The Law Of Contradiction

How does one decide about his or her approach to something that hides itself so successfully? There seem to be as many ideas of what exactly "God" constitutes, as there are 'believers'. I have yet to meet anyone who could properly show me 'God', such that I could take a definitive decision The answer to the question what my approach to 'God' is, depends on the person who asks it.

Beliefs come in many different degrees and varieties. And the more they are in conflict with what is easily perceivable(a nice way to express that they are obviously dead wrong), the more they tend to polarize and invite opposition. Maybe that gives you a clue? It keeps amazing me how you can remain totally blind to how bogus this argument is. I mean, come-on... They lock up people who believe in pink elephants. Why would they do that if believing in something that in all likeliness doesn't exist, could not possibly be harmful or have harmful consequences?Sometimes I really have a hard time to convince myself that you honestly think through things thoroughly, Nemesis. I would say more, but I won't.

Maybe an example will help: what do you think about the Snarfs?Since you've (probably) never seen a Snarf, I guess you will ask me to show you one before you give an opinion. I will answer that that is impossible, but that we know from ancient writings what a Snarf is, and how it behaves. But then you will meet other people who also claim they know Snarfs and what they stand for. And their ideas about Snarfs will in all likeliness differ from mine. Significantly, or only in details...But the Snarfs themselves, who could give you the opportunity to decide for yourself instead of relying on stories and interpretations of stories, they just keep hiding themselves!Nevertheless I could ask you what your opinion of Snarfs is. What would you answer? It may be irrelevant to you, but it isn't to me. How in the world can you have an opinion about something, if you are not even able to define exactly what it is??? I never have opinions about things that I don't know the first thing about. And I find it highly amusing how some can argue so strongly about their version of something that nobody obviously knows the first thing about, lol. Like I pointed out in your poll, I remain sort of agnostic towards a 'first cause' God, but on the other hand firmly atheist when it comes to a benevolent, watching-over-everything God. So depending on what kind of God the person who asks me, refers to, my answer should be different.

Most definitely my Quote of the Week.

Let's try this again.I would say I'm an "Atheist", only because the word "Theist" exists. In the absence of people who believe in a diety, "Atheism" would be the default position and would need no special word because nothing would need to be expressed. The word only seems to be necessary so it can be used by Theistic people. So they somehow can turn things around and be able to refer to the default position as an abnormality.Think about it: from our point of view, a-theism could be seen as a lack of something that doesn't exist. Which is... utter nonsense. Yet another illustration that, by itself, it doesn't even need a word. It only exists indirectly because of the word "theism".If there didn't happen to be people around who believe in somekind of diety, the whole concept of dieties would be completely absent in our lifes.

Looking back to your first message, it appears you indeed added an 'this is just my opinion' remark. At the very end. But you started of sounding quite a bit more absolute, lol. I'm pretty sure reactions would have been much milder if you would have started with something like 'The impression that I always have...' or something like that.

