Comments on: hard http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/11/15/hard/ Two prophets, living together. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:52:27 +0000 hourly 1 By: fenchurch http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/11/15/hard/#comment-175205 fenchurch Thu, 06 Oct 2011 19:50:52 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/11/15/hard/#comment-175205 Why do people think that "agnostic" is incompatible with "theist"? An agnostic theist believes in a deity but can't claim to know one exists. Why do people think that “agnostic” is incompatible with “theist”?
An agnostic theist believes in a deity but can’t claim to know one exists.

]]> By: Katuoja » Blogin arkisto » Jumalanpilkka 2.0 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/11/15/hard/#comment-164151 Katuoja » Blogin arkisto » Jumalanpilkka 2.0 Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:09:45 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/11/15/hard/#comment-164151 [...] useimmin joko yhteisestä sängystään lukemassa kirjoja (Raamattu ja Koraani, mutta myös Richard Dawkinsin “Jumalharha” ja Daniel Dennettin “Lumous murtuu”) tai kantakapakastaan väittelemässä ateistisen baariminnan kanssa. He eivät ole karikatyyrejä [...] [...] useimmin joko yhteisestä sängystään lukemassa kirjoja (Raamattu ja Koraani, mutta myös Richard Dawkinsin “Jumalharha” ja Daniel Dennettin “Lumous murtuu”) tai kantakapakastaan väittelemässä ateistisen baariminnan kanssa. He eivät ole karikatyyrejä [...]

]]> By: David Scott http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/11/15/hard/#comment-160320 David Scott Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:25:12 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/11/15/hard/#comment-160320 Jesus and Mo obviously attracts a thoughtful fan base. Thanks for this discussion. I'd been flipping back and forth between calling myself an agnostic and calling myself an atheist until fairly recently. I grew up in a religious home, and can still recite the Apostles creed. I was always taught that we must treat religion with respect, because it's somehow... uh...respectable. But it doesn't deserve my respect. And calling myself an agnostic leaves open the possibility that I agree with idiots. I don't. Not at all. Forget prove or disprove. It doesn't matter. What matters is that we take back some of the claims that religion has made and give them back to humanity in general, claims such as being the basis of all morality. This is just more nonsense. Morality is built into our humanity. They've recently discovered that virtually all serial killers have brain dammage. It's not that they just lost sight of their God. All my life the religious have been demanding respect, but they give atheists no respect at all. Take a look at Ben Steins latest rant, "Expelled, no Intelligence Allowed". It lays the blame for the haolocaust on Darwin and atheists, completely forgetting the Gott Mit Ens on the German belt buckles. If I point to a group and blame them for something that was not their fault, it's called hate mongering. But the religious can do this to atheists any time they want, and all they get is applause. The religious can say the most inane things (Why would God allow huricane Katrina? Well, we've kicked him out of our government and our schools. How can we expect him to help us. I mean, he's a loving God and all, but his patience does wear thin after a while, and then he lets innocent men, women and children die because we don't adore him the way we should.) and still get elected to public office. Oops. This triggered my rant reflex when all I really wanted to say was how great it is to read your comments, and to have confimation of intelligent life in the universe. Thanks folks. Jesus and Mo obviously attracts a thoughtful fan base. Thanks for this discussion. I’d been flipping back and forth between calling myself an agnostic and calling myself an atheist until fairly recently. I grew up in a religious home, and can still recite the Apostles creed. I was always taught that we must treat religion with respect, because it’s somehow… uh…respectable. But it doesn’t deserve my respect. And calling myself an agnostic leaves open the possibility that I agree with idiots. I don’t. Not at all.
Forget prove or disprove. It doesn’t matter. What matters is that we take back some of the claims that religion has made and give them back to humanity in general, claims such as being the basis of all morality. This is just more nonsense. Morality is built into our humanity. They’ve recently discovered that virtually all serial killers have brain dammage. It’s not that they just lost sight of their God.
All my life the religious have been demanding respect, but they give atheists no respect at all. Take a look at Ben Steins latest rant, “Expelled, no Intelligence Allowed”. It lays the blame for the haolocaust on Darwin and atheists, completely forgetting the Gott Mit Ens on the German belt buckles. If I point to a group and blame them for something that was not their fault, it’s called hate mongering. But the religious can do this to atheists any time they want, and all they get is applause.
The religious can say the most inane things (Why would God allow huricane Katrina? Well, we’ve kicked him out of our government and our schools. How can we expect him to help us. I mean, he’s a loving God and all, but his patience does wear thin after a while, and then he lets innocent men, women and children die because we don’t adore him the way we should.) and still get elected to public office.
Oops. This triggered my rant reflex when all I really wanted to say was how great it is to read your comments, and to have confimation of intelligent life in the universe.
Thanks folks.

]]> By: JohnnieCanuck http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/11/15/hard/#comment-149308 JohnnieCanuck Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:00:26 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/11/15/hard/#comment-149308 To know that there are no gods, requires that one know the whole universe. Since no atheist can say that they do, it is wrong to put words in our mouths and claim that only believing this qualifies one to be an atheist. I don't expect there are any gods, and I will be surprised the day one shows up and offers proof of its godhood. I do concede that it theoretically could happen, though I maintain that it is vanishingly unlikely. I would say that it is the agnostic position that is flawed. First, it doesn't occupy a halfway point between theist and not-theist as so many seem to want to use it. This is a single bit binary function; On or Off, black or white, with no grey. I'll ignore the historical Gnostics which early Christians declared to be heretics (making themselves agnostics?) and point out that just as Atheists cannot show evidence there is no god, Theists have no evidence that there is one (definition of Faith) and thus no-one knows and everyone is technically agnostic, making it meaningless. For me the question is whether or not you live your life as if there is a god. Note, this definition may identify some nominally religious people as atheists, though they might claim otherwise. Con men who prey on the gullibly religious and pædophile priests come to mind. To know that there are no gods, requires that one know the whole universe. Since no atheist can say that they do, it is wrong to put words in our mouths and claim that only believing this qualifies one to be an atheist.

