's not getting at the root of the problem, if it is a
problem.
Kai Henningsen
vas...@dream.org.uk (Rachael Munns) wrote on 29.04.98 in <6i7abf$ec7$1...@drmach.dream.org.uk>:
> In net.religion.flame, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> >> On 27 Apr 1998 03:17:22 GMT, Nick Manka <ni...@taronga.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Atheism, fundamentally, is absence of faith.
> >Exactly. (So is Agnosticism. It's the details that differ, not the
> >fundamentals.)
>
> Not really. It's possible to be an agnostic theist, if one holds a god-
> belief, but also holds that the question of the existence of gods cannot
> be answered.
Well, IMO, that would make the word "agnostic" completely meaningless. You
could have "agnostic Christians" that way.
Rachael Munns
In net.religion.flame, Kai Henningsen wrote:
>vas...@dream.org.uk (Rachael Munns) wrote on 29.04.98 in <6i7abf$ec7$1...@drmach.dream.org.uk>:
>
>> Not really. It's possible to be an agnostic theist, if one holds a god-
>> belief, but also holds that the question of the existence of gods cannot
>> be answered.
>
>Well, IMO, that would make the word "agnostic" completely meaningless. You
>could have "agnostic Christians" that way.
Yes.
"Agnostic" did not originally mean "unsure about gods". It meant the
position that the answer to the question was unknowable.
Jay Denebeim
In article <6ilftj$hkt$1...@drmach.dream.org.uk>,
>>Well, IMO, that would make the word "agnostic" completely meaningless. You
>>could have "agnostic Christians" that way.
>
>Yes.
Now, granted, I don't know much about xianity, but I'm fairly certain
it's not possible to be an agnostic xian. There's a whole litany
about agreeing that jesus is the son of god and that you accept him as
your personal savior, etc. I don't think you can pass the xian test
and not be sure there is a god.
(now, a jewish agnostic works)
stare master
In article <6io4np$56t$1...@marvin.deepthot.ml.org>,
Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.ml.org> wrote:
>In article <6ilftj$hkt$1...@drmach.dream.org.uk>,
>Rachael Munns <vas...@dream.org.uk> wrote:
>>In net.religion.flame, Kai Henningsen wrote:
>>>Well, IMO, that would make the word "agnostic" completely meaningless. You
>>>could have "agnostic Christians" that way.
>>Yes.
>Now, granted, I don't know much about xianity, but I'm fairly certain
>it's not possible to be an agnostic xian. There's a whole litany
>about agreeing that jesus is the son of god and that you accept him as
>your personal savior, etc. I don't think you can pass the xian test
>and not be sure there is a god.
It's not about being sure whether there is a god as much as not
knowing God.
Kai Henningsen
dene...@deepthot.ml.org (Jay Denebeim) wrote on 05.05.98 in <6io4np$56t$1...@marvin.deepthot.ml.org>:
> (now, a jewish agnostic works)
Of course - jewish doesn't necessarily indicate any belief in the jewish
religion at all. You can (and do) have jewish atheists.
rif...@cybernothing.org
dene...@deepthot.ml.org (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
>However, we wern't talking about faith, we were talking about the
>existance of god(s). Athiests (and agnostics) don't buy into that
>faith jazz.
Small correction... I'm an athiest, but I *do* have faith. My faith is in
the love of my wife, the trustworthiness of my friends, etc...
I don't believe in God or Satan, nor do I believe in Supreme Beings, etc.
The Bible is definately one big fucking joke.
This does not mean there is no room for faith in my life. It simply doesn't
apply to religion in my case. I think this is true for many athiests, but I
can only speak for myself.
rif...@afn.org : I am Jenn of Borg. I will assimilate your Riffer's.
Jeff The Riffer :
Drifter... :
Homo Postmortemus :