How do you define atheism? Where do you draw the line?

[phlegm]

Apropos of prior threads in which nonbelief of a "guy in the sky" was expressed, I just ran across this post (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2010/03/disbelief_in_the_pulpit/all.html) that links to "Preachers who are not Believers," a study containing the following quote.

A spectrum of available conceptions of God can be put in rough order, with frank anthropomorphism at one extreme—a God existing in time and space with eyes and hands and love and anger—through deism, a somehow still personal God who cares but is nevertheless outside time and space and does not intervene, and the still more abstract Ground of all Being, from which (almost?) all anthropomorphic features have been removed, all the way to frank atheism: nothing at all is aptly called God. To some people, deism is already atheism in disguise, but others are more flexible. Karen Armstrong, for instance, in her most recent book, The Case for God, dismisses both the anthropomorphic visions (“idolatry”) and the various brands of atheism, while claiming, as she recently put it while speaking with Terri Gross on Fresh Air, that “God is not a being at all.” Assuming that she meant what she said, she claims, by simple logical transposition, that no being at all is God. That would seem to be about as clear a statement of atheism as one could ask for, but not in her eyes.

Relatedly, earlier this year I was reading a couple books: Being and Event (B&E) by contemporary philosopher Alain Badiou and Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama (C&E) by contemporary Reformed theologian Michael Horton.

In short, B&E is centered around the idea "math is ontology." Ontology is the study of existence or being. In B&E Badiou argues that any ontology that rejects the One is necessarily axiomatic, and then he develops what the ZFC axioms of set theory say about being, a unit of existence, and event, a unit of history. In B&E an "atheist" is one who thinks freely about religious matters, and that God does not exist is linked to the idea that no highest mathematical infinity exists.

In C&E Horton argues that covenants (promises and their fulfillments) found in the drama of history reveal God. Eschatology, the E word in the book's title, is the study of the end. Horton views the historical and eschatological as one long drama spanning the beginning of time through the end. Also, I think it's worth noting that Reformed theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_theology) tends toward the conservative side of mainline Christian theology.

Now, both books share a common theme: the rejection of Plato's conception of God as the One Being. Badiou declares "the one is not (a being)" from the start. Horton argues that the Apostle Paul's theology (the seed of Christian theological tradition) is historical/eschatological not ontological. In other words, for Horton (and the Apostle Paul) studying existence does not reveal God, rather studying the unfolding drama of history does. Does finding God in history instead of existence make Horton an atheist?

[BillyTheMountain]

Atheist don't believe that GOD is a man in the sky with a long white beard.

And they don't believe there is any "higher power" then human.

[nick]

Atheists do not believe in any kind of higher power. To be fair, as a scientist, I'm really an agnostic, strongly leaning towards being an atheist. In the same way that I'm agnostic about there being a small china teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars. I can't possibly know 100% for sure that it's not there, but evidence is strong that it is not.

People claiming that agnostics or deists are "atheists" are just reactionary christians (usually). They are not using the word as it is defined, but rather attempting to use it as a slur against those who's beliefs are not strictly in line with their own.

[maestro8]

I draw the line right outside where I need to color. 'Cause I get a sticker if I color inside the lines.

Why do you need to define atheism? Can't we all have our own individual world / universal views without having to stuff them in your little boxes?

Whatever "God" is, I believe, is inside every living thing. Do I believe in "God"? No. But I believe in us. Call that what you will.

Edit: stop using such big words, Phlegm. You're confusing me.

[Catboy]

All atheists posit what’s called a universal negative. A universal negative requires absolute knowledge (omniscience) whereas a universal positive may not require that.

For instance, let’s say I am in a building with 4 rooms, and I have only been in 1 room. In order to say that every room is empty, I would have to have knowledge of all 4 rooms. I would need to know the entirety of what I am claiming to know.

However, to state the opposite, that the building is not empty, I would at the very least only need to know about one room.

So, in essence, any time an atheist claims that there is absolutely no God, they are claiming absolute and full knowledge of the universe (omniscience). If they are not claiming absolute knowledge, than they are going off of faith, but in fact, since they could never EVER know for sure that universal negative, then they are requiring much more faith than a person who claims there is a God (because finding out if there is a God may not require absolute knowledge).

This is why I don't align myself with athiests anymore, generally they're more annoying than their Christian counterparts as well.

Nihilism till I get buried. God is dead.

[phlegm]

I've already given up on the "little boxes"--they're not my boxes! I'm trying to understand what other people mean because what I hear self proclaimed atheists saying seems to complement much of what I've encountered in my study of Christian theology.

The above quote is a prime example where New Atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett expresses that "God is not a being" is the stance of an atheist. Yet, that is precisely a position that Christian theologian Michael Horton argues for in his book.

[JJuggle]

At such time that theologians, in order to establish definitively the existence of God, have moved the concept of God to one synonymous with the atheist position, at that point, will this discussion cease to have meaning?

[phlegm]

1. It doesn't seem to me that Horton tries to "establish definitively the existence of God." He merely argues that covenants in the drama of history reveal God. That is to say God only "exists" in the sense that meaning in history "exists"--however one might define that if at all.

2. Horton doesn't adjust his concept of God to being synonymous with "the atheist position." Rather, he appeals to the Apostle Paul's eschatologically oriented theology while resisting the influences of Plato's ontology that have undeniably leaked into Christian thought.

3. I don't know that the discussion will cease to have meaning, but it may lose the small amount of intrigue that remains.

[maestro8]

Nihilism till I get buried. God is dead.

Yes and no. I'm an idealistic nihilist. I do what I think is right, with the knowledge that it's all for naught. Just want to enjoy my time here without ruffling too many feathers.

I've already given up on the "little boxes"--they're not my boxes! I'm trying to understand what other people mean because what I hear self proclaimed atheists saying seems to complement much of what I've encountered in my study of Christian theology.

Perhaps, then, you should look past the word atheist and look into the meat of what others are saying. It seems to have become a blanket term for a lot of different beliefs... so one can't go on that word alone anymore.

You're just the right person to hold a mirror up to those who use that word. Perhaps you should go on an atheist crusade? :p

[JJuggle]

I was not clear. I wasn't suggesting that either of the two individuals you are discussing did hypothesize a God synonymous with the atheist position. I was simply jumping forward as that seems the direction such thought is heading.

I don't understand at all how the "covenants in the drama of history", a history entirely populated by humans and their interactions with each other and their natural world could have anything to do with God, however defined, without that God being somehow previously assumed to exist.