I don’t expect there are any gods, and I will be surprised the day one shows up and offers proof of its godhood. I do concede that it theoretically could happen, though I maintain that it is vanishingly unlikely.

I would say that it is the agnostic position that is flawed. First, it doesn’t occupy a halfway point between theist and not-theist as so many seem to want to use it. This is a single bit binary function; On or Off, black or white, with no grey.

I’ll ignore the historical Gnostics which early Christians declared to be heretics (making themselves agnostics?) and point out that just as Atheists cannot show evidence there is no god, Theists have no evidence that there is one (definition of Faith) and thus no-one knows and everyone is technically agnostic, making it meaningless.

For me the question is whether or not you live your life as if there is a god. Note, this definition may identify some nominally religious people as atheists, though they might claim otherwise. Con men who prey on the gullibly religious and pædophile priests come to mind.

]]> By: Lagomorph76 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/11/15/hard/#comment-91885 Lagomorph76 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:43:58 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/11/15/hard/#comment-91885 i don't think theists are stupid, in fact i have the utmost respect for all rightly guided religions. it seems that there is a fundemental need to believe, just because someone chooses not to fight it, doesn't mean that they are bad. i don’t think theists are stupid, in fact i have the utmost respect for all rightly guided religions. it seems that there is a fundemental need to believe, just because someone chooses not to fight it, doesn’t mean that they are bad.

]]> By: FREAKO http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/11/15/hard/#comment-66141 FREAKO Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:07:51 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/11/15/hard/#comment-66141 Agnostics simply adhere to scientific principle. As long as atheists claim that there is no god, something that they cannot as yet prove, then they subscribe to belief. Belief without proof is faith. No matter how much evidence there is that god does not exist..it is not conclusive. Therefore agnostics must maintain their stance until such evidence presents itself. Hopefully they can do it without being wrongly called chickenshit. Im now Apatheist btw. Agnostics simply adhere to scientific principle. As long as atheists claim that there is no god, something that they cannot as yet prove, then they subscribe to belief. Belief without proof is faith. No matter how much evidence there is that god does not exist..it is not conclusive. Therefore agnostics must maintain their stance until such evidence presents itself. Hopefully they can do it without being wrongly called chickenshit. Im now Apatheist btw.

]]> By: jerry w. http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/11/15/hard/#comment-38084 jerry w. Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:15:00 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/11/15/hard/#comment-38084 Imagine there's no imaginary friends, John Lennon almost said that. http://boskolives.wordpress.com/ Imagine there’s no imaginary friends,

John Lennon almost said that.

http://boskolives.wordpress.com/

]]> By: Cynthia http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/11/15/hard/#comment-2017 Cynthia Mon, 11 Dec 2006 08:06:37 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/11/15/hard/#comment-2017 it would be awesome to do an episode of Jesus and Mo featuring Buddha the dead-beat dad..Didn't he leave his wife and kids to go pursue Nirvana...wouldn't we call that a heroin habit today... it would be awesome to do an episode of Jesus and Mo featuring Buddha the dead-beat dad..Didn’t he leave his wife and kids to go pursue Nirvana…wouldn’t we call that a heroin habit today…

]]> By: Jonathan http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/11/15/hard/#comment-1933 Jonathan Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:27:45 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/11/15/hard/#comment-1933 Rich, I agree completely that many (most? nearly all?) people are not completely rational. Reason is, after all, an ability that can be turned on and off. I also agree that many people do not employ reason; I think most are not even consciously aware what reason is. This is also undoubtedly true about the climate change issue, though I'm not sure if you are trying to make a point about climate change itself. Rich, I agree completely that many (most? nearly all?) people are not completely rational. Reason is, after all, an ability that can be turned on and off. I also agree that many people do not employ reason; I think most are not even consciously aware what reason is.

This is also undoubtedly true about the climate change issue, though I’m not sure if you are trying to make a point about climate change itself.

]]> By: Rich http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/11/15/hard/#comment-1932 Rich Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:36:51 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/11/15/hard/#comment-1932 Jonathan Says: >>Anyone who does that doesn’t understand science and isn’t rational. You're right, my mistake. Let me restate that point to say that I don't think many people are completely rational... even some scientists. Remember, I pointed out that I didn't think science was a religion, just that I think many people (by which I mean the majority) treat it as one. An example is the faith that many people in the US have that science will save us from climate change. They're willing to bet our survival as a species on it. I can't think of a better example of blind faith, after all, Abraham was only going to kill his son. Jonathan Says:
>>Anyone who does that doesn’t understand science and isn’t rational.

You’re right, my mistake. Let me restate that point to say that I don’t think many people are completely rational… even some scientists.

Remember, I pointed out that I didn’t think science was a religion, just that I think many people (by which I mean the majority) treat it as one. An example is the faith that many people in the US have that science will save us from climate change. They’re willing to bet our survival as a species on it. I can’t think of a better example of blind faith, after all, Abraham was only going to kill his son.

]]>