Design your own hell

[alva]

Republicans
Circle I Limbo

The Pope
Circle II Whirling in a Dark & Stormy Wind

George Bush
Circle III Mud, Rain, Cold, Hail & Snow

Uday Hussein
Circle IV Rolling Weights

Qusay Hussein
Circle V Stuck in Mud, Mangled

River Styx

Scientologists
Circle VI Buried for Eternity

River Phlegyas

Saddam Hussein
Circle VII Burning Sands

Osama bin Laden
Circle IIX Immersed in Excrement

Creationists
Circle IX Frozen in Ice

Design your own hell

[Ben Kenobi]

"Agnostics"

Or

A- Gnostics?

I wonder about the etymology of the word.

[reismark]

Crohn's Disease, Vegetables
Circle I Health Limbo

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Republicans, Mitt Romney, Anti-Gay Activists
Circle II Political Pain Procedures

The Metropolitan Transit Authority
Circle III Waiting in Mud, Rain, Cold, Hail & Snow... Forever

Harvey Weinstein, Michael Eisner, Reality Show Bashers, Walt Disney Co., "Stupid Comedy Film" Producers
Circle IV Media Prostitution

The Boston Red Sox, The St. Louis Rams, The Philadelphia Eagles, Cameron Crazies
Circle V Curses & Seasons of Torture

The Glass Ceiling

Triple H, The Clique
Circle VI Buried in the Midcard for Eternity

The Spike Trap

Shania Twain, Celine Dion
Circle VII Vocal Cord Torture

al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein
Circle IIX Internal Demolition

George W. Bush
Circle IX Alarming, Overwhelming Stupidity

Design your own hell

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
"Agnostics"

Or

A- Gnostics?

I wonder about the etymology of the word.

Agnosticism wasn't coined as phrase until the 19th century, by Herbert Spencer. It does, however, mean "without" Gnosticism, as Gnosticism believed one could know the absolute truth of God through revelation. An agnostic believes it is impossible to know the absolute truth about God.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Elok
Shallow, and only superficially thoughtful.

Now, having slogged through all your self-important quotes, I must insist that you read some real Orthodox Christian theology, C.S. Lewis, some sort of Kabbalistic thought, or other thoughtful belief, and THEN, and only then, attack religion.

I can't actually swallow the notion that you're using C.S. Lewis to propound the 'revealed truth' of religion.

Thnaks, but I was steeped in theology and religion from an early age, even have a cousin who's a Catholic priest.

I don't need the adolescent maunderings of someone harping on about the existence of god and how his beliefs are superior to my 'opinions' because well, they're 'religious' beliefs, and well, self-evidently superior. Who then cops out and says, I can't prove god exists to you, only you can see god. As good a description of paranoid schizophrenic delusions as any, I suppose.

Your example of gravity and god is absurd.

Imagine, only 'religious belief' is thoughtful belief. And you had the gall to describe Richard Dawkins, Nabokov and Oliver Sacks as self-important. The notion that secular humanism is opposed to god is another one of your self-deceptions.

You seem unable to understand that some humanists do not see god as a necessary prerequisite. I am no more opposed to god than I am to the Tooth Fairy, Noddy and Big Ears, or Jane Eyre.

Time for you to reacquaint yourself with some of that religionista humility.

[flash9286]

The New York Yankees
Circle I Limbo

General asshats
Circle II Whirling in a Dark & Stormy Wind

Republicans
Circle III Mud, Rain, Cold, Hail & Snow

George Bush
Circle IV Rolling Weights

NAMBLA Members
Circle V Stuck in Mud, Mangled

River Styx

Qusay Hussein
Circle VI Buried for Eternity

River Phlegyas

Uday Hussein
Circle VII Burning Sands

Saddam Hussein
Circle IIX Immersed in Excrement

Osama bin Laden
Circle IX Frozen in Ice

Design your own hell

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
I'm afraid it can't be done. Only you can see God. I can't see him for you. If you're going to ask for God to give you a miracle before you believe, you're starting from the wrong attitude entirely. You might as well ask gravity to ease up a little to make getting on the bathroom scale less depressing. You're insisting that the system adjust to fit your wishes, and it ain't gonna happen. See what I mean?

Asking for evidence before belief is the wrong attitude? I should just have "faith"? Why should I believe in your god, instead of Allah or Yahweh?