I find the statement "no being at all is God" to be very poetic, but not at all compelling.

[JJuggle]

without that God being somehow previously assumed to exist.
While writing this awkward clause I was having a senior moment although I am technically several months shy of seniority. I fished for a word and just couldn't come up with it.

"without that God being presupposed to exist." is what I meant. :)

[BillyTheMountain]

All atheists posit what’s called a universal negative. A universal negative requires absolute knowledge (omniscience) whereas a universal positive may not require that.

For instance, let’s say I am in a building with 4 rooms, and I have only been in 1 room. In order to say that every room is empty, I would have to have knowledge of all 4 rooms. I would need to know the entirety of what I am claiming to know.

However, to state the opposite, that the building is not empty, I would at the very least only need to know about one room.

So, in essence, any time an atheist claims that there is absolutely no God, they are claiming absolute and full knowledge of the universe (omniscience). If they are not claiming absolute knowledge, than they are going off of faith, but in fact, since they could never EVER know for sure that universal negative, then they are requiring much more faith than a person who claims there is a God (because finding out if there is a God may not require absolute knowledge).

This is why I don't align myself with athiests anymore, generally they're more annoying than their Christian counterparts as well.

Nihilism till I get buried. God is dead.

You've got something there!

[phlegm]

Perhaps, then, you should look past the word atheist and look into the meat of what others are saying.

Of course. I don't write something off simply because someone who calls themself an atheist said it. (As far as I know, Badiou would call himself and atheist, yet I'm quite intrigued by B&E.) I guess I've heard too many times about Dennett referring to certain Christians as atheists who won't admit it. I don't really understand why the word is that important to Dennett.

I don't understand at all how the "covenants in the drama of history", a history entirely populated by humans and their interactions with each other and their natural world could have anything to do with God, however defined, without that God being somehow previously assumed to exist.

I can't say I necessarily agree with everything in C&E, and I'm certainly not going to detail the lengthy argument here. And, I haven't actually finished reading the book. I think what it comes down to is that studying history requires us to assume that meaning is to be found, that there is a drama unfolding.

While Horton doesn't seem to take this line of thought, I think Badiou's conception of events, the units of history, illuminates the issue. According to Badiou events are paradoxical. This is because prior to an event is simply chance. An event doesn't become an event until after it already occurred when someone recognizes it and interprets its meaning. A pile of facts does not constitute history. History is only that which is named and preserves the fidelity of a preexisting scheme that we already recognize as meaningful history.

So, yes, I think we presume that meaning "exists" outside of us whenever we acknowledge history as something worth studying, but I haven't decided for myself what I think that "exists" means. And I don't know that it really matters. I don't think it means anything like a physicist means by the statement "atoms exist."

[johnfoss]

All atheists posit...I'm sorry, you lost me after "All atheists". Though many atheists surely think alike, all atheists don't anything.
So, in essence, any time an atheist claims that there is absolutely no God, they are claiming absolute and full knowledge of the universe (omniscience).For those that make this claim, they are definitely unable to back it up. But most don't make this claim. For me, the most basic definition of atheist is "doesn't believe" in God (or gods). The more hardcore atheists "believe" there is no God. But this is no different an act of faith than that of most believers. Neither can prove their argument.

...Daniel Dennett expresses that "God is not a being" is the stance of an atheist. Yet, that is precisely a position that Christian theologian Michael Horton argues for in his book.But the statement "God is not a being" seems to include the assumption that the God in question is something else. Wouldn't most atheists position be that God isn't anything? Other than a figment of billions of peoples' imagination...

I guess I've heard too many times about Dennett referring to certain Christians as atheists who won't admit it.How many churchgoers are just "going through the motions" but aren't necessarily believers? Certainly a lot more in places where it's unpopular (or illegal) to not believe in the local beliefs. Or in different times. How many of the American Founding Fathers, for example, were perhaps atheists, when to admit to such a thing could get you burned alive, killed more "humanely", or perhaps just unemployed and ostracized?

So I think there is a percentage of members of any given church or religion that are just there for appearances, or that aren't "true" believers in the faith to which they are members.

[phlegm]

But the statement "God is not a being" seems to include the assumption that the God in question is something else. Wouldn't most atheists position be that God isn't anything? Other than a figment of billions of peoples' imagination...

Well, I think it depends on what you mean by "something" or "anything." Does the drama of history contain a "something" that Horton can reasonably correspond with a concept of God? Can we have history without presuming that it has meaning?

How many churchgoers are just "going through the motions" but aren't necessarily believers?

Sure, there must be some, but that wasn't my intended reference. Here is an example (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4041) of Dennett accusing theologian Philip Clayton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Clayton_(theologian)) of being "an atheist who won’t admit it."

[BillyTheMountain]

How many churchgoers are just "going through the motions" but aren't necessarily believers?

A Pew Poll indicates at least 20% of YOUNG people who attend services are atheist.

[Mikefule]

Atheism, noun: the belief that when religious people are bored they will set out to prove that you are one of them really.;)

[maestro8]

A Pew Poll indicates at least 20% of YOUNG people who attend services are atheist.

i.e. kids dragged to church by their parents

rebellious youths will take this as a cue to rebel against the church

does this mean we'll see a surge in churchgoing youth amongst atheist parents in future generations?

would people rebel against atheism?

[Mikefule]

would people rebel against atheism?

Good God, no!

[MuniAddict]

Whoever makes the claim has the burden of proof, not the one saying "I don't believe, but I might be persuaded if you can show me concrete evidence of your claim."

Example: One person claims there's a rattlesnake under a rock. Person 2 says they don't believe it, and asks for clear evidence. Person one lifts the rock, and therefore proves his claim with absolute certainty.

Not possible with something intangible and not demonstrable. One can have a belief-or set of beliefs-but to claim, with certainty, that those held "beliefs" are fact, without providing indisputable evidence is not logical or accurate. It's simply called "faith", not fact.

Same goes for the person who makes the opposite claim, that god or something else does not exist. An atheist usually does not make that claim; they simply do not believe the claims of the believer, because there is no hard evidence to backup the claim.

[BillyTheMountain]

i.e. kids dragged to church by their parents

rebellious youths will take this as a cue to rebel against the church

does this mean we'll see a surge in churchgoing youth amongst atheist parents in future generations?

would people rebel against atheism?

No. It's probably people who like the music, the community, the women, the stories, and stuff.

[phlegm]

You forgot the buffet. The people at the Chinese church I attended during part of my youth took the duty of bringing food for between Sunday school and worship service very seriously.

