Define Atheism

That's a response to the various "similar" anti-theist posters that popped up on 4chan. There's dozens of the anti-theist ones floating around using the same type of language and "tone". They are amusing.

I'd say that's fairly spot on, too. It just sucks when you rephrase the arguments from each side in demeaning ways.

Lemme see if I can find the anti-theism ones... BRB.

Edit - Here's one from a while back that made me laugh

http://matthew2262.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/40425_10100152160850256_2511083_56203662_7321421_n.jpg

Double Edit - This is the one my Heathen friend likes (he believes in Thor, Odin, and all that)

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2009/04/keep_this_in_mind_on_your_happ/thor.jpeg

So dudemon, where are you on this whole posthumous baptism thing?

I realize this isn't the thread for it, but I didn't feel like doing a search and I think we rode the original topic for all it was worth.

Originally posted by Digi
So dudemon, where are you on this whole posthumous baptism thing?

I realize this isn't the thread for it, but I didn't feel like doing a search and I think we rode the original topic for all it was worth.

That's easy to address for the most part:

If you're an atheist (as far as any form I am aware of including Buddhism), posthumous baptism wouldn't and shouldn't mean jack shit to you.

If you're a religion that thinks Mormons are evil, wrong, wicked, or something negative, you'll obviously despise baptism for the dead ESPECIALLY if it is for one of your family members.

As the Mormons do it (and the official stance): you must get permission from the remaining family members. That has not always happened so there is a rigorous system in place that is designed to catch "sneaky" bastards trying to baptize people. I believe that this is how Hitler got his baptism done: someone snuck it past some old dude or dudette in one of our temples.

Also, some people keep trying to baptize on behalf of Anne Frank. Seriously...

Like I said: there's idiots in all religions and non-religions.

But, and here's another problem: we're not supposed to do baptism for the dead for non-family members unless moved upon by the Spirit and AFTER prayerful consideration. I strongly suspect that the problems that have arisen are due to a lack of both of those: they were neither prompted nor did they prayerfully consider it.

I'll share a personal story: my brother recently did "the work" for our deceased great uncle. Our great uncle was just that: a great uncle (RIP, Bill 🙁 ). But he refused baptism into the Mormon church...but he believed much of it be to true/right. My brother was working in his store late one night and he said he got a strong feeling that our Uncle Bill was there with him. He said the feeling was so strong that he looked to his side because he could have sworn our uncle Bill was next to him trying to talk to him. My brother went into the office and prayed and he got the epiphany that our uncle was wanting to be baptized into the church because he was wanting to work in the next life (he was a very hard worker in this life). So my brother consulted Uncle Bill's only living relative (our Uncle Larry...his younger brother...the only living member of his direct family :"( ) and Uncle Larry was perfectly okay with it (he is not a Mormon, however). My brother said that on his way home, Bill visited him (in thought and feeling) in the passenger seat trying to thank my brother.

Do I believe my brother?

*takes a deep breath*

Part of me really does. Part of me says it was all in his head and it was part of his mourning process for a good man that was close to us. Another part of me says that we may be interpreting the wills of the deceased slightly off-base (meaning there is an afterlife and the deceased can and do communicate with us on very subtle levels, but it is not as my brother interpreted it).

Mormons are not afraid of the backlash other people give us about posthumous baptism: it will all get done...all 20-35 billion people...in the Millennium. Some are so convinced of this that they devote themselves to genealogy like madmen during their retirement. That confuses me: if it will all get done and "all will be known that was lost", then what is the point to do our genealogy now? God will just tell us what we need to know, right? Well, some say that the research has nothing to do with actually uncovering our ancestors: it is the hard work and dedication to serving our family that is important. It is supposed to be a better use of our mortal stewardship in this plane. In the end, we are all one big GIANT family (to the Mormons). All of us are spiritual brother's and sisters. The "lesson", dedication, devotion, and pure love of doing this work is supposed to be preparatory for our greater stewardship: Godhood.

Sounds crazy, disturbing, or like a very high-level game of D&D that we play...but it jives with me. I like it. It makes me happy knowing that I can do something for someone that they want really badly but cannot do it for themselves. I like helping people and serving others. Not for their gratitude but because it is the right thing to do. I subscribe strongly to virtue ethics, obviously...and it is what I think God really is: a being of pure virtue.

