This is what I mean when I say...

That's very interesting. I thank you for sharing it.

I, on the other hand, would.

The answers "I think so" or "I think not"...would both be slightly less ethical in my opinion.

The answers "Definitely" or "Definitely not"...would, in my opinion, both be unethical.

I'm not sure of your point here.

 

So if I'm following you right, you saw no evidence to believe that God (or gods) exists or that God (or gods) doesn't exists. You flipped a coin about whether or not you should worship God or not and as a result you decided not to worship God. This decision has been a permanent one.

So at anytime we're there consequences to your decision not to worship God? If so, what were the consequences?

 

Wow...and you want a panel of moderators to judge the logic of posts???

Good grief!

My guess is that you are not even trying to do that...but, what the hell. Sometimes the game playing during Internet discussions is more fun than the serious times...so I'll play.

Let's try to be a bit more precise. I see absolutely NO UNAMBIGUOUS evidence that gods exist or that no gods exist. If that part is still in question for you...you have not been paying attention.

I did no such thing...and if you are going to distort things, try to be a bit more subtle. This was laughable distortion.

The coin toss was made in place of a blind guess about the idea that gods need or want "worship"...not about whether or not I should worship any gods. I was very clear about that. Read the text...you'll see.

I am not going to worship any gods...and that has nothing whatever to do with that coin toss. Either you understand that and are just being a clown...or you don't understand that...and ARE a clown. Not sure which one.

C'mon...do better than this. You can do it!

Once again...you want a panel of moderators to judge the logic of posts???

 

Sorry to exasperate you, I'm just trying to understand you. Sorry don't include words like unambiguous in my summary, I'm just trying to get the key points here and felt the term "unambiguous evidence" and "evidence" are similar enough for a summary. If evidence is not unambiguous it's not really evidence since it wouldn't be valid.

What is illogical about my question? I'm not trying to get an emotional response from you, I'm trying to understand. What is wrong with asking if you experienced consequences from your decision? If I've hit on an emotionally sensitive thing for you, you don't have to share. A simple yes or no would do.
Edit:
Oh Ok I see you're distinction. You flipped a coin about whether or not gods would want worship and since the result was that they would not you made a decision not to worship them . You didn't flip the coin to see if you should worship or not. Ok I get it. My apologies.

So my question is the same. Were there any consequences to your decision?

 

You are not exasperating me, Dirty Rotten. (Wish you had a name like "John" so I could address you respectfully.)

I am enjoying this. I truly hope you are also.

The problem with that (as I have explained in many previous posts) is that "unambiguous evidence" and "evidence" are very different things.

EVERYTHING we see...MAY BE "evidence" of the existence of a god. NONE of it is "unambiguous evidence" of the existence of a god. Being precise is in the best interests of everything and everyone in these kinds of discussions.

It assumed things that did not exist. (I'll talk about that more as I continue here.)

I'll take you at your word here...and cut out some of the bounce back stuff that I have been sending.

There was no decision. The coin toss was a way of portraying a blind guess in a way that shows it to be the meaningless thing I've called it several times.

I tossed a coin...and I allowed it to decide whether gods necessarily want to be worshiped.

It placed no obligation on me.

IF there actually are gods...and if the gods want, even demand, to be worshiped...I am NOT going to worship them.

It is just not in me...not part of my makeup. Sorta like the "I don't wanna be part of any club that would allow me to be a member" thing Groucho spoke of. I am NOT going to "worship" a thing that is so insecure that it can make a universe but still needs me to worship it!

I would have to fake it...because such a being is not worth the worship...and what good would faking it be? (That's the problem I've always had with Pascal and his wager.) If the gods can make a universe so large light takes billions of years to traverse it...surely it would know that I am faking it.

Not at all. But your thinking is not logical on this. You are not taking everything I've said into consideration. That was the reason for my skepticism about your call for moderators to rule on the logic in posts.

Okay...yes or no.

There is no answer to your question...because it assumes things that are not there. (And it has a "When did you stop beating your wife?" ding to it.)

 

DRI is a good abbreviation for my profile name.

So the coin toss gave you an answer about whether or not god(s) want or need worship because in the end there's no way to really know that.

It kind of sounds like the coin toss was irrelevant anyway because you don't see worship as logically consistent (my term I know, does it sound accurate?). If god(s) has ability and power to create a universe then it shouldn't require your worship.

