i think im gonna visit the new life church

We've had several debates about religion, at least five different threads specifically about debating religion, and all of them were the same. All of them were in favor of the atheist argument, which I agree with more than others.
 
We've had several debates about religion, at least five different threads specifically about debating religion, and all of them were the same. All of them were in favor of the atheist argument, which I agree with more than others.

Give me the link of the thread, maybe i'll read what have you fellers written about Christianity.
 
Agnostics annoy me.

It's like me saying, hagawugaliminins exist. They're a water based that lives only in water with a perfectly 0.4moldm-3 concentration of salt and feed on rapists.
Sure, I can't prove they exist but you can't prove they don't!
 
I don't find agnostics annoying. Or at least as annoying as some Atheists I've met. If the topics of science or religion ever came up they would proceed to rant about religion and how stupid people are if they follow it.
 
why do you need a religion to appreciate nature?
I don't really need one. I consider it less of a religion, than a philosophy and ideology. But it fits with Paganism.
FYI, thats modern paganism.

i also have an interest in "pagan" religion. but rather the practices of my viking forefathers. its more of a historical interest/appreciation in where i came fromthough.
~gR~

Yeah, I knew it was modern. But I've had an interest in it also. Not because of my forefathers, (I don't know if I have any Norse blood in me or not), but more because it's interesting.

That's called being a dirty fucking hippy.
Fuck off.
 
No it wasn't; he defined his own set of rules about how something works then went with it as if that's the real definition. Things like that may be nice to look at, but I found his statements to be total bull.

It's an opinion, man. These statements don't apply to all people, of course, but I think they do apply to many. That may not have been exactly the way I've had said it, but they were some thoughts I'd had for a while and Zeph just happened to voice them.

no big deal :)
 
Since when did you have "viking forefathers"?

my family came from norway only a few generations ago. i met one of the original kids who stayed in norway when the family split (on my trip to norway in 04). she's rather old now ofcourse. i also met plenty of other "distant" relatives on the trip as well.
~gR~
 
Not all Norwegians are/were 'vikings' iirc.

Well, if by "Viking" you mean a race of seafaring raiders, then no. The Vikings were land-dwellers for a good deal of their history, before and especially after they were converted to Christianity. The only reason they took to the sea is because many were driven out by rival tribes/kings of other Vikings.
 
If there was a certainty, there would only be one true religion, or else no religion at all. The eternal uncertainty allows for the spiritual diversity we see today. I say I'm agnostic because I accept the uncertainty and neither certainty for or against God. To say I'm atheist is to accept the opposing certainty, and I can't accept that conflict against the majority of humanity.
Atheism at it's most pure form is just a lack of belief in theism (a = without theism = belief in god/religion). If you cannot answer the question "Do you believe in God" with a yes, you are an atheist. A certain amount of uncertainty will always exist about questions on the existence of things. What matters is whether you believe or disbelieve. For example, the existence of the tooth fairy is equally as uncertain as the existence of God, yet you would not say that you are agnostic about the Tooth Fairy. You don't believe it because there is no evidence for the tooth fairy and the traditional roles of the fairy (money under the pillow, taking the tooth) have been observed to truly happen due to natural phenomona (parents). It's exactly the same type of thing with God. There is no need to make an exception for him.

I found the Penn Jillette video interesting. I like all of his stuff pretty much. I do disagree with him when he says that you have to answer the questions of agnosticism and atheism. If you define agnosticism as believing that it's impossible to know whether there is a god, I think you can stop there. I can say that it's impossible to know how and when I will die. I could absolutely deny that I will die in a killer squid attack tomorrow, and I will be right, but if I have established it is impossible to know, why answer the question with anything other than that.
I think you misunderstood him. In your example, you could be agnostic and say "It is impossible to know when and how I will die" and also the atheistic position of "I do not believe I will die in this way".
 
For example, the existence of the tooth fairy is equally as uncertain as the existence of God, yet you would not say that you are agnostic about the Tooth Fairy. You don't believe it because there is no evidence for the tooth fairy and the traditional roles of the fairy (money under the pillow, taking the tooth) have been observed to truly happen due to natural phenomona (parents). It's exactly the same type of thing with God. There is no need to make an exception for him.

Apples and oranges, my friend. Proving the existence of the Tooth Fairy wouldn't give much meaning to our existence. However, your argument is of course very solid. If I'm an atheist by definition, then so be it. In real life, however, I just feel that saying I'm agnostic sounds more welcoming to people than saying I'm atheist. I'm not lying about my beliefs, I'm only bullshitting in terms of your semantics. It's much easier to comfort people by clearly saying "I'm agnostic" than "I'm an atheist, but I respect yours and anyone else's beliefs." The reality is that not everyone is perceptive enough to understand that true atheism is harmless.
 
Apples and oranges, my friend. Proving the existence of the Tooth Fairy wouldn't give much meaning to our existence.
But it's not apples and oranges. I can make up right now any number of things and say that they created humanity and you would have to be silly to quibble about your lack of belief in my obviously fictional creations. Or take the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He created the universe with his noodly appendage. The only thing that separates say the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Abrahamic God is a couple of millenia and a few books. I can understand your reservations about classifying yourself as what is often percieved as a negative label, but my view is that I am an atheist and saying anything else is confusing.