Though I'll point out that saying "God has specific desires" omits another important facet of most Christian belief: that God cannot be understood. His motives are strange and alien to us, and it is arrogant and presumptuous for any to claim to know what God really wants.
I disagree. I don't think many theists would accept that since we can't know God's motivations, he could just as easily desire human suffering, or that people should be atheists.
What tests can you really develop around those two points? God wants people to worship him, and they do. God wants people to be happy, and lots of people are.
Quite a lot don't, and quite a lot aren't. The more people that worship him and live good lives, the better, and by that measure God isn't doing a very good job at all.
and by that measure God isn't doing a very good job at all.
But see, it's not God's fault. Clearly, everyone else is being a bad Christian.
Also, part of Christian theism is that suffering is a good thing. It makes you better. Only through suffering will you get to Heaven.
See, they have answers to all of these things. Shift the blame and so forth.
It wasn't until I neared adulthood that I started doubting Catholicism.
You may have needed more exposure, then. I was in a Catholic school from 8 to 14, and I really started disbelieving around age 12.
Disbelief combined with two years of people trying to ram belief down your throat = atheist. Also, an adolescent with some emotional problems. But hey, it all worked out.
I disagree.
That's all good and well, but that shit is in the Bible. It's preached at people. It is, for all intents and purposes, canon within the various Christian religions.
The problem lies in the fact that nobody seems to actually adhere to that belief, except when it's convenient.
Though, if you read the Old Testament, it's easy to see a God that desires human suffering. I mean, Sodom and Gomorrah? That was kind of brutal.
I should have said human suffering for its own sake, to be more specific. Sure, God might allow suffering, or perhaps exact punishment, but that's not what I meant.
Also, part of Christian theism is that suffering is a good thing. It makes you better. Only through suffering will you get to Heaven.
Sure, but the point is that he wants you to get to Heaven. If you allow that God's motivations are entirely undetermined, then it could just as easily be that God exposes you to pleasure in order to get you to Hell.
That's all good and well, but that shit is in the Bible. It's preached at people. It is, for all intents and purposes, canon within the various Christian religions.
Hardly. If you don't believe that God desires the salvation of mankind, you're not a Christian.
See, they have answers to all of these things. Shift the blame and so forth.
They have answers, but those answers are basically a retreat to the possible. Sure, human suffering might be for the greater good in the end, but the evidence is strongly in favour of a universe that simply doesn't give a shit.
If you allow that God's motivations are entirely undetermined, then it could just as easily be that God exposes you to pleasure in order to get you to Hell.
This is true. I'll amend my statement: the only motives we can attribute to God are those expressly spelled out in his divinely inspired writings.
That's how we know he wants us to get to Heaven. But any attempt to apply or interpret those motivations is inherently flawed because we're human.
They have answers, but those answers are basically a retreat to the possible.
Well, yes. That was my whole point. The only thing we can do is get a theist to retreat to the possible and state a belief without any evidential support. But the problem still comes back to defeating the core theism itself, which is inherently impossible. So long as that exists, it will continue to generate other irrational beliefs.
We can keep pruning the tree of irrational garbage, but I'll be damned if there's a way to kill it once and for all.
Well, yes. That was my whole point. The only thing we can do is get a theist to retreat to the possible and state a belief without any evidential support.
That doesn't disrupt the position of the gnostic atheist unless you consider knowing something to require it be completely impossible for it to be otherwise - by which definition we don't have any knowledge at all and the term is entirely useless.
This is true. I'll amend my statement: the only motives we can attribute to God are those expressly spelled out in his divinely inspired writings.
That's how we know he wants us to get to Heaven. But any attempt to apply or interpret those motivations is inherently flawed because we're human.
Even just reading the divine writings inherently requires interpretation, and then using those writings to choose to worship God is an application of his motives.
That doesn't disrupt the position of the gnostic atheist
But it does, because you can get into a position where the existence of said God is untestable.
Let's say we attack your definition of God and show that we have no evidence to say that he is self-aware, that he has any specific desires at all, or that he wants worship. Take away everything except the word "God."
And there are people who still assert a positive belief in him. I've been down that road with people. It ain't pretty.
You can pigeonhole someone into pure, unmitigated irrationality, and then they still assert a theistic belief. That's it. Gnosticism can't go any farther. The agnostic theist always "wins" because it doesn't require any logic whatsoever; gnosticism does.
EDIT: And then we get to the further problem: so they have this irrational and inconsistent belief. OK, we dismiss them. Then, that person behaves as though this irrational and inconsistent belief is actually true. OK, whatever, we dismiss them. Then they convince other people of the same thing, so now it's a bunch of crazies. And then those crazies kill other crazies, and some non-crazies too...
So even though you're totally right and there's no way God could actually exist, the idea of his existence is real to his followers and thus has a measurable effect on the world. He might not exist literally, but he exists enough for people to be gigantic idiots. I say that's close enough to actual existence that we're out of the realm of philosophies and into the realm of "how do we deal with this?"
