Hi, I suppose I'm new.

[sharpsh00ter]

I come from another message board at the request of a former user there...

So hi.

I'm agnostic, in case this message has been too off-topic thus far.

[NoZed Avenger]

Board rules now require you to post a picture of yourself on a pony with a big sombrero, but nothing else.

Don't worry, we all had to do it. Just post it to this thread.

NA


PS Welcome.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by sharpsh00ter
I come from another message board at the request of a former user there...

So hi.

I'm agnostic, in case this message has been too off-topic thus far.
So someone told you to leave the other board?

Anyway, welcome!

[sharpsh00ter]

1. Pic is complete. Was difficult to get pony to not buckle under my weight, and the graduation outfit complicated things.

2. No, I didn't get kicked out. Me and this other user who supposedly posts here, DarkCobra as he was there, argued all the time about religion and he told me to start posting here because he thought it was a better place to debate this stuff. Then he suicided his account in a moment of atheistic glory. I still post there.

[NoZed Avenger]

Very well. You may enter.


Mind your head, and keep a hand on your wallet.


NA

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by sharpsh00ter

2. No, I didn't get kicked out. Me and this other user who supposedly posts here, DarkCobra as he was there, argued all the time about religion and he told me to start posting here because he thought it was a better place to debate this stuff.
Translation: He knew there were plenty of atheistic materialists here to back up his position. ;) He's still around, but under a different name now.

[sharpsh00ter]

Yeah, I can only guess he wanted his own turf. What is his name on these forums?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by sharpsh00ter
Yeah, I can only guess he wanted his own turf. What is his name on these forums?

I think it is Lord Kenneth nowadaysÉ

Oh, and by the way: Hi!

[kittynh]

Hello and hey nice ass. (it's an animal Hal!)

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Translation: He knew there were plenty of atheistic materialists here to back up his position. ;) He's still around, but under a different name now.

True, but considering most of the other people on that board were teenagers and weren't very bright...

This place has much, much better discussions, AND people more knowledgable than me (I still say I was the smartest person on that board).

You remember Polemos, sharpsh00ter? He got so much respect when he barely made any sense, and when he did make sense, his position was... well, I would call it incorrect, that's for sure.

There's no discussions about goatse here, none of that crap. The discussions are more serious, and people don't start insulting you just for posting a topic dealing with religion *cough* (remember how often that happened to me, sharpsh00ter?)

[c4ts]

Here's a tip: don't act like DarkCobra

Most of the R&P trolls are gone, so enjoy it while you can, before another one shows up.

[ImpyTimpy]

C4ts is right, most trolls are gone, so that means you missed out on some of the fun. Their names are not to be spoken however! The web is a mysterious place and a single utter of their name might make them appear before us to again throw forth the TLOP argument.

Welcome to the forum :)

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by c4ts
Here's a tip: don't act like DarkCobra


Why? Want one less genius around? ;)

Starting to feel crowded?

:p

[triadboy]

Originally posted by sharpsh00ter
1. Pic is complete. Was difficult to get pony to not buckle under my weight, and the graduation outfit complicated things.


Hi

I assume that's a talking ass?

[sharpsh00ter]

True, but considering most of the other people on that board were teenagers and weren't very bright...

You are a teenager also. And disagreeing with you is not the same as not being bright.

This place has much, much better discussions, AND people more knowledgable than me (I still say I was the smartest person on that board).

I'll give you the most stubborn, but you probably weren't the smartest.

You remember Polemos, sharpsh00ter? He got so much respect when he barely made any sense, and when he did make sense, his position was... well, I would call it incorrect, that's for sure.

I also found that beneath the correct grammar and excessive strings of excessive words, he wasn't that great.

One topic I remember, I asked why God in His infinite power and wisdom did not make the Bible unmistakable- that is create it so that we wouldn't ever misinterpret its message. I said that a lot of people have based their murderous and violent schemes off of misinterpretations of the Bible and that God wouldn't want that.

Polemos entered, and wrote about how God made the Bible so beautiful and inspiring, yet never answered the central question. And the LUEsers revered him for it.

