Ponderosa

No I'm not! OK well maybe a little. In my view, the post is a political defense of the status quo in the US; still not pro-god and not pro-religion. 1. So can 'isms'. 2. I must say I chafe at the idea of having to present a defense - when you think things should change... And I'm not absolutist about it. I just don't know what you would like changed and what you would propose - if anything. Anyway, I have an answer that is rolling around my brain but it poorly formed. I get my talking points must cogitate. More later.

I went to hell once. It looked a lot like my living room on the even of December 5th, 2009. And there was always a second left even though the clock said zero. Most on this board would agree with you X.

I've heard it recently. But I don't know the original source. Feel free - all are welcome.

¿Que pasa, esse? I am new here and didn't want to make waves. Thought the light humor by you and AR was a bit comic relief. To break the tension. No? Perhaps I've seen too many movies. Fine. En garde! Sweden sucks as an example. You make your case based on one little country that has just recently become a country of unbelievers? It is insufficient. Tell me you have something better. It's akin to a person inheriting a mansion and being proud he'd 'earned it'. Sweden is a socialist state, of fewer than 10M people, who in the last few decades switched from believers to unbelievers, which stands on the shoulders of Christianity, with few threats and no standing army to speak of (nonetheless defended by United States) all the while committing demographic suicide. How about a country that isn't a Western nation, one that doesn't have ties to Christianity? Next issue: What does atheism/agnosticism offer? What rights does it protect, how does it protect them? What positive vision does it offer? A hollowed out version religion - stripped of history and meaning? No fair looking at the other students' papers. Use your own work. We're already starting to get secularized versions of holy days. And they are not great. X, you said your position is, what was it...ah yes: So why would I want to replace something with nothing? The very definition of nihilism. [edit - I get that wrong every time] How do you propose to rid of the world of god(s)/religion. With persuasion? And when you tire of dealing with stupid people such as myself then what? In case you hadn't noticed, religion specifically Christianity, has changed and finally evolved in the last 2000 years. It would be like holding modern Italy to account for the excesses of the Roman Empire. Religions were brutal. governments were brutal. Culture, society and life...brutal. What was the common element(s)? A belief in (fill in the blank ____) God? Guess the beer is off.

Sweden is lovely - nice people, nice country - but small, I wouldn't want make changes to the US based on their example. They haven't be an unbeliever state long enough to come to any conclusions one way or another. But at this point, I take my leave. I've noticed the moderators' subtle hints and now conclude my participation in this thread. Husker_x, Manhattan you may have the last word(s). GBR!!!

Worked for the Vulcans. I'm just sayin'... I stared at that gif for 15 minutes - I must be high.

Thank you.