Now, to get off track, some atheists say that God is an evil cruel bastard for creating this plane and torturing us with it. This life IS quite miserable, for sure...depending on your station and how things go for you. However, Mormons scoff at that argument from atheists: WE ourselves chose to come here. God didn't send us here. We could have easily chosen another station such as a herald angel (I kid you not), guardian angel, or one of probably an almost infinite number of other ways to serve. Instead of choosing those, we chose a mortal trial to help us grow and develop to prepare for godhood. Of course, outside of time, we have always desired and will desire it for an eternity. This is the difference between the Christian that thinks our spirit is created at the moment of conception, by God, and the Mormon perception of the spirit: our intelligence has always existed (by our perception of time) and will continue to exist. Maybe this is part of why many other Christians despise us: add in that we baptize their dead relatives, don't pay our clergy, and are self-righteous (many Mormons become self-righteous...which was foretold of by their own scriptures...facepalm).

Anyway, hope that addressed your questions and some of the ones surrounding it.

On another note, I am blood related to Hitler. Distant, but still related. Not proud, but that's what you get for doing your genealogy. 🙁

Your post seems to gloss over a lot of important sticking points.

First, I dislike the implication that something "shouldn't" mean anything to me. In an afterlife sense, no it doesn't. In a "I value my freedom and personal choice" sense it means a ton to me. It's condescending and inhibiting to suggest that some church knows better than an individual what they should be, or what should matter to them. And, fact is, the reason it's in the news is because they ARE targeting those of other religions...people who have very valid reasons for being upset. Of course atheists have less reason to care (though they still have reason) but those of other faiths should be (and are) furious.

A Jewish Holocaust survivor recently spoke out publicly against Mormons baptizing several who died in the Holocaust. Days later, his name showed up on an official list to be baptized posthumously. There was no revelation or consulting with relatives: it was a vindictive display of petty power. This got a lot of news coverage, and should still be easily google-able.
{edit} here ya go: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/proxy-baptism-elie-wiesel_n_1274271.html
...with some interesting historical notes at the end: Posthumous baptism of all dead people is not one of the original beliefs of Mormonism. At the start it was limited to ancestors and perhaps close relatives and friends. In 1918, the President of the Church had a revelation that it should be extended to the entire human race.

Similarly, Anne Frank has actually been baptized several times already according to most accounts, and submitted for baptism dozens of times. Seriously, if that isn't some sort of heinous memory desecration, I don't know what is. It's only a few steps short of digging up a corpse to sprinkle holy water on it, imo.

You must also know I find your brother's story tragically self-serving. I'm sure your uncle was a great guy. But if something meant so much to him, he would have taken care of it or at least expressed the desire during life. I'm sure he'd forgive your brother, were he alive, or be indifferent to the decision or ok with it, but I'm equally sure that what your brother did was wrong.

People are dumb in any religion, sure. But sometimes it seems more institutionalized than others. You might want to hope that Mitt Romney doesn't get the Republican nomination. As soon as he's in the general election, this is all going to hit the fan in a big way. I'm generally pretty indifferent to odd religious practices, but this actually smacks as something quite nefarious to me...people who think they're doing something "good" while oblivious to the unmitigated ego and ignorance of personal choice required to make such a decision. The hubris required to perform such an action seems downright scary to me.

Originally posted by Digi
Your post seems to gloss over a lot of important sticking points.

First, I dislike the implication that something "shouldn't" mean anything to me. In an afterlife sense, no it doesn't. In a "I value my freedom and personal choice" sense it means a ton to me. It's condescending and inhibiting to suggest that some church knows better than an individual what they should be, or what should matter to them. And, fact is, the reason it's in the news is because they ARE targeting those of other religions...people who have very valid reasons for being upset. Of course atheists have less reason to care (though they still have reason) but those of other faiths should be (and are) furious.

A Jewish Holocaust survivor recently spoke out publicly against Mormons baptizing several who died in the Holocaust. Days later, his name showed up on an official list to be baptized posthumously. There was no revelation or consulting with relatives: it was a vindictive display of petty power. This got a lot of news coverage, and should still be easily google-able.
{edit} here ya go: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/proxy-baptism-elie-wiesel_n_1274271.html
...with some interesting historical notes at the end: Posthumous baptism of all dead people is not one of the original beliefs of Mormonism. At the start it was limited to ancestors and perhaps close relatives and friends. In 1918, the President of the Church had a revelation that it should be extended to the entire human race.