The discussions are more serious, and people don't start insulting you just for posting a topic dealing with religion *cough* (remember how often that happened to me, sharpsh00ter?)

Some insulted you, most disagreed with you. Another distinction there. Though I hardly ever agreed with you, I discussed and wrote about your points, neglecting to personally insult you.

_____

Hi

I assume that's a talking ass?

Ever seen Ace Ventura?

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by sharpsh00ter
True, but considering most of the other people on that board were teenagers and weren't very bright...

You are a teenager also. And disagreeing with you is not the same as not being bright.

This place has much, much better discussions, AND people more knowledgable than me (I still say I was the smartest person on that board).

I'll give you the most stubborn, but you probably weren't the smartest.

You remember Polemos, sharpsh00ter? He got so much respect when he barely made any sense, and when he did make sense, his position was... well, I would call it incorrect, that's for sure.

I also found that beneath the correct grammar and excessive strings of excessive words, he wasn't that great.

One topic I remember, I asked why God in His infinite power and wisdom did not make the Bible unmistakable- that is create it so that we wouldn't ever misinterpret its message. I said that a lot of people have based their murderous and violent schemes off of misinterpretations of the Bible and that God wouldn't want that.

Polemos entered, and wrote about how God made the Bible so beautiful and inspiring, yet never answered the central question. And the LUEsers revered him for it.

The discussions are more serious, and people don't start insulting you just for posting a topic dealing with religion *cough* (remember how often that happened to me, sharpsh00ter?)

Some insulted you, most disagreed with you. Another distinction there. Though I hardly ever agreed with you, I discussed and wrote about your points, neglecting to personally insult you.

_____

Hi

I assume that's a talking ass?

Ever seen Ace Ventura?

Ah, glad someone finally agrees with me about Polemos.

Yes, I am a teenager, but certainly not a normal one, and I was not like the average... "LUEser". They were not bright teenagers, either, when I think back on some of their posts...

Yes, I was arrogant, but I am certain I was the smartest poster there. It was hard to lose a debate with me, and now, it'd be even harder as I continue to grow in knowledge.

Most disagreed with me, I think, because they were simply not that bright. I think we may have had exchanges, though-- I think we both insulted each other. My long term memory on this kind of stuff is bad.... I had a lot of enemies and allies, back then... (most of my allies weren't that smart, either, even if they did agree with what I said).

[Yahweh]

Welcome SharpSh00ter. Stay away from the Thread That Will Never Die.

[sharpsh00ter]

Yes, I am a teenager, but certainly not a normal one, and I was not like the average... "LUEser". They were not bright teenagers, either, when I think back on some of their posts...

I know it's tough to type messages whilst tooting so loudly on your own horn, but do come down off your mountain. You aren't that amazing. None of us are. We're all in the same boat, trying to live our 80 years and find happiness.

Yes, I was arrogant, but I am certain I was the smartest poster there. It was hard to lose a debate with me, and now, it'd be even harder as I continue to grow in knowledge.

I find that somewhat humorous, you talking about how good you are and then saying, "It was hard to lose a debate with me".

And I'm not sure who decided that you won all your LUE debates. CJayC is busy putting Valvoline into his patchwork servers trying to keep GFAQs sputtering and alive, and as always the mods are busy deleting posts about DBZ flame wars and such. So it must have been you who made this decision, and I have to question the outcome of those prize fights being that it is one of the fighters deciding the winner.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by sharpsh00ter
Yes, I am a teenager, but certainly not a normal one, and I was not like the average... "LUEser". They were not bright teenagers, either, when I think back on some of their posts...

I know it's tough to type messages whilst tooting so loudly on your own horn, but do come down off your mountain. You aren't that amazing. None of us are. We're all in the same boat, trying to live our 80 years and find happiness.



I believe anyone who has greater intellect than the average person and is able to come to their own decisions using adequate reasoning is amazing. That may be you, me, James Randi, and many of the other skeptics on these boards. You don't realize how incapable so many people are of thinking rationally... or they just don't because they never get taught to.