Now you're just getting snotty and evasive. I knew it wouldn't last. So some made up word is equivalent to the concept of god? Thousands of years of...oh never mind. Good night. Of what? Of nature and science pointing up the follies of organized religion? Of fear used to suppress peasants and convince them to go to war? EDIT: Or let me put it another way: There are world religions that have been around longer than Christianity with billions of followers. You can't all be right. At some point, most will have to concede that they have been wrong for "thousands of years", and eventually, the last one will concede to that too. Nope not religion. Just god(s). Thousands of years of debate, contemplation, discussion, and writings regarding god. I'm pretty sure Husker_x just made up or found the words Skoopwind Farzlenogger. As imprecise as language is - god is sufficiently defined for a person to understand the word in their own context. Even if the existence of god is rejected. I can drag out the tree analogy if you wish. I gather you're not a huge fan of religion? Sort of. It is hard for me to accept the existence of a God, but I value my religious upbringing for the cultural and traditional sense of it and how it has defined me and my family, but that's as far as it goes. I think religion has worn out its usefulness and that my generation is probably going to be the last religious generation. Perhaps in the West. It will be interesting to watch as your generation has children. Not a prediciton. I'm just curious. Giving up one's history, culture and tradition for pure logic. I wonder how many will find it to be a good trade? Fortunately, those things are not just rooted in religion for me. There is plenty of history, culture, and tradition that I hold onto that has nothing to do with religion. What I find funny is how many "religious" traditions also have nothing to do with religion. You're absolutely right, and tradition is among the worst reasons to continue anything. Read Shirley Jackon's "The Lottery". Wind the clocks back a thousand years and the 'religious traditions' of the day involved heretic hunts, living in complete servility to either the church itself or kings who ruled by divine right. Someone like me would have probably been killed simply for not thinking like the establishment. Plenty of traditions I don't miss one iota. Religion isn't the sum of culture, and demonstrably not even necessary to it or a healthy society. And trashing things just because it is tradition is no better. So some traditons were horrible - all tradition must be purged? Demonstrably healty? Where & when? Either/or fallacy. Of course all traditions don't have to be purged. It means you have to actually think about what the traditions individually mean and contribute, how they contribute it, and whether or not the tradition is necessary for the contribution at all. Sweden is commonly cited as a country with around an 80% unbelief rate. Their society is relatively stable, peaceful, and self-reports on happiness are among the highest in the world. But then a person can be a believer and not subscribe to any traditions, either, so this entire thing amounts to a huge non sequitur. Allow me to walk that back (the bolded sentence). I was reading up on Dawkins and drifted in to Militant Atheism. My apologies. You generally don't make sweeping statements. Sweden, really? Do you have a better example?

Now you're just getting snotty and evasive. I knew it wouldn't last. So some made up word is equivalent to the concept of god? Thousands of years of...oh never mind. Good night. Of what? Of nature and science pointing up the follies of organized religion? Of fear used to suppress peasants and convince them to go to war? EDIT: Or let me put it another way: There are world religions that have been around longer than Christianity with billions of followers. You can't all be right. At some point, most will have to concede that they have been wrong for "thousands of years", and eventually, the last one will concede to that too. Nope not religion. Just god(s). Thousands of years of debate, contemplation, discussion, and writings regarding god. I'm pretty sure Husker_x just made up or found the words Skoopwind Farzlenogger. As imprecise as language is - god is sufficiently defined for a person to understand the word in their own context. Even if the existence of god is rejected. I can drag out the tree analogy if you wish. I gather you're not a huge fan of religion? Sort of. It is hard for me to accept the existence of a God, but I value my religious upbringing for the cultural and traditional sense of it and how it has defined me and my family, but that's as far as it goes. I think religion has worn out its usefulness and that my generation is probably going to be the last religious generation. Perhaps in the West. It will be interesting to watch as your generation has children. Not a prediciton. I'm just curious. Giving up one's history, culture and tradition for pure logic. I wonder how many will find it to be a good trade? Fortunately, those things are not just rooted in religion for me. There is plenty of history, culture, and tradition that I hold onto that has nothing to do with religion. What I find funny is how many "religious" traditions also have nothing to do with religion. You're absolutely right, and tradition is among the worst reasons to continue anything. Read Shirley Jackon's "The Lottery". Wind the clocks back a thousand years and the 'religious traditions' of the day involved heretic hunts, living in complete servility to either the church itself or kings who ruled by divine right. Someone like me would have probably been killed simply for not thinking like the establishment. Plenty of traditions I don't miss one iota. Religion isn't the sum of culture, and demonstrably not even necessary to it or a healthy society. And trashing things just because it is tradition is no better. So some traditons were horrible - all tradition must be purged? Demonstrably healty? Where & when?

