The Official God FAQ

[Robert]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


So it was Rumsfeld rather than Cheney, of course you knew what I was getting at, but decided to play the moronic semantic game.

Aren't you guys taking things a bit too serious here?
Of course I knew what you were getting at. But I surely hope that you knew that my original statement was obviously tongue in cheek (?).

Did you really really really take my "if it's not funny then it's true" seriously? Wow....

Seriously:

Ok, have to ask: did you really really really take that seriously?

[Robert]

Originally posted by Agathon
I don't care if you believe in God or not. I just think that your belief should cost you your vote, and any say in public affairs. After all, other people who claim that invisible men are telling them how to live a righteous life are often locked up.

Tell me: are you serious?
Now I'm getting messed up about what's serious and what's not serious......

[Robert]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Things that are also funny include: The way in which you completely failed to respond to my real argument, which was that your argument is a strawman.

To start with: it was tongue in cheek.
But ok, let's pretend that it was actually serious, then yes, you're right: it was a strawman argument.

But: after reading the reactions of some atheists here in this thread I conclude that it was not a strawman argument. Some of the reactions here proved that there are actually atheists like I described in my FAQ.

I must say: that suprises me most probably more then you

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by CyberShy
But: after reading the reactions of some atheists here in this thread I conclude that it was not a strawman argument. Some of the reactions here proved that there are actually atheists like I described in my FAQ.

Let's take a look at that, actually.

Whaleboy, an atheist, thought it was funny.

Elok, an Orthodox Christian, didn't think it was particularly funny.

While I do not believe in the Christian God, I am no atheist either, and I didn't think the joke was funny.

Cort Haus, who is either an agnostic or atheist (sorry for not remembering), agreed that it wasn't particularly funny but had no other comment to make.

Kid and Che, both rabid atheists, didn't comment on your FAQ at all.

Agathon got angry, but he's Agathon.

Imran, also not terribly religious, overreacted a bit, and I suspect that's mostly to do with him, like me, simply being tired of your style of debate.

So, who here is one of the atheists identified in the FAQ?

[Cort Haus]

Je suis un atheist, for the record.

[Robert]

I suspect that's mostly to do with him, like me, simply being tired of your style of debate.

Get real dude. I haven't had a real debate overhere for about 5 years. I even wonder if you know who I am, I can't remember ever debating with either you or with imran.

But maybe you spend your days spitting in the archives reading the old atheist-theist debates of millenia ago.
Well, that only proves again that some of you guys need some serious help since you spend half of your life on a god in whom's existence you don't believe :P (notice the wink and the tongue smileys!)

Let's take a look at that, actually.

So, who here is one of the atheists identified in the FAQ?

You, Imran and agathon.
And yes, that's why I said 'some' and not 'all'

Imran, also not terribly religious, overreated a bit,

Dude, watch out! agathon may start yelling at you becuase of your terrible spelling!!!

Anyway, it's amazing how some atheists have turned this thread that started with a joke (god faq) and was countered with another joke, (ok, both may or may not be terribly funny) turned into this debate!

And most amazing at all is that then one of those joke-murderes says: "We grew tired of your debating style...."


Look into the mirror dude!

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by CyberShy
You, Imran and agathon.

I. am. not. an. atheist.

I believe in an indescribable, nonexistent something beyond the bounds of this universe that is necessary for the unique manifestations of will objects must identify with when they encounter other objects in the universe.

Imran, also not terribly religious, overreated a bit,

Dude, watch out! agathon may start yelling at you becuase of your terrible spelling!!!

Whoops!

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Lorizael
I believe in an indescribable, nonexistent something beyond the bounds of this universe that is necessary for the unique manifestations of will objects must identify with when they encounter other objects in the universe.

This is a more interesting subject for discussion than whether or not Cybershy is funny.

For starters, how can you believe in a non-existent thing? Feel free to rephrase that if you think it will help.