Similarly, Anne Frank has actually been baptized several times already according to most accounts, and submitted for baptism dozens of times. Seriously, if that isn't some sort of heinous memory desecration, I don't know what is. It's only a few steps short of digging up a corpse to sprinkle holy water on it, imo.

You must also know I find your brother's story tragically self-serving. I'm sure your uncle was a great guy. But if something meant so much to him, he would have taken care of it or at least expressed the desire during life. I'm sure he'd forgive your brother, were he alive, or be indifferent to the decision or ok with it, but I'm equally sure that what your brother did was wrong.

People are dumb in any religion, sure. But sometimes it seems more institutionalized than others. You might want to hope that Mitt Romney doesn't get the Republican nomination. As soon as he's in the general election, this is all going to hit the fan in a big way. I'm generally pretty indifferent to odd religious practices, but this actually smacks as something quite nefarious to me...people who think they're doing something "good" while oblivious to the unmitigated ego and ignorance of personal choice required to make such a decision. The hubris required to perform such an action seems downright scary to me.

I find the position that it is insulting or damaging to posthumously baptize people extremely stupid, ridiculous, petty, and dishonest.

I will never ever ever concede that it is offensive to a "classic" atheist to have a family member posthumously baptized. Why would they even care? There is not legitimate reason in my eyes to oppose that baptism. It means nothing to the atheist and to the atheist family. "My memories will be offended!!!" Bullshit. You believe they will just fade, anyway, into oblivion, as will the baptism. The deceased is no longer around to object. You don't believe in that religion crap, anyway. The rite is for an afterlife which you don't believe in, anyway, so it shouldn't matter.

I do, however, find the religious objections to posthumous baptism legitimate: they actually do believe they are directly impacting a "conscious" entity still "living" somewhere. They also think it is evil (or negative) for the person.

And I already covered the petty, stupid, and ridiculous actions of idiotic Mormons. With 14 million members, it will be near impossible to stop the "works" from being done by vindictive ***holes within my faith. They are everywhere in every facet of society: even in atheism.

As fact, hundreds of thousands of names have been removed from our posthumous "works" records because they were not done with permission or violate a directive (such as: leave holocaust victims alone unless a surviving family member wants it or is doing the work).

And, no, I do not think what my brother did was wrong. My uncle was a virtual catechumen to Mormonism. My brother also claims that he was asked to by our Uncle: hardly offensive to Uncle Bill when he asked for it, right? From an atheist perspective who does not think there is a literal subsistence after death, of the consciousness, you'll obviously have a different perspective.

But, to sum up...let me make it clear that you will never ever ever ever ever ever ever convince me that it is offensive to posthumously baptize an atheist for an atheist family (the offense is only one of pettiness and is not legitimate in my eyes. This does not mean, however, that I encourage or even support the posthumously baptism of people when the surviving family objects to it...the exact opposite. I just find their reasoning eye-rolling worthy and intellectually offensive...for me, they are doing it because they obviously have an vendetta against religion). For very similar reasons, it will never offend me if an atheist unbaptizes one of my deceased family members: I'm no hypocrite.

Why do you ask, though? Do you want me to ensure your work is done when you die JUST in case there is a small chance out of the millions of possibilities that the Mormons are right? I half jest...but I'm half not. 😐

Originally posted by dadudemon
I find the position that it is insulting or damaging to posthumously baptize people extremely stupid, ridiculous, petty, and dishonest.

I will never ever ever concede that it is offensive to a "classic" atheist to have a family member posthumously baptized. Why would they even care? There is not legitimate reason in my eyes to oppose that baptism. It means nothing to the atheist and to the atheist family. "My memories will be offended!!!" Bullshit. You believe they will just fade, anyway, into oblivion, as will the baptism. The deceased is no longer around to object. You don't believe in that religion crap, anyway. The rite is for an afterlife which you don't believe in, anyway, so it shouldn't matter.

Then you lack some fundamental understand of the nature of human autonomy and dignity, and our ability to be offended by something that is possible or that is planned even if it hasn't happened yet. The idea that someone can exert control over any aspect of our lives, which we do not allow willingly, is deeply offending to many on a purely non-religious level. That you can't see this disturbs me somewhat.