[GePap]

Scientologists
Circle I Limbo

Creationists
Circle II Whirling in a Dark & Stormy Wind

Libertarians
Circle III Mud, Rain, Cold, Hail & Snow

NAMBLA Members
Circle IV Rolling Weights

Republicans
Circle V Stuck in Mud, Mangled

River Styx

Objectivists
Circle VI Buried for Eternity

River Phlegyas

George Bush
Circle VII Burning Sands

Saddam Hussein
Circle IIX Immersed in Excrement

Osama bin Laden
Circle IX Frozen in Ice

Design your own hell

[Elok]

Okay, I've had a few glasses of wine, so take the following with a grain or two of salt.

Your secular humanist crap defined itself as directly opposed to religion. Verbatim. It also expressed admiration for the idea of defiance of convention, which is merely a refusal to outgrow adolescence. Ideas ought to be good on their own merit, not because they happen to oppose somebody else's ideas.

And I did not say that those people were self-important, but that your quotes were. They in no way contributed to the argument, they did not convince me, and at least one of them, the one about American patriotism, wasn't even relevant. It was just a heap of self-congratulation.

Interaction with the Divine is a personal thing. I do not refer to some sort of hallucination, but to a kind of perception separate from sight, touch, taste, and the like, which is attained by contemplation. If your Catholic priest of a cousin failed to tell you that, it has little to do with me. Catholicism as a ship has been sinking since Vatican II. And C.S. Lewis makes perfect sense if you read him thoughtfully and objectively, as opposed to digging at it for details to make fun of. You do realize he wrote stuff other than the Chronicles of Narnia, right? Anyway, stop putting words in my mouth.

And even tipsy as I am, I can see the logic in what I said. Skywalker insisted that I provide "empirical, repeatable evidence" of God. "Empirical" and "repeatable," which is to say to some extent predictable, are characteristics of natural events. If they happened predictably, they would hardly be proof of the supernatural in the first place. They would be merely another kind of natural event. In other words, I am challenged to prove the supernatural by means of the natural. He's asking me to knowingly play with a deck stacked against me, and I'm not that dumb. If you refuse to see anything except in terms of naturalistic consequences, of course I can't "prove" God. God is a self-aware being, not a background process like photosynthesis or something. You can't expect me to order him to do tricks for you like a dog.

I am saying that there *are* ways to experience the supernatural. It's called asceticism. I do not promise that they will work for you, because I do not know the workings of your mind. If you refuse anything that doesn't come with a money-back guarantee, I have nothing to say to you. If you refuse it out of hand, ridiculing it as a form of schizophrenia, that proves nothing but your own stubbornness.

I didn't say that only religious belief is thoughtful belief. The stuff you are oh-so proud of largely has little if anything to do with atheism as such. Or at least, the sensible parts of it don't. Atheism is not a philosophy itself. It is only the statement that there is no God. The long tracts you copy-and-pasted for me have had atheism tacked on to otherwise common belief, and furthermore the parts tacked on are the least intelligent.

Do you know what can actually be extrapolated from the statement, "there is no God"? Nothing. It's just four words that function only to negate another belief. Which is all that the word "atheist" really means. If you think you have to not believe in God to dislike bigotry, censorship, and violence, or whatever you said, you're wrong. Nor did I say you have to believe in God to think so. I merely said that atheism itself is meaningless, and if you happen to have some kind of happy-go-lucky personal motto to go with it, that's peachy keen but hardly my concern.

[Kuciwalker]

And even tipsy as I am, I can see the logic in what I said. Skywalker insisted that I provide "empirical, repeatable evidence" of God. "Empirical" and "repeatable," which is to say to some extent predictable, are characteristics of natural events. If they happened predictably, they would hardly be proof of the supernatural in the first place. They would be merely another kind of natural event. In other words, I am challenged to prove the supernatural by means of the natural. He's asking me to knowingly play with a deck stacked against me, and I'm not that dumb. If you refuse to see anything except in terms of naturalistic consequences, of course I can't "prove" God. God is a self-aware being, not a background process like photosynthesis or something. You can't expect me to order him to do tricks for you like a dog.

Supernatural is an oxymoron. Nature = the universe = the set of all that exists, thus anything outside of nature does not exists. If you are using a different definition of nature, provide it, but make sure it's consistent

Also, you haven't answer MY question, which is: "why should I believe you, as opposed to a rabbi or whatever muslims call their religious people?"