Next, when you refer to the 'will' of objects are you referring to sentient objects, and if so, what do you mean by 'will'? Is it anything to do with Will9?

[Lorizael]

I probably won't be willing to have a long discussion on this, Cort, as this is one of the few subjects I genuinely care about.

Originally posted by Cort Haus
For starters, how can you believe in a non-existent thing? Feel free to rephrase that if you think it will help.

My philosophy describes a couple fundamental properties that all existent objects must have. This nonexistent thing - which I am incapable of describing in any more detail (because I can't know anything about it) - is that which does not possess the fundamental properties of existence.

It cannot be said to be real in any way that is meaningful within the confines of our finite universe, but it is a logical conclusion given the other premises of my philosophy.

Next, when you refer to the 'will' of objects are you referring to sentient objects, and if so, what do you mean by 'will'? Is it anything to do with Will9?

I believe that all objects possess a will to some degree, and this is completely separate from sentience. This will expresses itself through instantly manifesting a uinque set of properties whenever it encounters another object in the universe in order to distinquish itself from that object.

Beings that we would call sentient or sapient - such as ourselves - merely have extremely complex, insulated, and sort of recursive versions of these wills. It is my belief that consciousness is the result of a multitude of smaller objects - all with "will," interacting in this manner.

[Cort Haus]

Inanimate objects certainly posses properties which could loosely be described as 'will'. Those properties being the laws of physics. So, for example, when an object is dropped it displays a 'will' to be attracted and moved by the local gravitational force.

I'm sure this isn't what you meant but I couldn't resist saying it anyway.

Other than that, I'll leave you in peace, but it's surprising that you don't like to talk about something you care so much about and to test those ideas in public.

[Robert]

debates about the real 'label' of someone are very common in extreme orthodox religious groups. "I am not a fundamentalist" or "I am not an extremist" or "I am not an ultra orthodox something" are very familiair there.

To me the "I am not an atheist but a 'bla bla bla'" falls in the same category.
Just for the record: my FAQ did not include the word atheist. Conclusion: you are still in the running for being my strawman!

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Inanimate objects certainly posses properties which could loosely be described as 'will'. Those properties being the laws of physics. So, for example, when an object is dropped it displays a 'will' to be attracted and moved by the local gravitational force.

I'm sure this isn't what you meant but I couldn't resist saying it anyway.

Actually, that really isn't too far off from what I believe. It's not as if I believe rocks are thinking beings after all.

Other than that, I'll leave you in peace, but it's surprising that you don't like to talk about something you care so much about and to test those ideas in public.

I've had too many bad experiences in the past when attempting to express myself. Inevitably I am not able to give a full account of what I mean, and this causes misinterpretation and argument and all sorts of headaches.

Not being able to communicate well with humans cost me my relationship with one of my brothers, for example. He and I will never be close again because he has formed very wrong impressions of me that simply will not go away.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by CyberShy
To me the "I am not an atheist but a 'bla bla bla'" falls in the same category.

It's not that I'm some weird branch of atheist, CyberShy; I'm simply not an atheist.

[Elok]

Okay, I'm not going to try and analyze that too closely, Lori. Either my head will explode or it will start to make sense, and I'm not sure which is worse.

CS, I think the main reason why I didn't find your FAQ funny (not that the OP's was either) is that it's just another version of the tired old "atheism is a religion" troll. While it amazes me that people will still bite at that ancient canard, your analysis didn't seem to be a very accurate description of the typical rabid-atheist psyche...which made it nothing more than a troll. Contrary to your claim, things are generally more funny when they contain an element of truth in my experience.

[Robert]

things are generally more funny when they contain an element of truth in my experience.

I think that there defenitely was an element of truth in my FAQ, as a matter of fact.
It's not for nothing that some 'atheists' jumped on me like they were stung by a bee

How much truth there is is obivously open for debate.
Though I think that there's much more truth in there then you may believe. And maybe there's not as much truth in it as I may believe.