Yes, I was arrogant, but I am certain I was the smartest poster there. It was hard to lose a debate with me, and now, it'd be even harder as I continue to grow in knowledge.

I find that somewhat humorous, you talking about how good you are and then saying, "It was hard to lose a debate with me".

And I'm not sure who decided that you won all your LUE debates. CJayC is busy putting Valvoline into his patchwork servers trying to keep GFAQs sputtering and alive, and as always the mods are busy deleting posts about DBZ flame wars and such. So it must have been you who made this decision, and I have to question the outcome of those prize fights being that it is one of the fighters deciding the winner. [/B]

I did lose a few debates, yes, I did admit when I was wrong, which was not often.

Who do you think was the most intelligent person there? Conrad4? (ha!)

I will admit, Coolhand was intelligent, but still overrated in a Polemos-type way...

I suppose I didn't really "win" a debate, as most people never did concede, but that's to be expected when you're debating against other people's dogma.

[reprise]

Welcome sharpsh00ter, I like your style already. :D

[sharpsh00ter]

I believe anyone who has greater intellect than the average person and is able to come to their own decisions using adequate reasoning is amazing. That may be you, me, James Randi, and many of the other skeptics on these boards.

I don't really consider myself a "skeptic". I just look around, I observe life on Earth, I reflect upon the whole mass of it, and think to myself "I just don't think there's any higher being out there". I can't list a bunch of givens and make an "and/or" logical proof, nor can I present any evidence to the world to prove the existance of God wrong, but I just think what I think. I believe what I believe.

To say with concrete resolve that there is no God takes as much blind faith as it takes to say there is a God. Granted that your doubtful position may seem logical in the absence of proof, but God has yet to be scientifically disproven either.

I did lose a few debates, yes, I did admit when I was wrong, which was not often.

Who do you think was the most intelligent person there? Conrad4? (ha!)

I will admit, Coolhand was intelligent, but still overrated in a Polemos-type way...

All of your old LUE posts that I recall were grammatically sound and addressed mature topics, and for that I will admit that you do stand out from a great deal of LUEsers.

I think Coolhand has a maturity level that is virtually unseen on LUE, but again he's almost 30 and that's expected. It's hard to choose a most intelligent but I'll just say it's me since you were bold enough to state it was you. Plus I haven't suicided my account.

I suppose I didn't really "win" a debate, as most people never did concede, but that's to be expected when you're debating against other people's dogma.

I don't think there's a whole lot of real dogma floating around LUE. I just think that there's a lot of teenagers and such that are still searching for an identity.

[sharpsh00ter]

And I'm going to bed now because I have to get up tomorrow. I actually found a summer job so I can't stay on the 3 AM - noon sleep schedule I've been on lately.

But I won't let this topic die. It will just wait until tomorrow.

[Tricky]

Welcome, Sharpshooter.

(Apologies to all of those who have heard this before).
So you are an "agnostic",eh? So was I when I came here, or so I thought. I always believed that atheists took the position that "God is impossible". I have since learned that this is not the way that atheists describe themselves. Most atheists (including myself) think that there is no evidence for a god, but do not deny the possibility. Consider these two statements.

"I don't believe there is a god."
vs.
"I believe there is not a god".

There is a small but important distinction between the statements, in that one states belief and the other states lack of belief.

Another way to look at it is in the roots of the words Atheist and Agnostic.

Agnostic literally means "don't know", which is a position of knowledge. Atheist means "not believing in god", which is a position of belief. Technically, I am an agnostic atheist, because I don't believe there is any evidence for a god, but I also admit I don't know, and could be convinced with proper evidence.

From reading your posts, I suspect that you are similarly inclined, so you may safely call yourself and atheist while on these boards without (much) fear of being branded "just as bad as those who claim to know there is a god." However, since these distinctions are pretty much unknown in the "outside world", I agree it is good to keep the agnostic label when not on these boards.
--
P.S. If you use the QUOTE brackets, when replying, it will be easier for us to separate what you have said versus what you are replying to.