NO!!! The worse he could do is take away our search function for a year again. Don't nobody piss him off! http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Zrpx4NAtsFQ

Now you're just getting snotty and evasive. I knew it wouldn't last. So some made up word is equivalent to the concept of god? Thousands of years of...oh never mind. Good night. Of what? Of nature and science pointing up the follies of organized religion? Of fear used to suppress peasants and convince them to go to war? EDIT: Or let me put it another way: There are world religions that have been around longer than Christianity with billions of followers. You can't all be right. At some point, most will have to concede that they have been wrong for "thousands of years", and eventually, the last one will concede to that too. Nope not religion. Just god(s). Thousands of years of debate, contemplation, discussion, and writings regarding god. I'm pretty sure Husker_x just made up or found the words Skoopwind Farzlenogger. As imprecise as language is - god is sufficiently defined for a person to understand the word in their own context. Even if the existence of god is rejected. I can drag out the tree analogy if you wish. I gather you're not a huge fan of religion? Sort of. It is hard for me to accept the existence of a God, but I value my religious upbringing for the cultural and traditional sense of it and how it has defined me and my family, but that's as far as it goes. I think religion has worn out its usefulness and that my generation is probably going to be the last religious generation. Perhaps in the West. It will be interesting to watch as your generation has children. Not a prediciton. I'm just curious. Giving up one's history, culture and tradition for pure logic. I wonder how many will find it to be a good trade?

I re-read the posts. I think perhaps you may have added layers that weren't there. And wham! We're off to the races. Even the second paragraph reference Christianity. Perhaps it justified, more efficient but I think you jump to conclusions. Turnabout is fair. What phrasing would have made my initial question clear (to an a-a)? Or is it just the nature of the beast and re-stating is requirement? So what book(s) or author would best encapsulate your views? If we are ever in Lincoln at the same time - I'll buy the first round.

They picked Nebraska to win the North and Big XII. Considering ealier comments I wonder if that is a good thing. Also the online fan poll has us at 61.4%. Oh well - I'll take it.

No worries - I'll catch ya tomorrow.

Now you're just getting snotty and evasive. I knew it wouldn't last. So some made up word is equivalent to the concept of god? Thousands of years of...oh never mind. Good night. Of what? Of nature and science pointing up the follies of organized religion? Of fear used to suppress peasants and convince them to go to war? EDIT: Or let me put it another way: There are world religions that have been around longer than Christianity with billions of followers. You can't all be right. At some point, most will have to concede that they have been wrong for "thousands of years", and eventually, the last one will concede to that too. Nope not religion. Just god(s). Thousands of years of debate, contemplation, discussion, and writings regarding god. I'm pretty sure Husker_x just made up or found the words Skoopwind Farzlenogger. As imprecise as language is - god is sufficiently defined for a person to understand the word in their own context. Even if the existence of god is rejected. I can drag out the tree analogy if you wish. I gather you're not a huge fan of religion?

Something that seemed like a personal swipe - one moment I'm "…laboring under a severe misapprehension that 'god' is some easily-accessed concept shared by all people…" The next moment you're scolding and lecturing "Jesus, Brahman, a deist god, and the Force are not equivalent claims...". Amusingly, I am both too narrow and too broad at the same time. How that's possible, when I was asking for your definition - not presenting one, I'll never know. And yeah, yeah. I got the point. If I've heard it once, I've heard it a 100 times. It is pure evasion. I don't need to define it - I am asking for your opinion. The analogy fails at the most basic level you just said "I think the question of God is the most interesting topic in existence". You know the subject, you study it, you're a former Christian, you debate the subject. You're aware of multiple definitions. Don't get cute. I am not selling and you're not buying. Again, use your definition (or lack thereof), not mine: God(s) exists, god never existed and never will, feign that you've never heard the word - whatever. Don't care. Answer in whatever manner you wish, include religion or no. And you have... You have an open mind. But unfortunately there are no acceptable proofs and never can be. Personally witnessing a series of 'miracles' in a controlled enviroment might, might be accepted. But only as a first step and even then it would probably be viewed as an evolutionary adaption.

Now you're just getting snotty and evasive. I knew it wouldn't last. So some made up word is equivalent to the concept of god? Thousands of years of...oh never mind. Good night.