[munimutant]

To say there is no god is just as bad as saying there is one (and that he'll fry your butt for eternity because you weren't a christian). I suppose I define atheism as an absolutist belief that there is no higher power. Which is why I'm an agnostic.

[BillyTheMountain]

Several studies show that religious people give more dollars and volunteer more hours to charity than do nonbelievers. These results tap into something real. Sociologists have found that tribal identity increases altruism toward other members of the tribe.

http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=ARTICLES&id=1240366641

[feel the light]

Whoever makes the claim has the burden of proof, not the one saying "I don't believe, but I might be persuaded if you can show me concrete evidence of your claim."

Example: One person claims there's a rattlesnake under a rock. Person 2 says they don't believe it, and asks for clear evidence. Person one lifts the rock, and therefore proves his claim with absolute certainty.

Not possible with something intangible and not demonstrable. One can have a belief-or set of beliefs-but to claim, with certainty, that those held "beliefs" are fact, without providing indisputable evidence is not logical or accurate. It's simply called "faith", not fact.

Same goes for the person who makes the opposite claim, that god or something else does not exist. An atheist usually does not make that claim; they simply do not believe the claims of the believer, because there is no hard evidence to backup the claim.

I believe the same thing, more or less. An atheist isn't making statements of fact, unless acting as an independent scientist (who then has to show evidence).

The theist will accept ancient scripture, or charismatic cult leaders, as mind forming fact. An atheist will not. I don't claim there is no god,just that the apparent evidence that the leaders of the church today aren't fucking your kids in the butt and making you apologize and pay for it is not compelling.

[Mikefule]

Steady with the language. Family forum and all that. I detest the organised churches as much as you do, but that was out of place in here.

[BillyTheMountain]

I believe the same thing, more or less. An atheist isn't making statements of fact, unless acting as an independent scientist (who then has to show evidence).

The theist will accept ancient scripture, or charismatic cult leaders, as mind forming fact. An atheist will not. I don't claim there is no god,just that the apparent evidence that the leaders of the church today aren't fucking your kids in the butt and making you apologize and pay for it is not compelling.

feel the light: I believe you can survive a 15 foot drop on your unicycle. I have the burden of proof. So must I push you and your unicycle off the rock? Lure you into it?

[BillyTheMountain]

To say there is no god is just as bad as saying there is one (and that he'll fry your butt for eternity because you weren't a christian). I suppose I define atheism as an absolutist belief that there is no higher power. Which is why I'm an agnostic.

Hey, watch your language! I don't see anything "bad" about either, really.

[Catboy]

/vulgar rant(DO NOT CLICK OR HIGHLIGHT TEXT UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE OFFENDED)

"Oh language! My vagina is all full of sand! Wahhhh! Someone said butt fucking and it made my pussy bleed!"

Listen to yourselves. Sometimes I forget that this is the most pansy ass forum on the internet. If mom and dad don't want little Timmy to read vulgarities, keep him off the internet. If lil' Timmy was educated to learn to disregard foul language when he sees/hears it, he'd probably never start using it.

Read the warning at the top of this page(EXTREMELY NSFW) (http://www.goatse.fr/) if you want to understand how things work on the web a little better.

This place would be a lot better if everyone lightened up, instead of ass ramming one another every time someone curses.

[BillyTheMountain]

/vulgar rant(DO NOT CLICK OR HIGHLIGHT TEXT UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE OFFENDED)

"Oh language! My vagina is all full of sand! Wahhhh! Someone said butt fucking and it made my pussy bleed!"

Listen to yourselves. Sometimes I forget that this is the most pansy ass forum on the internet. If mom and dad don't want little Timmy to read vulgarities, keep him off the internet. If lil' Timmy was educated to learn to disregard foul language when he sees/hears it, he'd probably never start using it.

Read the warning at the top of this page(EXTREMELY NSFW) (http://www.goatse.fr/) if you want to understand how things work on the web a little better.

This place would be a lot better if everyone lightened up, instead of :eek::eek::eek:ass ramming :eek::eek::eek:one another every time someone curses.

:eek:Oooooo. :eek:

Catboy swore!!!!!;)

[maestro8]

This place would be a lot better if everyone lightened up.

Sayeth he who understandeth not the ways of web filters.

If by "a lot better" you mean "no kiddies can browse it because it's blocked by filters" then you may be on to something. But at that point it won't be the libertarian utopia Gilby intends it to be. It'll just be Billy and Harper going back and forth all day.

[Into the blue]

/vulgar rant(DO NOT CLICK OR HIGHLIGHT TEXT UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE OFFENDED)

"Oh language! My vagina is all full of sand! Wahhhh! Someone said butt fucking and it made my pussy bleed!"

Listen to yourselves. Sometimes I forget that this is the most pansy ass forum on the internet. If mom and dad don't want little Timmy to read vulgarities, keep him off the internet. If lil' Timmy was educated to learn to disregard foul language when he sees/hears it, he'd probably never start using it.

Read the warning at the top of this page(EXTREMELY NSFW) (http://www.goatse.fr/) if you want to understand how things work on the web a little better.

This place would be a lot better if everyone lightened up, instead of ass ramming one another every time someone curses.

...

[onmyuni]

In my opinion, atheism is nearly impossible to define.:confused:

Simply put, an atheist is said to be one that doesn't believe in god.
The problem then becomes, how do you define god.
This is where the argument begins, and never ends.
For there are as many definitions for what god is, as there are for what god isn't.

In the end, an atheist is simply one that doesn't share your concept of what god is.

[MuniAddict]

A broader definition of atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheists tend to lean towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. Common rationales for not believing in any deity include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief.

Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Although some atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism, rationalism, and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere. In Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed to be exclusively irreligious or unspiritual.

-Wikipedia

[BillyTheMountain]

Atheists tend to lean towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence.

As you can see, the Wiki article you has no citations for any of its claims, therefore no one with an empirical orientation could put any stock in it.

there is no evidence that belief in supernatural claims has any relation to either Persons of Faith or Persons of Little or No Faith

[MuniAddict]

As you can see, the Wiki article you has no citations for any of its claims, therefore no one with an empirical orientation could put any stock in it.

there is no evidence that belief in supernatural claims has any relation to either Persons of Faith or Persons of Little or No Faith

I'm writing a book on atheism. I pray to god it's a best seller! :p

(Hey Billy boy, where are your citations..other than traffic, lol! :))

[munimutant]

Hey, watch your language! I don't see anything "bad" about either, really.