I also believe that an intent can be inherently wrong even there is no offended party. It doesn't make the act wrong, per se, but certainly doesn't bode well for the person's mindset.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do, however, find the religious objections to posthumous baptism legitimate: they actually do believe they are directly impacting a "conscious" entity still "living" somewhere. They also think it is evil (or negative) for the person.

And I already covered the petty, stupid, and ridiculous actions of idiotic Mormons. With 14 million members, it will be near impossible to stop the "works" from being done by vindictive ***holes within my faith. They are everywhere in every facet of society: even in atheism.

I'm not accusing you here, dudemon, just getting your take.

Originally posted by dadudemon
As fact, hundreds of thousands of names have been removed from our posthumous "works" records because they were not done with permission or violate a directive (such as: leave holocaust victims alone unless a surviving family member wants it or is doing the work).

Something's wrong with the system and theology that they happened in the first place. Something tells me most of the retractions are going to happen due to backlash, not due to introspective analysis.

Also as fact, this sort of controversy has been in the news this week. It hasn't been eradicated yet.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, no, I do not think what my brother did was wrong. My uncle was a virtual catechumen to Mormonism. My brother also claims that he was asked to by our Uncle: hardly offensive to Uncle Bill when he asked for it, right? From an atheist perspective who does not think there is a literal subsistence after death, of the consciousness, you'll obviously have a different perspective.

Yes, I will. I'll leave this, however, since I don't want to get into what is probably a very personal anecdote.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But, to sum up...let me make it clear that you will never ever ever ever ever ever ever convince me that it is offensive to posthumously baptize an atheist for an atheist family (the offense is only one of pettiness and is not legitimate in my eyes. This does not mean, however, that I encourage or even support the posthumously baptism of people when the surviving family objects to it...the exact opposite. I just find their reasoning eye-rolling worthy and intellectually offensive...for me, they are doing it because they obviously have an vendetta against religion). For very similar reasons, it will never offend me if an atheist unbaptizes one of my deceased family members: I'm no hypocrite.

I'm not either. I think either would be equally unconscionable.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why do you ask, though? Do you want me to ensure your work is done when you die JUST in case there is a small chance out of the millions of possibilities that the Mormons are right? I half jest...but I'm half not. 😐

I'm not an advocate of Pascal's Wager. It's in the news, I was curious, and you're the only Mormon I speak to on a regular basis. Is that not reason enough to bring it up?

Also on point, you don't have any of my personal information. And thank goodness, apparently, since the implication of your question literally give me the creeps.

Edit - I know where the disconnect is and why it seems we largely disagree (when we probably don't):

The baptism and other ceremonies done on behalf of the dead are not binding nor do they make them members of our church. They are recorded as having been completed but that does not make them members or even Mormons. The decision to accept the work done for them is entirely on the deceased individual. That person chooses to accept it or reject it. This is why I am unable to understand what the big deal is. It is part of why I am so thick-headed about it. It just seemed like others knew this but I did not think that the clarification needed to be made...until I thought about it while eating my delicious California Style cheeseburger from Freddy's.

Here's the reasoning behind the work not being binding UNLESS the individual accepts it: we believe it to be satanic to remove the ability of one to accept or reject the gospel. We believe it was Satan's original plan to force the gospel and obedience to the gospel, upon the billions (maybe even trillions) of God's spiritual children. In other words no choice, no free-will: strict obedience. So by removing an individual's ability to accept or reject the rites done on their behalf, we would become "Satanic". When I say objections to the works are quite absurd, it's due to the fact that they aren't binding UNLESS the individual accepts them. Not even our "Church Records" show that they are members: only that their work as been completed to prevent duplication if possible.

This is also why it doesn't bother me if "atheistic unbaptisms" are done: the person doing it neither has the authority nor is it forced on the individual because they can choose to reject it (if the person doing the unbaptism even had the authority to do so). Instead, it accomplishes exactly what it sets out to: being blasphemous, entertaining, and humorous. Who doesn't enjoy all of the above? 🙂

Originally posted by Digi
Then you lack some fundamental understand of the nature of human autonomy and dignity, and our ability to be offended by something that is possible or that is planned even if it hasn't happened yet.

