What do you REALLY believe?

[hooplala]

How exactly did emotion come into this?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

How exactly did emotion come into this?

Perhaps that trying to twist science to match theology shows insecurity about beliefs and a desperate need for them to be true?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

How exactly did emotion come into this?

Riffing off of earlier comments. I liked the Asimov quote below cause it seems honest.

I'm finding this poll hard to answer.

I have found myself to agree with Asimov when he said:

I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.
-- Isaac Asimov, in "Free Inquiry", Spring 1982, vol.2 no.2, p. 9

[hooplala]

How exactly did emotion come into this?

Perhaps that trying to twist science to match theology shows insecurity about beliefs and a desperate need for them to be true?

Where did that happen?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

How exactly did emotion come into this?

Perhaps that trying to twist science to match theology shows insecurity about beliefs and a desperate need for them to be true?

Where did that happen?

Among humans, usually on Yahoo Answers... I thought Rat's post was a generalized commentary on people.

[hooplala]

How exactly did emotion come into this?

Perhaps that trying to twist science to match theology shows insecurity about beliefs and a desperate need for them to be true?

Where did that happen?

Among humans, usually on Yahoo Answers... I thought Rat's post was a generalized commentary on people.

Ah, my mistake then.  Carry on.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

How exactly did emotion come into this?

Perhaps that trying to twist science to match theology shows insecurity about beliefs and a desperate need for them to be true?

Where did that happen?

Among humans, usually on Yahoo Answers... I thought Rat's post was a generalized commentary on people.

Ah, my mistake then.  Carry on.

Oh yes, my comment was not aimed at anyone in particular. Just the tendencies of hairless apes

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I think to elaborate on Rat's point, everyone is by necessity an agnostic. Some are agnostic Christians, agnostic Muslims, agnostic atheists. No one knows definite about whether or not exists. They either believe or don't believe in something, but since there is no evidence one way or the other, claiming that science backs up your position whether theistic or atheistic is dishonest.

Did I get that right?

[hooplala]

I think to elaborate on Rat's point, everyone is by necessity an agnostic. Some are agnostic Christians, agnostic Muslims, agnostic atheists. No one knows definite about whether or not exists. They either believe or don't believe in something, but since there is no evidence one way or the other, claiming that science backs up your position whether theistic or atheistic is dishonest.

Did I get that right?

I agree with that.  I consider myself an agnostic atheist.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I think to elaborate on Rat's point, everyone is by necessity an agnostic. Some are agnostic Christians, agnostic Muslims, agnostic atheists. No one knows definite about whether or not exists. They either believe or don't believe in something, but since there is no evidence one way or the other, claiming that science backs up your position whether theistic or atheistic is dishonest.

Did I get that right?

I agree with that.  I consider myself an agnostic atheist.

Applies to everyone but Roger, who knows the Horrible Truth, of course. 

[Triple Zero]

from where I'm sitting, It makes more sense to think of God as the sum of everything in the universe, sharing a fractal similarity to his component parts...

Wouldn't that just be a fancy whooptiemystikal synonym for "Universe"?

The map would literally be the territory.  Why call it anything other than it is?

ARTISTIC LICENSE!!

[Juana]

Woe to the non-believer, for he shall spend eternity in a Richard Dawkins fan forum, yea even Veganza."
- Hyperclessians 12:2

[Phox]

Woe to the non-believer, for he shall spend eternity in a Richard Dawkins fan forum, yea even Veganza."
- Hyperclessians 12:2

This. 

[Iron Sulfide]

Zeus wasn't omniscient, omnipotent, at all benevolent or existing outside of creation... the dude lived up on top of a mountain.

Zeus was omniscient, in the present tense. I don't remember if he could see into the future, but as 'lord of the skies' he could see everything that was happening in the world of men. Of course, he had to actively use that ability.

As for JHVH being omni-benevolent (rabid A/Theists aside), the bible doesn't say he is "all good" from what i remember. It says quite explicitly that he is all things, and their creator. http://bible.cc/isaiah/45-7.htm

as for being omnipotent, the bible has TONNES of things that God can't do, making his a fairly limited Deity. God can't Lie, be wrong, stop existing, duplicate/create "equal" beings, learn, become "not god", force you to speak and all sorts of other biblical things and logical traps.

but things like this are bound to happen. we just can't admit that IF such a thing as God exists, we have no fucking clue what that thing might be, and have no chance to. so why bother? even Middle-of-the-Road is a bias, a human projection.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Zeus wasn't omniscient, omnipotent, at all benevolent or existing outside of creation... the dude lived up on top of a mountain.

Zeus was omniscient, in the present tense. I don't remember if he could see into the future, but as 'lord of the skies' he could see everything that was happening in the world of men. Of course, he had to actively use that ability.

As for JHVH being omni-benevolent (rabid A/Theists aside), the bible doesn't say he is "all good" from what i remember. It says quite explicitly that he is all things, and their creator. http://bible.cc/isaiah/45-7.htm

as for being omnipotent, the bible has TONNES of things that God can't do, making his a fairly limited Deity. God can't Lie, be wrong, stop existing, duplicate/create "equal" beings, learn, become "not god", force you to speak and all sorts of other biblical things and logical traps.

but things like this are bound to happen. we just can't admit that IF such a thing as God exists, we have no fucking clue what that thing might be, and have no chance to. so why bother? even Middle-of-the-Road is a bias, a human projection.

To be fair to theology, God's inability to lie, be wrong, stop existing, create equal beings, or learn is not a limit on God but a limit on the nature of the universe: if God "lied," then what the lie he told would, by definition, be the truth - reality would instantaneously transform itself to his declaration. :P just playing devil's advocate.