Good point. Replace "bad" with "religious" and that's more the point I'm trying to make. Both claim to know the truth, without any valid evidence.

[Catboy]

...

Gotcha! Ahahahaha! Sucker! :D:cool::rolleyes::p;):):):)

Sayeth he who understandeth not the ways of web filters.

If by "a lot better" you mean "no kiddies can browse it because it's blocked by filters" then you may be on to something. But at that point it won't be the libertarian utopia Gilby intends it to be. It'll just be Billy and Harper going back and forth all day.

Sayeth he who assumes much and knows little.

There are very few users on this forum being filtered by parental controls, with the exception of those who view this website from a public computer(work/school etc.), and those users can deal with it, they probably shouldn't be goofing off while at school/work anyway!

[BillyTheMountain]

Good point. Replace "bad" with "religious" and that's more the point I'm trying to make. Both claim to know the truth, without any valid evidence.

Replace "religious" with "Republican"

[BillyTheMountain]

Whoever makes the claim has the burden of proof, not the one saying "I don't believe, but I might be persuaded if you can show me concrete evidence of your claim."

Example: One person claims there's a rattlesnake under a rock. Person 2 says they don't believe it, and asks for clear evidence. Person one lifts the rock, and therefore proves his claim with absolute certainty.

Not possible with something intangible and not demonstrable. One can have a belief-or set of beliefs-but to claim, with certainty, that those held "beliefs" are fact, without providing indisputable evidence is not logical or accurate. It's simply called "faith", not fact.

Same goes for the person who makes the opposite claim, that god or something else does not exist. An atheist usually does not make that claim; they simply do not believe the claims of the believer, because there is no hard evidence to backup the claim.

(Hey Billy boy, where are your citations..other than traffic, lol! :))

I don't need citations.

In science/empiricism, there is an assumption that there are no "ghosts" "atoms" "electrons" "quarks" "Loch Ness Monster" until their existence is demonstrated.

It's called "null hypothesis testing."

So I reiterate: Whoever makes the claim has the burden of proof, not the one saying "I don't believe, but I might be persuaded if you can show me concrete evidence of your claim."

[maestro8]

There are very few users on this forum being filtered by parental controls

Citation or STFU

[reprah]

Replace "religious" with "Republican"

Replace Billy with Pamela Sue Anderson.

[Catboy]

Citation or STFU

What am I supposed to cite? The fact that I've been here almost a decade and know these things to be true from my own experiences as well as others? I could make a poll to prove what I've said to be true. I'm sure the poll's results would be skewed by this debate, and therefore would be somewhat inaccurate, although the poll would still tell you the same thing I did: Aside from those who visit this site from a public/work/school computer a vast majority of the users on this forum are not viewing this site with parental controls or explicit content filters. Sure, I have tons of filters running, but they're only filtering out ads, empty space, and unwanted content... it's something completely different than parental controls.

I have been here long enough to know and understand the archetypes of the majority of people who post on these forums and where they're posting from. I exploit this knowledge for personal enjoyment constantly, mostly in the form of schadenfreude. It's one of the many characteristics of Catboy, that does not pertain to the real world, to enjoy anger and misfortune of others. Call it a vice.

[saskatchewanian]

Can't the majority accommodate the minority?

We are unicyclists after all.



I only tell people I am atheist if i don't want to get into theological conversations otherwise I am atheistic-agnostic.

The line for me is wether or not I feel like being dragged into a conversation about religion.

[wobbling bear]

. Atheists tend to lean towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence.
There is much more than that: they (no ...some) tend to have rather rational explanations for the reasons why people tend to have supernatural beliefs (this is absolutely not deprecatory: you can have fairly good reasons to be a believer; funnily believers also tend to search explanations on why atheists do exist -or do they exist:p?-).
I also tend to consider that part of my atheism is not completely rational: I simply do not have any metaphysical angst(is this cultural or inherited I do not know).

[munimutant]

Theories like this one (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/do-you-only-live-once-exp_b_508440.html) are why I'm agnostic, rather than atheistic. We just don't know. No one on earth knows (even the pious ones with pointy hats and golden alters who aren't married and have no mortgages but tell people every Sunday how to live). "God" could be so very many possible things. Isn't that cool?

[phlegm]

I'm agnostic, rather than atheistic. We just don't know.

Are there any situations in the world where you have complete knowledge? Do you often decide to act in a given situation despite incomplete knowledge?

Do you believe as Dr. King?

When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds of despair, and when our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, let us remember that there is a creative force in this universe, working to pull down the gigantic mountains of evil, a power that is able to make a way out of no way and transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows. Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.

It seems to me that agnosticism is the decision to not decide and to act neither for nor against. But what advantage is there in not deciding in the "God-question" situation?

[feel the light]

Sanity. Try to understand that others may have a constant-question intellect that torments them. As long as a question seems important to them it will take up their time thinking about it.

As important as "where I will spend eternity", may seem, the evidence is conflicting ancient texts. You might not waste the rest of your life trying to parse out a solid answer. Perhaps you have a brain that can just decide to believe in Jesus, feel good about it, and achieve rest.

Others have a brain that seeks out flaws, rather than emotional comfort, while reading the bible. The only way to move on is to get bored with it. Deciding you can't answer a question with the info you have frees the mind to get on with questions it can perhaps solve.

Insanity is spending your time thinking in distress, without rest, to no good result. My hunch is that atheists, and agnostics have as good a chance of eternal life in bliss as the religious. Mental peace is achieved by boredom with religion, freeing the mind up to move on. An agnostic has made a mental determination that the data is crap, and they can stop wasting their time trying to improve their odds for an afterlife.

[phlegm]

What part of Dr. King's quote refers to an afterlife?

Emotional comfort from reading the Bible? Which gospel of Jesus are you reading?

[feel the light]

Emotional comfort from reading the Bible? Which gospel of Jesus are you reading? ?

The emotional comfort is not felt by me, so I guess about the feelings of the religious. Intellectually, I can see a great gain in going to heaven, vs. rotting in a ditch. IMHO there is a reasonable chance that 200 years from now we will all be rot and dust. Actually, just dust. It takes a bit of life to go to rot. And no one will have known us, or remember us. Except maybe Terry, because he left a lot of cool videos.

So to be honest, I think the religious have to admit their emotional advantage. It must be cool to see past a rotted corpse that has turned to dust. People sing songs etc. Oh be joyful, mom is in heaven etc.

I just cry a bit when someone cool dies. I can't really convince myself I will ever see my grandmother again. I can see why it must be awesome to rule your intellect with your emotional desires. The ultimate logical goal of eternal happiness in life becomes an attainable goal, worth working towards.