Let's say we attack your definition of God and show that we have no evidence to say that he is self-aware, that he has any specific desires at all, or that he wants worship. Take away everything except the word "God."
Sure, and by that definition I'm an agnostic, and probably a theist too because the word "God" definitely exists - I hear it often.
Yet I'll still call myself a gnostic atheist until confronted by someone who wants to use such an arbitrary definition, because as far as the word has any real meaning, it refers to something that does not exist. If someone confronts me with a different definition of the word "God", then I can agree with them that by their definition of "God", I'm not an agnostic atheist after all. Then I'll come up with a new word - let's say "Furgle" - and use it to refer to the actual concept that they think about in their head when they use the word "God", rather than what they say it means, and proclaim that Furgle quite definitively does not exist.
EDIT: Apparently, furgle means "to masturbate a man by jerking off his penis, OR if you are a man, to masturbate. women do not furgle, nor are they furgled." I need to be better at coming up with new words, though there is a certain temptation in using "Furgle" anyway ^_~ Something like "Kabrhosduf" might work better though.
The next question to arise is this: what about little-g gods or, to use a better term, deities?
See, they're usually cool and have a very limited scope and application. In fact, I kind of like the polytheistic religions more, because it was more about utilitarianism. "This god is useful for this. This god is useful for this. Fuck that guy; he's no good."
Pellon Pekko is my example. Making an offering to a god by drinking beer? Shit, I'm all about that.
The next question to arise is this: what about little-g gods or, to use a better term, deities?
See, they're usually cool and have a very limited scope and application. In fact, I kind of like the polytheistic religions more, because it was more about utilitarianism. "This god is useful for this. This god is useful for this. Fuck that guy; he's no good."
Pellon Pekko is my example. Making an offering to a god by drinking beer? Shit, I'm all about that.
The thing is, from Wikipedia, "Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[1] In a more specific sense, theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe." There is clearly a need to clarify terminology.
The biggest problem is that when people say "theist" they generally mean "belief in God", but when people say "atheist" they generally mean "disbelief in gods".
The biggest problem is that when people say "theist" they generally mean "belief in God", but when people say "atheist" they generally mean "disbelief in gods".
Exactly. I don't personally believe in god, but I don't wake up in the morning and think, "what a great day for there to be no god" or some shit like that. I don't actively disbelieve so much as I don't believe because I haven't seen anything to suggest I should. Thats why I generally call myself an agnostic atheist, because I don't KNOW but I haven't seen much evidence to the contrary. I'm probably more of a gnostic atheist though, just because even if I'm wrong and a higher power does exist, its probably so different from the Judeo-christian God that it doesn't matter. Its not God, its just a powerful alien or Creature from Dimension X or Cthulhu.
If you follow Support Damon Facebook page you can see the recent posts during the graduation ceremony that the people basically said "We don't care, we're praying anyways during a school event."
Apologies for posting part of this earlier on another thread, but I'm ready to quit my workplace. Recently, there was an issue with a patient's clothes coming up missing. Looking back over the paperwork, it showed that we took one bag of clothing and returned it when he got to his room. Seems there was a second bag that went missing that we weren't aware of because the nurse didn't inform us the family members had brought it to the patient. Since then, the ER department has closed ranks and have become adversarial towards security. Some of these nurses were the same ones that brought complaints against me. Other members of my department are of the attitude to "screw them before they screw us". I'm trying to stay above the fray and remain professional about things. Doing detailed documentation, repeating things staff says to clarify, and not being argry or accusing towards anyone. But I think my efforts are for nothing. Today, while getting ready to return clothes to a patient who was going up to a room, I asked a nurse about two other bags of clothing family had brought and made a note of it. She then tells me that if I'm willing to treat her like that, then I don't need to be here. Maybe she is right.
Nearly hit a guy while I was driving home from school today because I was watching traffic so I could turn instead of watching the sidewalk. I did knock over his hand cart though and would have stopped to help pick his stuff up were he not spoiling for a fight.
So, Random Hood (who's not reading this), sorry for knocking your shit over, but that's no reason to go and punch my car.
In not my fault fail: my grandma's been in and out of the hospital for the past few weeks for some reason that isn't entirely apparent to the medical folks who are supposed to know this shit.
Thank you for your patience regarding your interview feedback. It was wonderful meeting you and the SharePoint Workspace team had some great things to say about you. I wish I was writing with better news, but unfortunately, we have decided to hire another student.
Thank you for your patience regarding your interview feedback. It was wonderful meeting you and the SharePoint Workspace team had some great things to say about you. I wish I was writing with better news, but unfortunately, we have decided to hire another student.
FUCK
At last you got an email feedback. I was shot down before even meeting the last interviewer when I applied at Microsoft NERD (this was for a regular dev position, not a student internship).