[Imran Siddiqui]

An agnostic believes it is impossible to know the absolute truth about God.

Then couldn't, technically, an agnostic believe in God? After all there are plenty of believers who believe that it is impossible to know the absolute truth about God, only that he exists somewhere.

[Elok]

Originally posted by skywalker
Asking for evidence before belief is the wrong attitude? I should just have "faith"? Why should I believe in your god, instead of Allah or Yahweh?

Well, if you would consider the possibility that I did not make this system up myself...argh.

There is something to our perception that transcends normal reason. I have felt it only in the faintest glimmers here and there, but it is there. You may say it is only a facet of my mind, but I might just as well say sight, or hearing, is an illusion. If I am to selectively distrust my own senses, how am I to know which to trust?

I am not offering you a contract. I do not tell you, "sign here, and here, and here, and I will show you God." If it were that easy, it would be commonplace, and there would be no atheists in the world. I am telling you the way it is. You must actively seek God to find him, unless he is willing to show himself to you, and I will not presume to dictate his actions. You may fail to feel anything. I don't know. If you do not like it, I have no other option to offer you. All I'm saying is that none of you have any right to mock what you have never known.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Elok
Okay, I've had a few glasses of wine, so take the following with a grain or two of salt.

Your secular humanist crap defined itself as directly opposed to religion. Verbatim. It also expressed admiration for the idea of defiance of convention, which is merely a refusal to outgrow adolescence. Ideas ought to be good on their own merit, not because they happen to oppose somebody else's ideas.

Interaction with the Divine is a personal thing. I do not refer to some sort of hallucination, but to a kind of perception separate from sight, touch, taste, and the like, which is attained by contemplation. If your Catholic priest of a cousin failed to tell you that, it has little to do with me.

You do realize he wrote stuff other than the Chronicles of Narnia, right? Anyway, stop putting words in my mouth.

And even tipsy as I am, I can see the logic in what I said.

I am saying that there *are* ways to experience the supernatural. It's called asceticism.

Unbelievably pompous and arrogant, but to be expected from a religionista. Oooh, yes, I do know C.S. Lewis wrote things other than the Narnia cycle. Why, I even know about his bein' a perfesser, and writin' scribbles an' stuff about litter a chewer. I might even have read some of his essays on mediaeval epic poetry, and gosh, even some of his theological mumblings.

Asceticism- hmm, yes, I'm familiar with depriving the body of sensory input, or food, or water, or dwelling in extremes of discomfort, heat, cold, et cetera.

All excellent ways to induce hallucinations and delusions. Of course alcohol seems to be taking you there, but then you could try yohimbine, hallucinatory fungi, sweat lodges, bhang, lotus plants, opium, or whatever else gets you starry eyed.

Religion is not 'god' by the way- to be opposed to religion is not to be opposed to god. Nor is it to assume the existence of a god. I'm opposed to those who believe the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are the truth too.

Of course interaction with the divine is a 'personal' thing-it's so much more difficult to stage big showy miracles with so many scientists and video cameras around these days.

I like to defy 'convention'- you know, like the Civil Rights Movement, the Anti-Slavery Leagues, the Suffragettes, and so on.

I suppose they were all adolescent were they? Better than being grown up like all those anti-semitic Catholics and pro-slavery Protestants.

[Elok]

Natural: the predictable and unaware, that which acts as part of the mechanism of the physical universe. God, being ostensibly self-aware and free to act as he pleases, is inherently unpredictable as a concept. You might say, "why would God deliberately hide himself?" but who's to say he does what he does for the purpose of hiding from you?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
Well, if you would consider the possibility that I did not make this system up myself...argh.

There is something to our perception that transcends normal reason. I have felt it only in the faintest glimmers here and there, but it is there. You may say it is only a facet of my mind, but I might just as well say sight, or hearing, is an illusion. If I am to selectively distrust my own senses, how am I to know which to trust?

I am not offering you a contract. I do not tell you, "sign here, and here, and here, and I will show you God." If it were that easy, it would be commonplace, and there would be no atheists in the world. I am telling you the way it is. You must actively seek God to find him, unless he is willing to show himself to you, and I will not presume to dictate his actions. You may fail to feel anything. I don't know. If you do not like it, I have no other option to offer you. All I'm saying is that none of you have any right to mock what you have never known.

My point is that every religion offers equally convincing evidence for its truth, so there is no reason to presume one is correct, instead of the other.