[JJuggle]

But what advantage is there in not deciding in the "God-question" situation?
Doesn't it depend on who you ask?

[munimutant]

Are there any situations in the world where you have complete knowledge? Do you often decide to act in a given situation despite incomplete knowledge?

Do you believe as Dr. King?



It seems to me that agnosticism is the decision to not decide and to act neither for nor against. But what advantage is there in not deciding in the "God-question" situation?

I actually have decided. I've decided that I haven't learned anything from humans that answers the big "why am I here?" question. I've decided I have no fear in choosing to ignore the doctrine of any religion, knowing in my heart that it's not about whether you support gay marriage or how many anti-abortion rallies you attend. It's simply about doing what is right. Not for any selfish motive (such as everlasting life). And it's about how much positive personal growth you can fit into a lifetime.

I've simply decided that the human race is still quite primitive and has absolutely no idea what caused itself to occur.

[ħǻřрέŗ]

Are you still trying to define atheism? Don't you have an important TV show to watch or something?

[phlegm]

I actually have decided. I've decided that I haven't learned anything from humans that answers the big "why am I here?" question.

My take is that my questions only lead to more questions until I decide to take action. By acting I assert myself in the world and stuff happens, without question.

I've decided I have no fear in choosing to ignore the doctrine of any religion, knowing in my heart that it's not about whether you support gay marriage or how many anti-abortion rallies you attend.

If that's all that Christianity (or any religion) has meant to you, then I think agnosticism is a step in the right direction.

But I still think agnosticism, as I understand it, is only a means to end, a state of questioning that can only end with an answer in the form of action. Drawing an example from Dr. King's quote, at some point we decide either to strive to act as if there is prevailing and powerful justice in the universe or as if there is not. A practical advantage of the former case is having the possibility of being part of a community that shares a priority for justice. Whereas an advantage of the latter is freeing oneself up from having to consider issues of justice when acting, because justice really isn't that great. "Deciding to not decide" is less appealing to me than deciding for either side.

It's simply about doing what is right. Not for any selfish motive (such as everlasting life). And it's about how much positive personal growth you can fit into a lifetime.

As a Christian I'd add that we are broken and live in a broken world. No matter how hard I try I constantly fail at doing what is right. That is what a doctrine of sin is about. Some want "proof" for such a doctrine, but I think it's pretty self-evident.

[justtysen]

It seems to me that agnosticism is the decision to not decide and to act neither for nor against. But what advantage is there in not deciding in the "God-question" situation?
I think most people will differentiate between "acting as if true" and "believing is true". Am I correct in assuming that you do not?

[phlegm]

I think most people will differentiate between "acting as if true" and "believing is true". Am I correct in assuming that you do not?

More precisely, I would prefer to say "striving to act as if true" and "believing is true." They are different. While I may be intellectually wrapped up (endlessly) in figuring out what I believe to be true, "striving to act as if true" is a more accurate description of the way I live and decide to act in the world after I've admitted the uncertainty in knowing the truth for a situation.

[munimutant]

"Deciding to not decide" is less appealing to me than deciding for either side.

I think this is where our real difference lies. I don't feel I have "decided not to decide." I feel I have decided to not accept the doctrine of any religion. You're asking me to choose between pickles and mustard on my burger when I want neither. For me, the answers to life's biggest questions are not answered by men who claim to have had visions and can tell us all the truth. I have decided that the answers are certainly there, they may one day be answered by science (if we don't go extinct first), and I am enthralled to live in a world (or is it worlds?) of such mystery.

God or no god? Sheesh. Depends how you define god I guess. Is god the rules of physics that govern what happens to our "me" energy after we die, or is god a white dude from Persia who blessed the cheesemakers? I suppose you could say I've decided that the former is closest to the truth, and the latter is false.

It seems you have a strong need to decide between two black & white choices. I see lots of grey in between. And you know what? That's just the way it is. One thing I've learned after almost 50 years on this planet is that when it comes to politics, religion, music and sex, people are wired differently. And except in rare cases, nothing can change that.

[phlegm]

I think this is where our real difference lies. I don't feel I have "decided not to decide." I feel I have decided to not accept the doctrine of any religion. You're asking me to choose between pickles and mustard on my burger when I want neither.

It's not so much that I'm asking you to choose between the two. It's more that I don't see any practical advantage of not choosing to live one of the two options.

For me, the answers to life's biggest questions are not answered by men who claim to have had visions and can tell us all the truth. I have decided that the answers are certainly there, they may one day be answered by science (if we don't go extinct first), and I am enthralled to live in a world (or is it worlds?) of such mystery.

Living in mystery? You're starting to sound like a religious mystic... ;)

God or no god? Sheesh. Depends how you define god I guess. Is god the rules of physics that govern what happens to our "me" energy after we die, or is god a white dude from Persia who blessed the cheesemakers? I suppose you could say I've decided that the former is closest to the truth, and the latter is false.

Of course it depends on how you define God. This is what that whole thread about "what one reveres most" was about. That's how I define God for myself at the most naive level, and I thought perhaps others might too. But it seemed that others were really resistant to naming anything that might connect to a "God-like belief structure."

It seems you have a strong need to decide between two black & white choices. I see lots of grey in between. And you know what? That's just the way it is. One thing I've learned after almost 50 years on this planet is that when it comes to politics, religion, music and sex, people are wired differently. And except in rare cases, nothing can change that.

Yes, there is a lot of grey. But I can't live greyly in the world. I can't try to act as if "justice might be great but maybe not." I'm not saying that I've resolved in the belief structure in my mind that I'm 100% certain that justice is truly great--I haven't. But I have decided that I want to act as if it is.

We might think of it kind of like a working hypothesis, except that I don't want all the scientific baggage like testability and falsifiability because it seems there are plenty of meaningful ideas, like those of the arts and humanities, beyond the universe of scientifically meaningful statements. Like an engineer applies an admittedly incomplete scientific theory to create something real in the world, if instead the engineer were to decide not to apply a theory because it's still incomplete and unresolved, then nothing new would be created by the engineer. I think newness is vital for this world because the status quo isn't cutting it.

[phlegm]

Peter "the other brother" Hitchens: Atheism is "the beginning of the argument."

Peter Hitchens Author Interview--The Rage Against God (http://vimeo.com/10354237)

[maestro8]

"Deciding to not decide" is less appealing to me than deciding for either side.