How the fuck are people going to steal other people's food in a container that is marked that doesn't belong to you?
I'm pretty much now forced to bring my food in everyday and no longer keep anything in the refrigerator at work so some asshole can stop stealing my food.
I'm contemplating making something and putting ipecac in it and leaving it in the fridge to be stolen.
How the fuck are people going to steal other people's food in a container that is marked that doesn't belong to you?
I'm pretty much now forced to bring my food in everyday and no longer keep anything in the refrigerator at work so some asshole can stop stealing my food.
One of the perks of working in a small office, and sitting near the refrigerator... nobody steals my food. ^_^ Although I will be getting a real job in a real office soon, so I will have this problem again. X_x
I'm contemplating making something and putting ipecac in it and leaving it in the fridge to be stolen.
Omg... DO IT! I wanna hear the story after it happens >)
The question is what is a good type of food that would entice someone to steal that I can successfully mix ipecac in? I'm thinking something along the line of desserts. Perhaps brownies or a cheesecake.
Comments
Also, part of Christian theism is that suffering is a good thing. It makes you better. Only through suffering will you get to Heaven.
See, they have answers to all of these things. Shift the blame and so forth. You may have needed more exposure, then. I was in a Catholic school from 8 to 14, and I really started disbelieving around age 12.
Disbelief combined with two years of people trying to ram belief down your throat = atheist. Also, an adolescent with some emotional problems. But hey, it all worked out. That's all good and well, but that shit is in the Bible. It's preached at people. It is, for all intents and purposes, canon within the various Christian religions.
The problem lies in the fact that nobody seems to actually adhere to that belief, except when it's convenient.
Though, if you read the Old Testament, it's easy to see a God that desires human suffering. I mean, Sodom and Gomorrah? That was kind of brutal.
That's how we know he wants us to get to Heaven. But any attempt to apply or interpret those motivations is inherently flawed because we're human. Well, yes. That was my whole point. The only thing we can do is get a theist to retreat to the possible and state a belief without any evidential support. But the problem still comes back to defeating the core theism itself, which is inherently impossible. So long as that exists, it will continue to generate other irrational beliefs.
We can keep pruning the tree of irrational garbage, but I'll be damned if there's a way to kill it once and for all.
Let's say we attack your definition of God and show that we have no evidence to say that he is self-aware, that he has any specific desires at all, or that he wants worship. Take away everything except the word "God."
And there are people who still assert a positive belief in him. I've been down that road with people. It ain't pretty.
You can pigeonhole someone into pure, unmitigated irrationality, and then they still assert a theistic belief. That's it. Gnosticism can't go any farther. The agnostic theist always "wins" because it doesn't require any logic whatsoever; gnosticism does.
EDIT: And then we get to the further problem: so they have this irrational and inconsistent belief. OK, we dismiss them. Then, that person behaves as though this irrational and inconsistent belief is actually true. OK, whatever, we dismiss them. Then they convince other people of the same thing, so now it's a bunch of crazies. And then those crazies kill other crazies, and some non-crazies too...
So even though you're totally right and there's no way God could actually exist, the idea of his existence is real to his followers and thus has a measurable effect on the world. He might not exist literally, but he exists enough for people to be gigantic idiots. I say that's close enough to actual existence that we're out of the realm of philosophies and into the realm of "how do we deal with this?"
Yet I'll still call myself a gnostic atheist until confronted by someone who wants to use such an arbitrary definition, because as far as the word has any real meaning, it refers to something that does not exist. If someone confronts me with a different definition of the word "God", then I can agree with them that by their definition of "God", I'm not an agnostic atheist after all. Then I'll come up with a new word - let's say "Furgle" - and use it to refer to the actual concept that they think about in their head when they use the word "God", rather than what they say it means, and proclaim that Furgle quite definitively does not exist.
EDIT: Apparently, furgle means "to masturbate a man by jerking off his penis, OR if you are a man, to masturbate. women do not furgle, nor are they furgled." I need to be better at coming up with new words, though there is a certain temptation in using "Furgle" anyway ^_~
Something like "Kabrhosduf" might work better though.
Pellon Pekko is my example. Making an offering to a god by drinking beer? Shit, I'm all about that.
The biggest problem is that when people say "theist" they generally mean "belief in God", but when people say "atheist" they generally mean "disbelief in gods".
It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
Bonus Fail - Mere Moments after he made this accusation, it started to rain.
So, Random Hood (who's not reading this), sorry for knocking your shit over, but that's no reason to go and punch my car.
In not my fault fail: my grandma's been in and out of the hospital for the past few weeks for some reason that isn't entirely apparent to the medical folks who are supposed to know this shit.
I'm pretty much now forced to bring my food in everyday and no longer keep anything in the refrigerator at work so some asshole can stop stealing my food.
I'm contemplating making something and putting ipecac in it and leaving it in the fridge to be stolen.