No, you simply lack (lacked? you know, now, I believe...if you need more explanation, I could assist) an understanding of what it means or entails. Also consider that you are generally wrong about my stance because I said the following:

"This does not mean, however, that I encourage or even support the posthumously baptism of people when the surviving family objects to it...the exact opposite."

I think my strong words against the Mormons who do so should be indicative enough of how I feel about their actions. Sure, I object to the anti-posthumous rites positions on rhetorical grounds , but not literally.

Just to settle things concerning that topic: I would never ever ever ever do the rites for a person when their family did not want it done. Just because I argue that it is virtually pointless whether or not it is done does not mean that I would actually do or encourage doing it against families' wishes.

Originally posted by Digi
The idea that someone can exert control over any aspect of our lives, which we do not allow willingly, is deeply offending to many on a purely non-religious level. That you can't see this disturbs me somewhat.

You demonstrate that you misunderstand the rite if you think any form of control is exerted over any aspect of another's life. I could say that by some perspectives, it is extremely and horribly offending to think an atheist should demand the rites not be performed: you neither believe they are binding nor do you believe in the subsistence of life after death. Your objections can only be petty, mean, cruel, and vindictive...again, from some perspectives on it. To some Mormons, you are depriving your family members of extreme blessings and privileges: among the highest in the eternities. They would consider that cruel, vindictive, and petty. I partially agree...but then I can easily remind them, "You believe in the millennial reign, right? Keep your shirts on because their work will get done anyway."

Also, I'd like to point out that since the rite is not actually binding, it is actually an exertion of control by the existing family to preventing it from getting it done.

Why?

The deceased still gets to choose, according to Mormon belief. They are not counted as members. So a family member objecting because they are atheist is actually the person exerting control, not the Mormons wanting to do the work. What makes you think that you can operate on another person's behalf? Aren't your controlling a person's life decisions? Even if the person put it in their will to keep the dang Mormons away from them...the rites are still not binding and the individual can reject them. If you don't believe the person is alive, it is not binding, anyway, right?

It boils down to, "You're controlling other people against their will." And both parties can claim that of the other. As we believe it, when we die, our pre-existence with God comes back to our remembrance. Many good people would want the works done for them even if they rejected it in the mortal life. So it would be controlling of the living family to try and force their wills upon the individual in the afterlife.

Originally posted by Digi
I also believe that an intent can be inherently wrong even there is no offended party. It doesn't make the act wrong, per se, but certainly doesn't bode well for the person's mindset.

Oh, I agree ENTIRELY, here. This captures the very very basic idea of what Mormonism is at the very center of it all: what is actually intended or desired when doing anything is actually what constitutes righteousness or varying degrees of it.

For example, we believe good works are part of what we are judged on...but a good work done begrudgingly is actually unrighteous.

Any Mormon who tells you otherwise is either:

1. Ignorant of the basic of basics concerning Mormonism.
2. Mixing in other Christian faiths into Mormonism (which happens a lot due to how many converts that make up our members).

Originally posted by Digi
I'm not accusing you here, dudemon, just getting your take.

I know. Both of our opinions are largely the same: don't do it if the family members don't want it. Have some respect for the dead, FFS.

Originally posted by Digi
Something's wrong with the system and theology that they happened in the first place. Something tells me most of the retractions are going to happen due to backlash, not due to introspective analysis.

You mean the system should remove free-will, entirely, to prevent this? I think not. You can't blame the actions of the individuals when it goes against what is taught: you must blame the individuals. I'm not supposed to curse...and I'm supposed to keep my thoughts and language wholesome. Yet, I OBVIOUSLY do not do that on a regular basis. So why is it a fault of my religion when it directly teaches against it? In fact, I got in trouble and was almost "released" from a calling as a Sunday school teacher because of how foul my mouth is.

And, yes, most of the retractions are done specifically due to the backlash: since the rites are not considered binding and can still be accepted or rejected by the individual AND mix in that it will all be done, anyway, during the millennium, it can be viewed as a temporary impedance to what will happen anyway. As a general rule of thumb, non-family members cannot do the works unless the person has been deceased for 75 years or more.

Originally posted by Digi
Also as fact, this sort of controversy has been in the news this week. It hasn't been eradicated yet.

I don't think I can make it clear enough: it will be virtually impossible to stop it from being done. The only way I can think of is a type of system similar to the setup in 1984 where nothing can be said, written, or done without "them" knowing.