Why put pressure on yourself? I bet you haven't taken a stance on pigs in tu-tus... why no pressure to make that decision?

How will your life change when your choice is made?

If it doesn't, is the choice immaterial?

[phlegm]

Why put pressure on yourself? I bet you haven't taken a stance on pigs in tu-tus... why no pressure to make that decision?

"Pigs in tu-tus" is obviously not of the same gravity as "prevailing justice" when deciding to act, unless perhaps if you're a ballet crazed pig farmer.

Or, maybe it is of the same gravity for an atheist... generally irrelevant?

The "theist" acts as if justice will prevail. The "atheist" ignores any such possibility when choosing to act. (We don't have to agree about those definitions for "theist" or "atheist"--I'm not sure I even like the terms, but I think my point is clear.)

But where does that leave an agnostic? Actionless? Lifeless? Incapable of moving beyond the present paradigm to try to create anything truly new because only the most basic currently accepted "certainties" required for survival can be acted upon.

How will your life change when your choice is made?

If it doesn't, is the choice immaterial?

Yes. The choice must change one's life. How? I don't know. It's an experiment in living.

[feel the light]

You can't be serious. Tell that to all the children raped in confessionals. Church is the most dangerous place for children.

Theists believe any sin may be forgiven. Atheists think child raping church folk should stand trial and be imprisoned, where justice shall await them. Punish the evil in this life, is the atheist concept of justice.

I suppose you can just say the Pope isn't a real theist, or that the other churches have a better record of promoting justice in our society. It's easy to say, but every day the truth comes out and the cries for justice become louder. The discipline of religion is used by the "elders", to tax and abuse the followers. That is the economic and sexual engine that drives religion.

[munimutant]

It's not so much that I'm asking you to choose between the two. It's more that I don't see any practical advantage of not choosing to live one of the two options.

Again, you're giving me those two options. I've chosen a third -- what's in my heart. I choose to not follow what I personally believe is a path marked by a politically-motivated structure. I am, however, on a path. I have made a choice.

My choice does not deny the existence of a god, but instead questions its physical properties and interaction with us. I believe the answers to those questions are so far apart from any known dogma (except possibly Buddhism) that I subscribe to no known religion. And that, going back to your original question on this thread, is why I am not an atheist. Saying "there is no god" as an absolute is, to me, just as "religious" as saying there is a god, and you're going to hell if you don't accept the ever-loving JC as your personal savior.

[phlegm]

Theists act as if justice will prevail?

What I should have said, and I think it's somewhat implied if you follow what I previously said, is "Theists strive to act as if justice will prevail."

Again, you're giving me those two options. I've chosen a third -- what's in my heart. I choose to not follow what I personally believe is a path marked by a politically-motivated structure. I am, however, on a path. I have made a choice.

My choice does not deny the existence of a god, but instead questions its physical properties and interaction with us. I believe the answers to those questions are so far apart from any known dogma (except possibly Buddhism) that I subscribe to no known religion. And that, going back to your original question on this thread, is why I am not an atheist. Saying "there is no god" as an absolute is, to me, just as "religious" as saying there is a god, and you're going to hell if you don't accept the ever-loving JC as your personal savior.

It sounds to me that you're saying that on the path you've chosen you act as if the God-question is irrelevant; you act simply according to your heart. That way of living, to me, seems indistinguishable from living lacking a belief about God--"atheistically." So I guess we're defining "agnosticism" differently.

It seems you consider "theism" and "atheism" only as absolutist belief systems, but I don't think my beliefs are absolutist or that that "agnostic" is a fair term to apply to myself. If you were to ask me about some Christian belief, I would say, for instance, "The Bible says..." or "Theology works like this..." not "This is the absolute truth and I know it for sure." Yet the way I try to live is intentionally motivated by Christian ideas. This is not unlike a scientist who says "This is how the theory works..." without making any claim of having absolute truth.

[JJuggle]

What I should have said, and I think it's somewhat implied if you follow what I previously said, is "Theists strive to act as if justice will prevail."
If there is anything more obvious on this planet it is that justice seldom prevails and when it does it is solely through the hard work of humans acting as humans and aided only by their humanity. It is ironic, though not paradoxical, that justice is sometimes, perhaps often, achieved because of a belief in a set of standards that come from a, in my opinion non-existent, higher power. Nonetheless, it is still the fruit of human efforts.

So, like a mother who believes that God helped her to lift up the back end of a car to retrieve her child from underneath while adrenaline was the actual culprit, so it is with those who achieve justice with the supposed aid of their God. It's all on them for better or worse.

[phlegm]

If there is anything more obvious on this planet it is that justice seldom prevails and when it does it is solely through the hard work of humans acting as humans and aided only by their humanity. It is ironic, though not paradoxical, that justice is sometimes, perhaps often, achieved because of a belief in a set of standards that come from a, in my opinion non-existent, higher power. Nonetheless, it is still the fruit of human efforts.

You changed verb tenses on me. :p

We'd have to wait until the final analysis can be made to know for sure if justice will prevail.

I agree that justice involves human efforts. Where we differ is that I hope justice is greater than us all, but you seem to say that justice is purely our creation. According to such a view isn't it a problem that "justice" could be whatever we decide to make it?

[JJuggle]

You changed verb tenses on me. :p

We'd have to wait until the final analysis can be made to know for sure if justice will prevail.
OK, that is fair enough. I just have to add, though it may not be relevant to this mode of thought, that that is quite a bit longer than most people can wait. And I have a hard time getting my head around the idea that justice is some kind of cosmic end result rather than an ongoing project for the here and now.

I agree that justice involves human efforts. Where we differ is that I hope justice is greater than us all, but you seem to say that justice is purely our creation. According to such a view isn't it a problem that "justice" could be whatever we decide to make it?
In O Superman, Laurie Anderson said, "Cause when love is gone, there's always justice". I've always loved that line and believe that justice is by definition merely the next best thing. As such, it is imperfect and by itself inadequate. So, yeah, it is what we decide to make it.

There's a popular saying, "If you want peace, work for justice." I've always thought it should be the other way around, though in that case the first clause could be dispensed with.

[phlegm]

OK, that is fair enough. I just have to add, though it may not be relevant to this mode of thought, that that is quite a bit longer than most people can wait.

I find talking about an ultimate end of history or time no less outrageous than talking about astronomical entities billions of light years away or about an infinity of mathematical infinities.

And I have a hard time getting my head around the idea that justice is some kind of cosmic end result rather than an ongoing project for the here and now.

It could be both. I hope so.