[Lord Kenneth]

My position is the same, however, here's another way you can put it...

I "believe there is no god" in the sense that I don't believe in unicorns or fairies. If they exist, show me, and I will revise that belief. This is not absolute certainity. I can be convinced otherwise, but I'm sure it would take quite a bit of evidence to do so ("Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence")

If you'd ask me, if god exists or doesn't exist, I would say he doesn't exist. But yes, the possibility exists.

sharpsh00ter, you mention "scientifically disproven". That is a contradiction in terms. Also, god cannot be disproven, the only way that is possible now is to show that god is or is part of a logical contradiction, and apparently the concept isn't... there is no evidence towards god to try to debunk (well, nothing that has past the test of debunking), and the concept isn't falsifiable to begin with.


However, there is no evidence, the concept is extraordinary, and seems to me to be implausible. We will need evidence before we can say any of the above things exist, and we don't have ANY.

This is one of the things I do remember debating with sharpsh00ter about, often....

Very few atheists, at least the educated type you will see here, do not say there is no god with "concrete resolve".

[arcticpenguin]

sharpsh00ter,

Let me offer you a guide to the next several weeks/months of discussion:

I'm an agnostic.

cool.

I think being an agnostic is the most reasonable, rational position.

Invisible Pink Unicorns.

Ha!

Your ugly and so is your mama!

No I'm not, you are.
...

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Welcome to the board, Sharpsh00ter.

To expand on Tricky's and Kenneth's points a bit...

The statement "I believe no Gods exist" is completely devoid of meaning without first stipulating a conception of God. As such, I don't see how anybody would make such a blanket claim, and I certainly don't know of any atheists who are claiming to do so.

Whether I say I believe that a particular conception of God does not exist, or that I simply do not believe that it exists, depends on the conception of God in question.

(1) There are many conceptions of God which are logically contradictory. I think I am fairly well justified in saying that such Gods do not exist.

(2) There are many conceptions of God for which there is substantial scientific counter-evidence. I also feel quite well justified in saying that I do not believe they exist.

(3) There are many conceptions of God which are incompatible with the axioms of science (ie they are supernatural). Given that the substantial evidence supporting the validity of the scientific method also constitutes evidence against the existence of the supernatural, it is perfectly reasonable for me to say that I believe they do not exist either.

This only leaves conceptions of God which are logically self-consistent, consistent with our scientific knowledge, and naturalistic. I know of no such conceptions of God, but I will not discount the possibility that there could be some sort of God which meets those criteria. I simply have no reason to believe there are, so I don't.

So, in principle I am an agnostic atheist. I lack belief in God because I have no evidence to support the hypothesis that God exists. In practice, I am a hard atheist, because when it comes to every conception of God I have ever heard of, I believe that such a being does not exist.

I think this factor really needs to be taken into account when you consider the kinds of things atheists say. Most (if not all) atheists live in cultures where there is one, or a few, predominant conceptions of God. If you hear such an atheist saying things like "God does not exist", or "God was invented by man", etc, you should keep in mind that these people are probably referring to the common conceptions of God in their societies, and not to some vague, generic philosophical conception of God.

Likewise, when you tell somebody you are an agnostic, most often they will assume that this means that you are undecided with respect to the predominant conception of God in your society. This is an important point. If I tell somebody in the U.S. that I am an agnostic, they will probably assume that this means that I am not sure whether or not the Christian God exists, but they will not for a minute think that I am undecided about things like Zeus, Ra, Odin, Genesha, etc...

Dr. Stupid

[Dancing David]

So if we posit that god is a subset of human experience, will that be logicaly self consistant?

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Dancing David,

So if we posit that god is a subset of human experience, will that be logically self consistant?

Not enough information. Simply defining it to be a subset of human experience is not sufficient. You need to stipulate which subset of human experience you are attaching the word "God" to.

A conception of God cannot be said to be logically self-consistent if it is not even coherently defined.