Originally posted by Digi
Yes, I will. I'll leave this, however, since I don't want to get into what is probably a very personal anecdote.

No problem. I only shared that personal story because I like you as a person and thought you'd be interested to see how close to the border some of the decisions can be. In retrospect, I probably should have shared that via PM but it's okay.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm not either. I think either would be equally unconscionable.

But but...Maher's skit was hilarious! 🙁

Originally posted by Digi
I'm not an advocate of Pascal's Wager.

I am, as I have openly admitted directly to you in the past. But as I will openly admit, God could be more like the deist God. He could be like the petty super grumpy God that many Christian Evangelicals believe in. He could be the FSM. He could be like what Marius believes: so far beyond our comprehension as to make it useless to even contemplate, worship, or believe in (which I sort of agree with). There's so many possibilities that is it difficult to decide so I settle on Pascal's wager.

Originally posted by Digi
It's in the news, I was curious, and you're the only Mormon I speak to on a regular basis. Is that not reason enough to bring it up?

Being a Mormon, I am exposed to this stuff quite often. Yes, I heard about the Mormon douches, trying again, to do the rites for Anne Frank. I believe I brought it up in my very first post on this topic (but I'm too lazy to go back and look).

Originally posted by Digi
Also on point, you don't have any of my personal information. And thank goodness, apparently, since the implication of your question literally give me the creeps.

I was partially jesting because it is what I would call "so absurd that it's funny".

However, the portion that is not jest is IF you really wanted me to, just in case you did subscribe to Pascal's wager even if slightly. It would be rather douchy of me not to assist with a request like that...if you had it.

If you were indirectly requesting that, it is not the first time an Atheist has asked me to do the work for them: both of my old workout buddies asked me to do it for them if they died (one of them is the fella I told you about that made a "miraculous" conversion to Christianity despite his extremely staunch opposition to religion).

Edit - Forgot to mention that this stuff still happens because many thousands to even millions of Mormons are not even aware of this type of stuff. The directives from "the first presidency" are covered at the beginning of our "sacrament" meetings but the news stories are not covered. I do remember a meeting from over a decade ago that had all the local Bishops read to the congregation about not doing works for people that are non-family members unless it has been a long ass time or we get permission from the living family. However, I'm an exception because I remember what most people forget.

I'm sure if a person is consistently submitted "bad" names, their temple recommend would be removed. This temple recommend allows them to go to the temples and do works. If they abuse it, they will lose it. I could ask my bishop if he has seen this done to a particularly insidious member.

Originally posted by Digi
Gonna try to expand on this here. Failure incoming.

Notes:
- Idk = I don't know (with certainty)
- This deals only with the "ultimate reality" question. "Lesser" gods (Thor, for example) would not qualify on this scale, because they don't represent an ultimate cause. This list only deals with positions on an "ultimate" deity.
- I tried to allow room for, say, Buddhists, who can be classified as atheists toward their beliefs on God, but certainly have mystic or spiritual beliefs that most atheists don't. #6 is for them.
- It's generally assumed that for 6-10, each number encompasses most or all of the beliefs of the numbers below it (a person who believes in God, for example, will in almost all cases believe in souls, transcendent realities like heaven, etc.)
- The difference between 1-2 and 9-10 is in tone only. No meaningful distinction can be made in the belief itself, but in the approach of the individual. I've left 1 and 10 there to denote the most adamant of militants. Obviously degrees exist within categories (I believe strongly or somewhat strongly), but one must draw the lines somewhere.
- Criticism is welcome.

10 - I know there is a God
9 - There is a God
8 - Idk, but I believe there is a God
7 - Idk, but I believe there is a creative force/higher intelligence/guiding power/deistic god that controls or created reality but isn't an entirely omniscient/omnipotent God or isn't God as defined by any religion
6 - Idk, but I lack belief in gods, and believe in spiritual forces (transcendent realities, souls, reincarnation, etc.)
5 - I don't know (true agnosticism)
4 - "Idk, but I do not have a belief in any god"
3 - "Idk, but I believe there is no God"
2 - "There is no God"
1 - "I know there is no God"

...

