At 1/31/13 06:14 AM, Earfetish wrote:
I agree with that in general, but I know from experience that people define God(s) in a completely different way.
That's their problem really.
I'm no longer in the business of convincing idiot fence-sitters who side with Christians instead of atheists because although they don't believe in any form of deism or theism, they talk about shit like "life energies" or whatever all the while calling themselves Christians for the social / political benefits.
Those people aren't interested in truth, I don't think we should dumb down everything for them.
The enemies of reason aren't them anyway, they're the theists and their god damned insanity. No one's trying to past Deist legislation, they're just sadly too stupid not to give support to theist political parties and causes.
I poo on them. If they can't be convinced already with what's floating out there, it's because they DON'T WANT to be. Dawkins has explained atheism in 40 different, unambiguous ways already yet you have idiots like memorize or camaro just never ever understanding it and ( I suspect ) willfully so.
So yeah, enough words already.
The concept of gods is as silly as all the rest, they should get no special treatment when ghosts, fairies, magic etc. don't.
I actually think this is a relevant discussion to have when we're talking about the concept of 'belief', especially in terms of our existence. At what point do we stop being 'agnostic' about 'philosophy 101' concepts?
At the point where you feel actual pain and pleasure and can pretty much figure out that no matter how hard you try to believe otherwise, reality seems to be entirely responsible for them.
I can't be agnostic about the pain I feel when I get kicked in the nuts. Everything else about the universe derives from the assumption that I can avoid future nut-kicking in a predictable fashion using reasoning and science, which, as it turns out, is always true.
The other answer is that you can't be agnostic about concepts that change nothing. For instance: The Matrix. What does it mean to be "agnostic" about the idea that we're all in the matrix? Well it means the same as being "agnostic" about the idea of a wizard casting a spell on everyone WHILE IN THE MATRIX WHILE IN INCEPTION WHILE IN A DREAM FROM A MONKEY SITTING ON THE MOON WHICH IS REALLY THE EGG OF A COSMIC TURTLE HOLY SHIT.
The idea of being "undecided" on things that decide nothing is useless. I can't even bet on it. Are we in the matrix? Well that can't ever be proven, I can't ever bet on it and it doesn't change a god damned thing.
So if I was going to answer a political survey with "Yes I am open to the possibility of being in the Matrix" I would look like an idiot because it would be obvious to everyone that I could list an infinite amount of these universe-neutral scenarios to "be open to".
So yes, back to rule 1, since the world behaves exactly the same as if it was observable and predictable, and you stand to gain or lose a lot of pain by observing these rules, you can't be a dipshit philo 101 student and piss your life away on "discovering" elementary logical concepts all day long. Philosophy's time is over anyway. Not that there ever was a time for it really. Again based on rule 1, you can't "figure out" everything in your head.
So really. Pretty useless.