Dr. Stupid

[CapelDodger]

From Stimpson J Cat:
The statement "I believe no Gods exist" is completely devoid of meaning without first stipulating a conception of God. As such, I don't see how anybody would make such a blanket claim, and I certainly don't know of any atheists who are claiming to do so.
Now you do. If there is no supernatural there are no gods, which surely have a supernatural aspect however you bake them.

There seems to be an assumption that the idea of the supernatural comes with being human, but in fact it's something that is fed to us as children. These ideas have been thought up by people over time. If you weren't exposed to them and grew up learning about the universe and trying to understand what's behind it you wouldn't bring in the idea of the supernatural. Quantum mechanics yes, invisible pink fairies no. Invisible odourless beetle-freaks with markedly human characterists are also out. There's no need to prove the absence of gods; the idea is ridiculous.

And hi sharpsh00ter. You sh00t it, someone'll shovel it.

[MRC_Hans]

WOW! Sharp-whatever-shooter, thats the best welcome I have seen a newbie get from the old farts here. But you seem like you might be worth it, so if Dark Kenneth Cobra invited you here, that's one up for him, too.

Welcome! Hans

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Dancing David,



Not enough information. Simply defining it to be a subset of human experience is not sufficient. You need to stipulate which subset of human experience you are attaching the word "God" to.

A conception of God cannot be said to be logically self-consistent if it is not even coherently defined.

Dr. Stupid

Coherently defined and god , hmmm....

I presuppose that there is an irrational nature to human beings, that this area is where the emotions,dreams and other oddities come from.
Given this presupposition and the biological nature of human reality it is my belief that 'spiritual experiences' are a subset of human experience. They can be self induced, drug induced, brain damage, seizures and perceptrual experiences. They are all contained inside the cranium and do not nessecitate 'outside' forces.
I believe that all spiritual experiences which are not a product of chicanery are perceptual experiences that are common to human beings. (This would be hard to prove, as it is difficult to prove space aliens don't exist, but easy to suppose that delusions do.)

So it is my belief that all spiritual experineces are a byproduct of the organic nature of human beings.

There is a subset of these experiences which relates to talking to god, seeing god and/or hearing god, feeling that god is messing with your life, etc.

I think that the scientific method can be applied to spiritual experineces as human experiences.

Most people who have spiritual experieneces would take exception to my definition.

[sharpsh00ter]

Thank you for the welcome everyone. I shall continue to try not to make an ass of myself.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

CapelDodger,

The statement "I believe no Gods exist" is completely devoid of meaning without first stipulating a conception of God. As such, I don't see how anybody would make such a blanket claim, and I certainly don't know of any atheists who are claiming to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now you do. If there is no supernatural there are no gods, which surely have a supernatural aspect however you bake them.

This goes back to my original point. Unless you stipulate the conception, you cannot meaningfully say is does not exist. You have just stipulated the conception by stating that God must be supernatural. I agree that this broad category of conceptions of God do not exist. I do not agree that this exhausts all possible conceptions of God. Of course, I know of no logically coherent, naturalistic conception of God, so the distinction is rather moot.

There seems to be an assumption that the idea of the supernatural comes with being human, but in fact it's something that is fed to us as children. These ideas have been thought up by people over time. If you weren't exposed to them and grew up learning about the universe and trying to understand what's behind it you wouldn't bring in the idea of the supernatural. Quantum mechanics yes, invisible pink fairies no. Invisible odourless beetle-freaks with markedly human characterists are also out. There's no need to prove the absence of gods; the idea is ridiculous.

I agree completely. I quite confident that none of the conceptions of God that I have ever heard of, actually exist.

I think we are essentially saying the same thing here. The point I was trying to make is that if an atheist says "God does not exist" he is referring to the various concepts that people have attached the name "God" to. He is not referring to some vague, as yet undefined thing that somebody could potentially call God. When people try to claim that hard atheists are taking the non-existence of God on faith, because some thing which nobody has ever conceived of could exist, and could be assigned the name "God", they are just spewing nonsense. This is essentially no different than claiming that atheists are wrong because you named your dog God.