See this is where things get off track. I am not asking about my god, or the Christian God. I'm not trying to convert you. The question is meant to be as "unloaded" as possible. Your god or gods. Zeus, Jesus, the spaghetti monster, the Force (Star Wars). Just a god. Generic god. What is in your brain? Not what Christians ancient or present have or have not done. So I'll ask again…what would you need to see, feel, hear, touch…experience to believe in God? I'm a layman and I've never heard of this model before today. And my intent is not to shift the burden or trap you in any manner. You are anticipating a quesion and answering it, instead of the question at hand. Just a simple question. And you've answered it. You don't know. And the affirmative has not been answered to your satisfaction.

You put that better than I ever could have. Thanks for clarifying all of your positions; it's been a very insightful read. This could be a very short thread, because I am not making a claim and I agree with your conclusion. Theists should prove the existence of god and their god in particular.

I like the chart. See you in the new thread.

But I'm not a bot - I'm a whiny user (I was logged in at the time of my search). 10 or 15 seconds would be a nice improvement. Thanks for looking into it.

That is a very slippery definition of atheist. Most dictionaries http://www.onelook.c...?w=atheism&ls=a define atheism http://www.yourdictionary.com/atheist as "a person who believes that there is no God". For the sake of clarity why not just use the word: agnostic? If that is indeed what you believe. That's a very good question. Here's my best answer. The reason is that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. I, for example, am both an atheist AND an agnostic. A person can also be a theist, one who believes in God or gods, and be an agnostic, not claim to know that they exist. The difference is subtle but important. Theism or atheism is a position regarding belief. Gnosticism or agnosticism is a position with regard to what you know or claim to know. In the philosophical world agnosticism is not some kind of middle ground between the two; it's a separate issue entirely. The reason I use the definitions is precisely to avoid being slippery. I want to be definite. I am an atheist-agnostic, meaning I do not have a belief in a god, but I do not claim to know one way or another whether one exists. This is the most common kind of atheist, also known as a 'weak atheist' or 'soft atheist.' 'Strong atheism' would fall under the definition you provided, and it is more than a reactionary position. It is an actual claim, that God does not exist, which then has to be supported by reasoned argument or evidence. Many strong atheists are happy to provide them, but I don't find their case sufficient to make their claim, in part because what you define as 'god' is such an ambiguous project, but mostly because they just don't demonstrate it to the kind of certainty the claim requires. Hope that's clear enough. You must be a philosophy major. It seems as if the words (a & a) are so over defined as to have virtually no meaning or at least no utility. Perhaps that is the intent (not a personal dig) of the authors. Anyway, for a simple message board I'm still thinkin' agnostic covers it. Also thinkin' that your definition of atheist – is missing a critical element. God may well exist but you do not like any of the current ummm…versions? But no matter. I do not know you and have only read some of your postings. So please forgive me if I am overly broad. But you seem to be a former Christian and now are neutral(ish) regarding god(s)? Also, I've noticed you tend to initiate and lead the threads. Managing to avoid stating your positions and dodging questions. If I'm wrong about the dodging bit - all the better. So my questions to you…what would you need to see, feel, hear, touch…experience to believe in God? Also, what standard of proof do you need? 1. Air of reality - only having the traces of truth 2. Preponderance of the evidence - it is more likely than not 3. Clear and convincing evidence - it is substantially more likely than not 4. Beyond a reasonable doubt - no reasonable doubt could be raised 5. Beyond the shadow of a doubt - no doubt whatsoever could be raised How much thought have you given the above subject? Perhaps God's existence is simply unprovable? Or is it just not really your responsibility (as a human) to figure out? That would be God's job. I won't quote the Bible to you, as you seem to know that quite well. I'm just curious - not looking for a particular answer. You seem to have very strong opinions and are willing to share them.

Aikmen? Singletary in '77.

That is a very slippery definition of atheist. Most dictionaries http://www.onelook.c...?w=atheism&ls=a define atheism http://www.yourdictionary.com/atheist as "a person who believes that there is no God". For the sake of clarity why not just use the word: agnostic? If that is indeed what you believe.