Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancarrow
Say loudly and proudly “I believe there is no god, I find it incredibly unlikely that there is one, but I’m perfectly aware that I could be totally wrong. There could indeed be a god.” None of you are likely to have the slightest difficulty saying this, I can even remember Der Trihs making this observation more than once.
Now, invite the theist to repeat that sentence with the obvious negations made. Bonus points if they’re Muslim. Double bonus points if they are in a position of religious authority. Triple points if they’re FriarTed or Ali Khameini.
I believe there is a god, to be precise the Triune God YHWH, Who is the Father, the Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. I find it incredibly unlikely that there is not a god or that God is not the Christian Trinity. However, I am perfectly aware that I could be wrong.* There may actually not be a god, or God may be other than the Christian Trinity.
We already knew that you believe in an infallible deity, F.T. But if this juvenile little display demonstates anything fresh, it is that the name of that deity is Friar Ted.
Kudos on the virginity, though – keep that up. You get to keep your soul clean and the future is spared your genetic input. Win/win, say I.
Of course, there was no footnote in Nancarrow’s original post.
Also, according to the fundie down the hall from me, you have just committed the unforgivable sin. If you get to hell before me, don’t bother saving me a seat, you fucking retard.
[mode=loud and proud]“I believe there is a God *, I find it incredibly unlikely that there is none, but I’m perfectly aware that I could be totally wrong. There could indeed be no god.” [/mode]
Further, I believe that the existence of doubt is acknowledged, and even inherent in the definition of faith, and that just as courage is not simply an absence of fear but a resolve to persist in the face of fear, so is faith not simply an absence of doubt but a resolve to persist in the face of doubt. And as Christ forgave Peter’s denial and Thomas’s doubt, so I trust and hope He will be merciful to me also; but he owes me no guarantees whatever in this matter.
FT, i’d tend to agree that the spirit of the thing precludes footnotes disclaiming what you’re saying.
Malacandra, i’d tend to disagree; i’d say that the definition of faith implies the possibility of objective doubt, but not necessarily of personal doubt.
Oh, and I believe in no gods, but I accept the possibility i’m entirely wrong and that there could be a god, or indeed many.
This is something I posted over the weekend and decided to save for future reference:
I actually have no problem with the possible existence of some sort of supreme being who might, in some way, be responsible for the creation of the universe. I can even accept that this supreme being may, for reasons which only said supreme being may know, choose to take actions which affect mankind as a whole or individually.
Where I draw the line is at people (either as individuals or as a group) who claim to be the sole source of information about this supreme being, or claim to speak for this supreme being, or presume to judge others because of either of those beliefs. Even worse are those who insist on imposing their beliefs on others, or who violate the very principles which they claim to espouse in the name of their beliefs.
I love you for this. And I say that in all sincerity, as someone who believes something radically “out there” in comparison to everyone else. Why can’t everyone think like you?
Thank you, freekalette. I get these occasional moments when something crystallizes itself in my mind, but usually I’m not in a position to get in on paper (or in this case, in a text document) before it fades away.
I missed the first thread, but …
**I believe there is no god, I find it incredibly unlikely that there is one, but I’m perfectly aware that I could be totally wrong. There could indeed be a god. **In fact, the more I deeply I study science, whether quantum mechanics or biology, the more surreal and out-of-line the world seems with my limited abilities to comprehend. While nothing seems beyond the realm of the scientific method’s ability to eventually characterize, explain, and predict observable behaviors, it seems more and more likely that each new level of understanding will bring into (un)focus an exponential number of greater unknowns that do not jibe with whatever current understanding is—if anything, scientific progress suggests that there are infinite layers to be explored, and we’ll never achieve omnipotence. So strong is this awareness that my conscious self honestly believes there a deeper, metaphysical underpinning to existence that transcends the boundaries of illusionary concreteness—that there is more to consciousness; that self-awareness is more than the illusion of electrochemical processes; that there exists an uncomprehendible consciousness of which I have only a vague, fleeting, and peripheral notion of. Limited in language as well as perceptions, I can only communicate this imprecise intuition by referring to it with words that have vastly different meanings and interpretations, but by which, though I don’t specify any particular creed or substance, you know what I mean when I say that I believe there is a god, I find it incredibly unlikely that the universe exists without one, but I’m perfectly aware that I could be totally wrong. There could indeed be no such thing as god.
That is, in fact, one of my guiding principles (not that it guides all that much). I find the concept of a supreme being entirely superfluous. I see no reason for any God worth the title to need to exist. That said, I am a human being, and I could be wrong.
Dude, the Bible says God exists. If the fact that a many-times-translated, thousands of year old document, with many self-contradictions, written by bronze-age desert dwellers on the other side of the planet says God exists isn’t a good enough reason, I really can’t imagine what the fuck it’ll take.
Probably Nancarrow should have said that a religious person couldn’t say those things and mean it, not that they couldn’t say them. Dishonesty is intrinsic to the condition of being a believer, since being a believer is based on the denial of reality; doubting the belief which has subsumed the believer’s personality into an extension of itself is another matter.
So all theists are inherently liars, because no one can believe in God unless they are in denial of reality? Does this mean that no theist can ever be trusted to tell the truth on any issue, or only on matters concerning their religious beliefs?
Liars, or delusional. Religion, whether about God or anything else is about denying objective reality and logic. It’s about believing what you want to believe, regardless of evidence or whether it makes sense. Why trust someone whose world view is based on simply asserting that what they want to believe true, is true ?
I would consider them less trustworthy in general, and not just in regard to truthfulness. Religion is based on willful poor judgement, and tends to result in amorality. But on matters touching their beliefs, you can’t trust them at all.
Der Trihs, I generally like you to some extent, but on this subject, you’re just a complete fucking douchebag. You’re less vitriolic than usual, though, so good job there.
Since I am not the infallible one in whom I believe, I do accept the possiblity that I could be wrong about this. However, in the absence of proof that I am, and in the presence of what I see as evidence, I still believe in the Triune God as defined or described by Christian belief. I have looked at this belief as objectively as I am able, which I think is the most anyone in this thread can say.
That said, I can’t begin to fathom why it seems to be so necessary to some nontheists to force this issue. What do you gain by it but some sense of superiority?