I also struggled with a category between 5-6 of "I believe in something, but it is undefined" which is neither true agnosticism nor as pointed as #6. You could also qualify 9 and 10 with "and I know which God it is that exists" to make it stronger. Still, we can subdivide these until we're blue in the face. Gotta say no at some point.

I see it somewhat like a bell curve. 3-8 represent probably 95% of the population of Earth. Though the curve would peak somewhere above agnosticism, so it wouldn't be a symmetrical curve.

Thoughts?

I would then have to go with two. I believe there is no God, but there is no real way I can prove it. I mean, how can you honestly be a 1?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I am, as I have openly admitted directly to you in the past. But as I will openly admit, God could be more like the deist God. He could be like the petty super grumpy God that many Christian Evangelicals believe in. He could be the FSM. He could be like what Marius believes: so far beyond our comprehension as to make it useless to even contemplate, worship, or believe in (which I sort of agree with). There's so many possibilities that is it difficult to decide so I settle on Pascal's wager.

As a philosophical pragmatist I find that very difficult position to fathom. When Pascal's Wager is allowed to be that diluted it loses its proscriptive power entirely. It becomes an irrelevant statement.

There are an infinite number of potential gods that will give me an infinite reward for doing exactly what I'm doing. No choice improves my standing in any way. Even if I follow the greatest possible number of non-contradictory religions my odds don't go up since there are an infinite number of potential gods that will damn me for such behavior.

I'm not quite done with our baptism talk, dudemon, but I'm taking a short break. I don't actually think we're going to get to a "we actually agree on this" this time, but I always appreciate the perspective.

Originally posted by socool8520
I would then have to go with two. I believe there is no God, but there is no real way I can prove it. I mean, how can you honestly be a 1?

There's a few ways to answer that. But the short answer is, probably the only people who would label themselves as 1 haven't thought it through entirely. There's more complex justifications for #1, mostly revolving around human subjectivity, but it's rare to encounter them in practice. Though that same subjectivity can be used as evidence that no one could be a lower number than a 3. The nuances of philosophy are stupid, I think is the moral here.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
As a philosophical pragmatist I find that very difficult position to fathom. When Pascal's Wager is allowed to be that diluted it loses its proscriptive power entirely. It becomes an irrelevant statement.

I find your implied position to be exactly the opposite of what Pascal's wager actually means.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There are an infinite number of potential gods that will give me an infinite reward for doing exactly what I'm doing. No choice improves my standing in any way. Even if I follow the greatest possible number of non-contradictory religions my odds don't go up since there are an infinite number of potential gods that will damn me for such behavior.

Incorrect: you must combine things I have said in the past to arrive at what I'm saying. This is part of why I referenced my conversation with Digi about this, in the past. In fact, some of these arguments were had directly with YOU so I am not sure why you would post those words at me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Regardless of your interpretation, it is not falsifiable because the definitions of "benevolent God" can be changed to meet any argument thrown at it.

"Pain and suffering in the world" - "benevolent God needs you to go through that in order to grow as a spiritual and eternal entity. It is for your benefit and you are much "older" as a being than just this crude hell-hole of a life."

Originally posted by dadudemon
Just be a good person and the benevolent God will not give a damn (pun?) about what religion you were. That's almost superfluous.

Originally posted by dadudemon
God exists because the universe/multiverse exists.

Because it exists, God is benevolent.

God is definitely not tied to any specific ritual or dogma.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why is it so hard to believe that a benevolent Creator gently and elegantly created this universe and used evolution to get us there? We certainly are still in need of an actual prime mover. We have theories...

What is the underlying principle?

Regardless of the type of God you are looking for, I obviously believe that it all leads back to some sort of benevolent Creator NO MATTER how many different flavors you can come up with. By extension, "be good, human". Yes, FSM counts, too. 🙂

And therein lies my "Pascal's wager".

"...a rational person should simply wager that God exists (and live accordingly)."

From teh wikeez.

And what do I label myself as? That's right: agnostic theist.

It is not as though the "evil God" wasn't thrown at me already: King Kandy explored that route, already.

Originally posted by King Kandy
...Or maybe when you pray, the one answering is actually a malevolent demiurge bent on leading you astray...

As I have discussed with Digi in the past about this, I am not saying that a very specific kind of Christian God be the answer to Pascal's wager. I am only suggesting a vague "benevolent" God be the goal of Pascal's wager. In this instance, Digi is already living a great life (he has nothing to be ashamed of or fear IF there is an afterlife).