So in effect, agnostic atheism and hard atheism are functionally no different. The "agnostic" part only applies when you are talking about hypothetical naturalistic conceptions of God that nobody has ever dreamed up. It is only relevant to philosophical meandering. I use it to make it clear that my lack of belief in Gods is based on the lack of supporting evidence, and not on any set of atheistic religious beliefs.

Dancing David,

Coherently defined and god , hmmm....

I presuppose that there is an irrational nature to human beings, that this area is where the emotions,dreams and other oddities come from.
Given this presupposition and the biological nature of human reality it is my belief that 'spiritual experiences' are a subset of human experience. They can be self induced, drug induced, brain damage, seizures and perceptrual experiences. They are all contained inside the cranium and do not nessecitate 'outside' forces.
I believe that all spiritual experiences which are not a product of chicanery are perceptual experiences that are common to human beings. (This would be hard to prove, as it is difficult to prove space aliens don't exist, but easy to suppose that delusions do.)

So it is my belief that all spiritual experineces are a byproduct of the organic nature of human beings.

There is a subset of these experiences which relates to talking to god, seeing god and/or hearing god, feeling that god is messing with your life, etc.

I think that the scientific method can be applied to spiritual experineces as human experiences.

Most people who have spiritual experieneces would take exception to my definition.

Well yeah, I guess they would. :D What you have just provided is not a conception of God, but rather a hypothesis to explain the fact that many people have "spiritual experiences".

Dr. Stupid

[Dancing David]

But it is a description that is scientificaly testable of people who experience god. Which is the rational way of saying the same thing.
My hypothesis can be tested and experimented upon, and is the basis for most of the stuff people call god.

To quote Ghostbusters
"I had an uncle who saw St. Jerome, does that count."

The god experience is quite real but the fact that people have the experience does not mean that there is a god outside of that experience.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Dancing David,

But it is a description that is scientificaly testable of people who experience god. Which is the rational way of saying the same thing.
My hypothesis can be tested and experimented upon, and is the basis for most of the stuff people call god.

Exactly. And that is how the problem should be approached. There is no question that many people believe they have had some sort of contact with God. The hypothesis you are constructing is one which explains this phenomenon without making the unnecessary assumption that there actually is a God that they had contact with.

To quote Ghostbusters
"I had an uncle who saw St. Jerome, does that count."

I'd call that a big "yes". :p

The god experience is quite real but the fact that people have the experience does not mean that there is a god outside of that experience.

Agreed. I think we should also be able to agree that the "god experience" is not a conception of God. Certainly the fact that I acknowledge the existence of this phenomenon you are calling the "God experience" does not mean I am not an atheist?

Dr. Stupid

[CapelDodger]

From Stimpson J Cat:
You have just stipulated the conception by stating that God must be supernatural. I agree that this broad category of conceptions of God do not exist. I do not agree that this exhausts all possible conceptions of God
God is a word, with connotations that accompany its meaning. It does not define anything that has no supernatural aspect. Put another way, anything that has no supernatural aspect is not a god. Dismiss the supernatural and all gods are dismissed. If there's such a thing as a "hard atheist", I'm one.

... because you named your dog God.
Actually I called him Judas. He didn't seem to mind.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
God is a word, with connotations that accompany its meaning. It does not define anything that has no supernatural aspect. Put another way, anything that has no supernatural aspect is not a god. Dismiss the supernatural and all gods are dismissed. If there's such a thing as a "hard atheist", I'm one.



I always wanted to name a dog Jesus.

The concept god fits into the human experinec definition, it is a cognitive event.

But the rub is that there are mnay people who would condem god as psychological experience.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Dancing David

I always wanted to name a dog Jesus.


Like the Red Peters song, a dog should be named "Stains". Then you can stand out on your front porch and yell, "Come, Stains! Come, Stains!"

[CapelDodger]

From Dancing David:
The concept god fits into the human experinec definition, it is a cognitive event.
aka, has no objective existence. Any more than the concept "fuzzy", which has only a human experiential definition.