In O Superman, Laurie Anderson said, "Cause when love is gone, there's always justice". I've always loved that line and believe that justice is by definition merely the next best thing. As such, it is imperfect and by itself inadequate. So, yeah, it is what we decide to make it.

Hmm, I haven't pondered much the difference between love and justice. I'll have to think about that.

[JJuggle]

Hmm, I haven't pondered much the difference between love and justice. I'll have to think about that.
Let me add, something I just found out today while researching the Anderson line, that it is apparently based on a bit from the Tao Teh Ching:

"When Tao is lost, there is goodness. When goodness is lost, there is kindness. When kindness is lost, there is justice. When justice is lost, there is ritual. Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion."

The Tao apparently puts justice down even further in the hierarchy.

[wobbling bear]

If you were to ask me about some Christian belief, I would say, for instance, "The Bible says..." or "Theology works like this..."
When I was a young teen I once said : "According to Christian mythology ..." everybody went on the floor laughing :p
(explanation: I was very curious of religions at that time so I read first a very big book named "general mythology" about a lot of creeds, then I read the Bible ... )

[phlegm]

When I was a young teen I once said : "According to Christian mythology ..."

I can see that phrase being useful, although I will be careful who I use it around. I really don't need anyone else telling me I'm "not saved." I don't know if my eyes can take anymore rolling. :p

justice

I really should point out that I've sort of been cheating by using "justice" as shorthand for "God." In fact a Christian idea of God is much richer than that. The Christian hope is that Jesus reveals God in this world, so a bunch of attributes associated with Jesus are associated with God, attributes like love, peace, righteousness, and even grace--which is at odds with justice.

And, while I'm in the confessing mood, I'll also mention that the idea of resurrection and a new earth, i.e., Christian afterlife, does seem pretty outrageous to me. But I heard or read something that shook up my predisposition against afterlife. Unfortunately I don't remember the source, but I believe it was in connection with what is called "liberation theology." Broadly speaking, liberation theologies frame Christianity from perspectives of oppressed people groups in constrast to the traditionally dominant theological approaches borne out of affluent ruling societies. What was said is that afterlife is of central importance for those who are oppressed, and who are those of us living comparably posh lives to deny the possibility of an afterlife for those who may have no other hope. Americans who live as if afterlife is free license to do whatever they want "here on earth" have it all wrong--our wealth blinds us from grasping the real meaning of afterlife.

[Gadfly]

...afterlife is of central importance for those who are oppressed, and who are those of us living comparably posh lives to deny the possibility of an afterlife for those who may have no other hope. Americans who live as if afterlife is free license to do whatever they want "here on earth" have it all wrong--our wealth blinds us from grasping the real meaning of afterlife.

You may have to clarify this, because it's easy to read this as meaning that it's okay to oppress weaker societies so long as you let them hang on to the hope of a better afterlife. I don't believe you mean this, but aside from this I think I'm missing the real point.

[phlegm]

You may have to clarify this, because it's easy to read this as meaning that it's okay to oppress weaker societies so long as you let them hang on to the hope of a better afterlife. I don't believe you mean this, but aside from this I think I'm missing the real point.

I'm not sure how to get that "it's okay to oppress..." out of what I wrote. I certainly don't mean that.

What's the real point? What I said isn't very focused. I guess a point could be that I have to imagine what real oppression is like in order to grasp the full meaning of afterlife.

[Mikefule]

There are certain categories of "fact" that cannot be proved.

A common definition of God is that he is all powerful, can do anything, is everywhere, knows everything, and created everything. If so, then there is no conceivable set of circumstances that could prove or disprove the existence of God. Proof or disproof arise from saying either:

If and only if X then Y
Y, therefore X

If and only if God exists then Y will happen.
Y happened, therefore God exists.

or

If X then Y
Not Y, therefore not X

If God exists then Y will happen
Y does not happen, therefore God does not exist.

However, if the definition of God is so broad that He could do absolutely anything, then these tests cannot be applied.

That does not mean that God exists, only that it is not a testable hypothesis.

Ironically, the "pagan gods" such as Zeus, Odin, Ba'al, or Cernunnos, do not fall into this trap. They are not "all powerful" and therefore conceptually (if not in practice) you could set up an experiment.

Therefore, belief in God is not belief in the unproven, but belief in the unprovable.

Atheism is then a lack of belief in a concept (God) that is neither provable nor disprovable.

But, God is not unique in this sense.

Here's a silly example, but one of an infinite number of similar examples of "facts" that are not susceptible to proof or disproof:

<<A popular name in palaeolithic Europe was Graham.>>

It seems unlikely, but it is entirely possible that in "cavemen" societies a popular name sounded exactly like a modern forename. But how could we ever prove it or disprove it?

We can study the bones of prehistoric men. We can study their artifacts. We can establish what they ate, how long they lived, what diseases they suffered, what their surgical skills were, and all sorts of things. We can assess their likely level of intelligence, and use anatomical clues to make a realistic assessment of how vocal they were. But we can never know if any of them were called Graham.

The statement, "A popular name in palaeolithic European society was Graham," must be either true or false, but it is completely unsusceptible to proof.

In a similar way, we can study the preserved corpse of Otzi the Iceman as much as we want, but we will never know what he called himself.

A rational person says, "The question is pointless, give it no further thought. Move on."

As an atheist, my view is broadly, "The concept of God is not susceptible to proof or disproof. It is therefore a pointless question and has only arisen from historical and cultural factors. I will give it no further thought. Move on."


Belief in God helps some people and harms others. We've all heard of people whose faith has sustained them in difficult times. We've all met guilt ridden and depressed believers. We've all benefited from the good things that were inspired or motivated by religious belief; and we've all suffered from the consequences of other people's religious beliefs.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of good atheists, and quite a few bad ones too.

Atheism and religion are both fine as long as you try to harm no one else, and don't try to impose your beliefs on others. There are far too many people in this world who know exactly how other people ought to live their lives.

[phlegm]

A rational person says, "The question is pointless, give it no further thought. Move on."

As an atheist, my view is broadly, "The concept of God is not susceptible to proof or disproof. It is therefore a pointless question and has only arisen from historical and cultural factors. I will give it no further thought. Move on."

Belief in God helps some people and harms others.

A moral person asks, "How can we prevent the concept of God from being used destructively?" Then, participating in the conversation about what is meant by "God" is not pointless.

[BillyTheMountain]

MikeFule,

Love is defined as a strong positive emotion of regard and affection; "his love for his work"; "children need a lot of love."

There is no way to prove the existence of any emotion or internal experience.