That's why I said this to him in the past:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Awesome. 👆

It's for people like you that I hope there is a God and some form of Transcendent reality. You deserve it more than most.

Now, I'm okay that you didn't memorize every conversation you, Digi, and I have had in the past: that would be fairly lame of me. This is why I did the exact opposite of what I usually do when people bring up stuff I have already addressed (which is tell you to use the search feature which is an indirect way of saying "STFU, Newb"😉.

Edit - And ONE LAST THIIIING....

If God turns out to be that petty immature God many Christian Evangelicals believe in, I told Digi I'd march out of heaven with him. That's just not the type of Deity I could ever stand.

Originally posted by dadudemon
In this instance, Digi is already living a great life (he has nothing to be ashamed of or fear IF there is an afterlife).

Awww.

But seriously, I'm trying to work on putting some skeletons in my closet for a change.

biscuits

Also, anything I do that's altruistic is because the person, people, or cause is awesome, not for cosmic karma points. If the Christian God greets me when I die (which, mind you, I consider a laughable proposition, but for argument's sake) I'd probably end up getting myself sent to hell for telling him what a horrible job he's doing, and arguing with him in general.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm not quite done with our baptism talk, dudemon, but I'm taking a short break. I don't actually think we're going to get to a "we actually agree on this" this time, but I always appreciate the perspective.

Well, I think we largely agree. If you were a 10 on this topic, I'd be a 7. I cannot fully commit, if only for rhetorical reasons, that it is completely bad for an atheist's family member to be posthumously baptized...but I'd never go down the road of doing it against their wishes.

If I run into the Mormon that is the pushy type, I'll be sure and let them know to stop being a douche. There's our middle ground. 😄

Originally posted by Digi
Awww.

But seriously, I'm trying to work on putting some skeletons in my closet for a change.

biscuits

Also, anything I do that's altruistic is because the person, people, or cause is awesome, not for cosmic karma points. If the Christian God greets me when I die (which, mind you, I consider a laughable proposition, but for argument's sake) I'd probably end up getting myself sent to hell for telling him what a horrible job he's doing, and arguing with him in general.

Indeed. I think you and I had this conversation, already: the point of life is not to do it to please God...it's to do it because it is the right thing to do (virtue ethics) and only for that reason. In fact, I'm almost sure we talked about this.

Because I'm Mormon, we believe we become Gods. How can you become like God if you constantly have to try and appease your Creator? You really can't. You have to grow beyond the immature need to please "daddy" and grow into your own godly existence.

But, yes, I like virtue ethics with a dash of pragmatic ethics.

Atheism is for people who are dead inside.

Originally posted by rudester
Atheism is for people who are dead inside.

Awww. 🙁

Surely you don't believe that. 🙁

Some of the kindest most awesomest people I know are atheists.

If someone claims they don't support the idea of God and also claims they don't support the idea of no God. What are they?

Because I asked him what idea does he claim himself to be.

He then told me that I can label him the word to choose for him. I then told him, that I think your agnostic.

And then he replied. So you say. After that I just simply didn't ask him anymore about it.

Was I right?

Originally posted by Daredevil1
If someone claims they don't support the idea of God and also claims they don't support the idea of no God. What are they?

Because I asked him what idea does he claim himself to be.

He then told me that I can label him the word to choose for him. I then told him, that I think your agnostic.

And then he replied. So you say. After that I just simply didn't ask him anymore about it.

Was I right?

It all depends on what is meant by the word "God".

Originally posted by rudester
Atheism is for people who are dead inside.

That's pretty heavy judgment!

It's not hard to understand. Atheism means its peoples don't believe in any higher beings that control or alter our lives. Science is the basis of their beliefs and what's proven is real. simple.

I myself am caught in the middle. I will not affiliate myself with a major religion. But for many reasons I just believe in more. Science isn't darkness and a lonely isolated death. I guess I'm a romantic with a big imagination who has witnessed many a beautiful thing.

But one thing I know for sure most heavy Atheists I know have high morals and do good because it is simply the right thing to do and not because someone told them to do it. Yet many religious people I've known do bad things knowing they'll be forgiven by their God because of their devotion.

Originally posted by rudester
Atheism is for people who are dead inside.