Personally I'm not trying to rationalize what is obviously impossible to rationalize. I just conclude that I don't know, and probably can't know. That's just it, and it doesn't keep me awake at night, if you wondered. There are more than enough intriguing questions left that ARE within reach.It might be interesting to philosophize about these out-of-reach questions, but it's a bad idea to assign too much significance to one's musings about them. I find it amusing that so many people delude themselves into some unverifiable belief, only because they seem to be afraid of 'not knowing'. It is totally beyond me how that could make a difference. Personally, I would constantly remind myself that the chance of being "right" in my unverifiable belief is infinitesimally insignificant. I would lose the belief after less than 1 microsecond. Please drop that bogus argument. It is precisely the sloppy, "insipid" reasoning itself that is often involved, which sparks reaction.Let's maybe compare my attitude towards religion, with my attitude towards smoking.In general I couldn't care less about smoking and smokers. It has very little to no significance in my life. I rarely spend a second thinking about it. I also don't necessarilly have any strong feelings towards them. In fact, there are smart people who are smokers. There are people with a great personality who are smokers. There are LOTS of smokers who I like a lot. (insert 'believer' and it still works)But, as a matter of FACT, in their being smoker they are all sadly mislead herd-animals with not a shred of a rational reasonable and supportable argument why they would prefer smoking over not smoking. (insert 'believer' and attempts to prove their faith, and it still works)They blow hundreds of dollars per year (dollars they could have spent on useful stuff) through their lungs, with the result that they die younger and in worse condition. They have brown teeth and fingers and a breath that stinks together with the clothes they are wearing. They ruine the atmosphere indoors. They weigh on medical insurance. They cause countless fires each year. They are less productive and often have just one free hand. (ok, so I'll admit religion is not so one-sided negative and detrimental...)Yet, I have little problem with them as long as they behave gentleman-like, and I can even sympathize if they readily admit that they are addicted and lack the character to stop. (I have absolutely no problem with people who 'believe', but admit that they can not rationalize or prove it, and just need it as a consolation or because they just 'feel' it must be)But then you have the type who absolutely wants to rationalize that nothing's wrong and that they made a perfectly reasonable 'choice'. That being against smoking is nothing but a witch-hunt with no supporting arguments. That it's just an example of intolerance. They start spouting the most laughable, ignorant and dead wrong arguments and weak excuses. I'm sure many are familiar with the anecdotal tales about relatives who lived into their hundreds despite smoking since they were kids ("see, smoking really isn't that unhealthy at all!"). Or the ones pointing out that closing cigarette factories would cost jobs. Or those who argue that instead of supporting a cigarette ban, it would be more honest and show more courage to ban "industry and cars" to get rid of air pollution (a close relative to the argument that "one would also have to ban knives if one argued to ban guns") ? Or what about those who have deluded themselves into the misconception that they need cigarettes to stay calm and composed, while it's precisely the addiction that is responsible for their nervousness. (compare to sloppy apologetics, your own strawman atheist argument, Creationism, the Mythical-and-never-observed absolute morality etc.etc.)Well, when being confronted with those smokers/believers, it is indeed hard to shut your mouth. And that definitely does NOT mean one is a closet smoker/believer.

Only if we agree that 'being smart' does not require absolute and universal smartness, lol

So? Do you think something can't be imaginary and silly just because it wears the label "concept"? Oppose?I'm pretty sure it's just as useless as all the previous attempts, but I'll try it again:Put aside all you believe and imagine a time and place where:a) Gods don't exist
b) nobody talks about these non-existing GodsIn this world, the word "Atheist" doesn't exist. There IS no issue. This is the world Annafan lives in by default.Now somebody comes along and starts talking about God. He calls himself a "Theist", and since he notices that not everybody follows him in his delusion, he needs to make a distinction between his sort of people and the others. Thus, together with the word "Theist", he invents the word "Atheist". Suddenly, normal people become "Atheists". They didn't do anything for that. They didn't ask for it. It was ASSIGNED. They didn't suddenly start to 'oppose' something, in order to deserve their qualification. Simply "existing" seems to be enough, lol. I think it's best to "agree to disagree". Which, through the Nemesis filter, probably sounds more like "agree to agree" anyway, lol.So I throw the towel and officially recognise Nemesis Juggernaut as the ultimate authority in what Annafan feels and thinks.

That was a truly great post. At times like these, I regret my inadequate English. Although the biggest problem is probably that most of this should be so self-evident that it is quite hard to even start explaining it... Hope to see more contributions of you old transitional, lol

I'm not quite a Deist though... When I say I'm agnostic towards a first-cause God, it's not really in the way that I somehow "have a desire to know, but think that it is inherently unknowable". I simply don't feel it is worth trying to find out, at all. But on the other hand, I would not define it as an absolute certainty (in which case I would maybe be more inclined to call it a truely atheist position even towards a first-cause diety) since there seems to be no absolutely objective, scientific test to warrant absolute certainty.Considering the existence of a diety simply doesn't have a place in my life, to put it simply.

I can honestly say that I've never taken the possibility serious, or found a reason to take the possibility serious or worth considering. I feel absolutely not emotionally connected to the possibility. So obviously I might ask myself the question "What if He truly exists?" But I don't feel anything when I ask that question. I seem to be so utterly convinced of the fact that it is "unknowable", that the question is meaningless for all practical purposes.The only reasonable reason that I see someone could possibly have, is being uncomfortable with the idea that you have unanswered questions. So instead of saying that you don't know, you attribute it to "God". But I absolutely have no trouble with the idea that there are things that I will never know.It's very hard to imagine anything that would actually convince me. Maybe a sudden complete worldwide peace or something. All I can say is that I will probably only know it, if and when it actually happens, lol.