Most of us, even people who never feel anger, allow for the existence of anger because they observe signs of it in others. However, only those who believe in anger allow for its existence. Likewise, the cynic believes there is no love, and that those who claim to experience it are fooling themselves.

I think many who believe in GOD do so because they experience GOD.

The cynic who does not believe in GOD cannot benefit from his/her own experience, nor from observable signs in others.

The existence of GOD, like anger, love, and other experiences, cannot be proven.

Billy

[BillyTheMountain]

Belief in God helps some people and harms others.

Same for belief in love?

Billy

[JJuggle]

A moral person asks, "How can we prevent the concept of God from being used destructively?" Then, participating in the conversation about what is meant by "God" is not pointless.
Somehow I have to believe that the faithful, however they define that faith, would want the conversation of what is meant with God to be more than merely how not to use God destructively.

And I'm not sure the extent to which the conversation about how to prevent God being used destructively is solely or even largely a theological discussion.

[phlegm]

Somehow I have to believe that the faithful, however they define that faith, would want the conversation of what is meant with God to be more than merely how not to use God destructively.

And I'm not sure the extent to which the conversation about how to prevent God being used destructively is solely or even largely a theological discussion.

I didn't mean for the moral question to separate the "faithful" from the "faithless." Even those such as the Dawkins gang who are vocal atheists are participating in answering the moral question by declaring that "God" means nothing of any value.

It's not up to any group of "faithful" to say who gets to participate in "the conversation about God." It's happening, for better or for worse.

I think theology must play a role because theological methods provide ways to reason about religion. Also, theology can be a very broad field with blurry edges. When we ask what is meant by "God," we also must ask what is meant by "human" such that we are not God. Then any field of inquiry can come into play and interrelate. That is a reason I am captivated by theology, because the interplay of multiple perspectives from multiples fields is an excellent way to open our imaginations. I think imagination is vital if we are to move beyond the status quo, i.e., be transformed, as a Christian would say.

[Mikefule]

Even those such as the Dawkins gang

Can you name, say, three members of the Dawkins gang? Or are you setting up an Aunt Sally here?

I am a fairly vocal atheist (although less vocal than a few years ago) and I think Dawkins is a bit of a twit.

Assuming you mean Richard Dawkins, of course. Arthur Dawkins, aged 96, of 2 Dam Close, Chublett Mill, is a nice enough old bloke.

[phlegm]

Yes, I meant Richard Dawkins (http://www.project-reason.org/about/advisory_board/).

[Mikefule]

Yes, I meant Richard Dawkins (http://www.project-reason.org/about/advisory_board/).

Either that's counter-irony, or you missed my point,

[Mikefule]

MikeFule,

Love is defined as a strong positive emotion of regard and affection



You old romantic.

[BillyTheMountain]

Belief in God helps some people and harms others. We've all heard of people whose faith has sustained them in difficult times. We've all met guilt ridden and depressed believers. We've all benefited from the good things that were inspired or motivated by religious belief; and we've all suffered from the consequences of other people's religious beliefs.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of good atheists, and quite a few bad ones too.

Same for belief in love:

Aerosmith What it Takes Lyrics:
There goes my old girlfriend, there's another diamond ring
And, uh, all those late night promises I
guess they don't mean a thing
So baby, what's the story? Did you find another man?
Is it easy to sleep in the bed that we made?
When you don't look back I guess the
feelings start to fade away.
I used to feel your fire
But now it's cold inside
And you're back on the street like
you didn't miss a beat, yeah

[Chorus:]
Tell me what it takes to let you go
Tell me how the pain's supposed to go
Tell me how it is that you can sleep in the night
Without thinking you lost everything that was
good in your life to the toss of the dice?
Tell me what it takes to let you go.

Yeah
Girl, before I met you I was F.I.N.E. Fine
but your love made me a prisoner, yeah
[ Find more Lyrics on http://mp3lyrics.org/71 ]
my heart's been doing time
You spent me up like money, then you hung me out to dry
It was easy to keep all your lies in disguise
'Cause you had me in deep with the devil in your eyes

[Chorus]
Guitar!

Tell me that you're happy that you're
on your own Yeah, yeah, yeah
Tell me that it's better when you're all alone
Tell me that your body doesn't miss my touch
Tell me that my lovin' didn't mean that much
Tell me you ain't dyin' when you're cryin' for me

[Chorus]

Tell me what it takes to let you go
Tell me how the pain's supposed to go
Tell me how it is that you can sleep in the night
Without thinking you lost everything that was
good in your life to the toss of the dice?
Tell me who's to blame for thinkin' twice
No no no no 'cause I don't wanna burn in paradise
Ooo Let go, let go, let go,
let it go, let it go, let it go, let it go, let it go,
let it go, let it go, let it go,
let it go, let it go, let it go, let it go, let it go
I don't wanna burn, I don't wanna burn

[Mikefule]

let it go,


;)

[BillyTheMountain]

Not a fan ;)
;)

[onmyuni]

How about this concept:

It's not possible to be an atheist, because it's not possible to know god.

The best we can do is accept a belief in god.
So at best, an atheist is one that has not yet found an acceptable definition of god.

[johnfoss]

I agree that justice involves human efforts. Where we differ is that I hope justice is greater than us all, but you seem to say that justice is purely our creation. According to such a view isn't it a problem that "justice" could be whatever we decide to make it?Justice, as we know it, is whatever the "powers that be" make it. Not too long ago (American examples), women didn't have the right to vote. Not too long before that, people could be kept as property. Not just, by today's standards, but in a court of law, that justice was applied.

But other human cultures have their own sense of justice, and this justice may be based on what's good for society in that location. If there is a truly "universal" justice, it must still stem from a set of values that may or may not appear "just" to all humans.

As an example, no matter what version of God might apply a universal justice on Judgment Day, for example, there will be some people somewhere who have been raised to believe some of this justice is opposite to their beliefs.

In O Superman, Laurie Anderson said, "Cause when love is gone, there's always justice"."And when justice is gone, there's always force." I guess this means that when the law breaks down, it's time to go military. Not that, historically, things always happen in that order. Force tends to come first a lot.

"And when force is gone, there's always Mom. Hi Mom!"

That's how the song goes. I'm not going to offer anything for that part.

[Mikefule]

How about this concept:

It's not possible to be an atheist, because it's not possible to know god.

The best we can do is accept a belief in god.
So at best, an atheist is one that has not yet found an acceptable definition of god.

Are you after the forum record for non sequiturs in a short post? You get my vote.