"No such thing as atheists."

Jump to navigation Jump to search

The problem with "agnostic" or "lack of belief" is that I take the position of strong atheism (8 on the Dawkins scale, that weak-kneed pansy) toward any logically contradictory, and thus by definition, non-existent, gods, much like I don't believe square circles exist. (But can god microwave a burrito so hot that he can't eat it? Hurr!) Once you get into deism, or Harvard Divinity School stuff like process theology or philosophical tomfoolery like Last Thursdayism, then I can't "deny" god(s), which would make "agnosticism"/"lack of belief" more accurate in those cases. And 99.9% of people are going to say "WTF is that?" if you call yourself an ignostic, though "you haven't even agreed on what you're discussing" is a pretty apt description of my position on any pseudo-problem/pseudo-question, including "do you believe in god?"

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)22:49, 6 June 2012

I have and will continually state that if your god is the god of the bible, and you hold any sense of literalism, then you are wrong and your god does not and cannot exist, cause the bible is a walking contradiction. And while a god might be all powerful, I agree that a god cannot be square and circle at the same time, nor can he make a dry thing that is also wet by standard definition.

So I will and do argue with anyone who wants to challenge me (hi my brother!) that your limited god cannot exist.

but that doesn't work for the diests, or the - what was teh term iestism or something, the "I think something is there but don't knwo what" ists.

Green mowse.pngGodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere22:58, 6 June 2012
 

My problem with declaring ignosticism is that I view it as lazy, it's like you're not trying hard enough. It's like trying to vote on an issue and perpetually putting it off to deal with it later. It feels like saying "well, there could be a God, but I'm not going to bother figuring out all these properties that God is supposed to have apart from the name God".

Scarlet A.pngbomination10:22, 7 June 2012

And don't get me started on the version of agnosticism that outright states that "we can never know" - what the fuck sort of belief system is that?

Scarlet A.pngmoral10:26, 7 June 2012

Whole rich and vibrant parts of the greek religion and greek Christian gnosticism were based on "we don't know, and can't know."

I don't worry about the view of "i think there's something, but don't know", cause it's followed by "and don't care". Kinda the way I feel about lots of things. That's not really lazy it me, as much as it is relavence. Is it lazy to not care about calculus when you'll never use it?

Green mowse.pngGodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere12:53, 7 June 2012

I really don't take issue with the "and I don't care" part. If more people did that, the world would be better. It's the "we can't be sure there's a God, and there's no way for Science to prove it either way, but He definitely doesn't want gay people to marry" thought-process that really needs a good hard slap.

Scarlet A.pngmoral13:15, 7 June 2012

OHHHH, those idiots. ;-) I have not done much reading on gnosticism, but i knew it was more complex than something dismissible. But yeah, modern "we cannot know and it's an insult to God to put him to the test" piss me off. Cause they never follow with "and i don't care". they greatly care.

I also find it funny when people say "but you can prove he exists. I have a liver. That's scientific proof" for the very same reason. it's not just bad science, it's actually bad religion. I don't think a god that made man "in his image" would want people to NOT think about said god, or contemplate its morals, or wonder at its nature. I would think, following their logic, that if we were "given" brains, god would be more pissed that we trusted hucksters instead of what we could see and test with our own eyes.

Green mowse.pngGodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere13:48, 7 June 2012

If there was a God, however you want to describe it, I think it would be painfully obvious. So, if anything, only really "Spinoza's God" is anywhere near real.

But there is the whole fideism thing, about faith being superior to everything else at all (as if the universe is one big lucid dream that gives a crap what we think). But my issue with that is that it's indistinguishable from the equally probable and equally valid approach of "making shit up".

Scarlet A.pngpostate14:11, 7 June 2012

Pretty much. I'd like to say it's new; something that was a reaction to a few hundred years of science challenging religion. But Jesus himself chastizes ummm.. thomas? for doubting him, and asking for proof.

I'd like to think humans are moving more and more towards spinoza (if they must have something). But every time I say it, i think "nah... people will always turn to a parental god, or a dogmatic religion based on something else, cause it's too hard to think for yourself"

Sad, huh?

Green mowse.pngGodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere14:22, 7 June 2012