So I have a tangent here. I'm not a religious person either but there is a certain exegesis that describes the dedication to god(s) as not being of benefit to god(s) but instead it is of benefit to humans. How would you identify if that benefit is real? You could become a worshipper I suppose or perhaps observe worshippers to identify benefits they have experienced. Have you explored this possibility?

There is also the account of Job in which Satan argues that Job will turn away from God if everything good is taken from him. The main question being whether or not humans are worthy of redemption at all. So it would seem the reason why humans worship could be for more reasons than just to placate an insecurity, it could be to settle an uncertainty about humans.

Not that I believe that but just curious about your thought on it.

 

I don't think it provides what a name does, but I will use it. Although since we should be on a first name basis by now, I will use D as a more friendly form.

The coin toss did the same thing a blind guess would do, D...NOTHING.

I've used the "coin toss" many, many times over the years. The point was to make a statement about the lack of value of a blind guess. I hope we can put it aside for the balance of our discussion.

As I said, "worship" is not one of my things.

All I can do is go anecdotal on you.

There was a time in my life (back in my very late teens and early 20's) where I needed what I now recognize as a crutch. The crutch was religion...and the "god" gave me a chance to discuss problems in a way that felt comfortable.

It was not a small investment I made in religion. Although I am no longer religious in any way, some of my most memorable memories involve religious experiences. On a trip to Rome (while in the Air Force) I had the opportunity to serve Mass in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican; I also attended a general audience with Pius XII at Castel Gandolfo. (I later discovered that my maternal grandmother was a childhood acquaintance of Eugeno Pacelli, Pius XII.) I also served as an acolyte to the Catholic Primate of England...during a High Mass in honor of American servicemen serving in Europe.

So...for me...yeah. There was plenty of "real" benefit and utility.

Make no mistake, though, I am very happy I was able to outgrow the need.

I have no problem understanding there are many who find utility and benefit from religion.

Covered above.

My guess would be that there are many people who are "religious" because they are scared to the point of soiling their laundry.

Whatever.

If they need that blanket or crutch...I have no problem with them having it.

Feel free to ask whatever else you want to know.

 

DRI is good, after all, what kind of contrarian troll would not want to use a name that you prefer to be called by.

 

It's a little strange, because humans really have no way of knowing whether there is a god.

And, those who answer "no" are aware of that, I would assume. So, why are they answering "no"?

So, I tend to see the "I don't know" answer as perhaps being slightly more honest.

 

Frank, I appreciate your many posts in this thread. They have helped me to better understand some of the arguments and misunderstandings about atheism and agnosticism, and have helped me clarify my own position. I particularly appreciate your care in selecting words and phrases so as to be as precise and unambiguous as possible.

 

Define one completely and we can discuss that assertion.

 

Thank you, Jack.

As an aside: I just went to your home page to check out what else you have written.

Amazing. When I first heard Donald Trump give mouth to the "Revoke the Johnson Amendment" I thought: Okay...do it. But at the same time, revoke the tax exempt status of non-profit organizations that get involved in politics. (And apparently like you, I think we ought to get away from the notion of tax-exempt religious organizations anyway!)

Welcome to the forum...and I'll comment over at your thread.

 

My intention was to define god in a way that is inclusive of anyone's definition - from any religion, "mother nature" (where that includes an independent consciousness), or whatever.

Perhaps it just means a consciousness that is separate - outside of any individual human.

 

I wasn't being facetious with the comment, seriously, good luck with finding an inclusive definition. If you can find one, you would have discovered the Unifying Theory of Religion.

 

Swedish Gud does not willings my faith on him.

 

lol - I think I'll dodge trying to go there!!

The only reason I started posting is that in a weird way it seems more honest to be agnostic rather than being a disbeliever.

 

No problem, there are some incredibly honest agnostics out there, I know some and they are good people. Are they more honest? Well yes, more honest than some other agnostics I have encountered. I also have some theistic friends who know that I am atheist but, they don't expect me to hide behind agnosticism in order to remain friends with them.

 

Interesting points.

I definitely would not use someone's answer to the question of whether there is a god as an indication of how honest they are.

So, that does reflect on what I said in that previous post.

Yes, no hiding and no confrontation.

 

You do not know if gods exist or don't exist.

What is the definition of "gods" that you have been using for this discussion?

 

Me neither, it would be more about how they would elaborate or not elaborate from that point that would be the indicator. If a theist or agnostic simply falls back on, 'it is so because I say it is so' then that is all you can decide upon to measure their honesty. Agnostics that play around with ignorance and pretend to argue about gods when they really mean a specific attribute of gods are not honest. I have asked several agnostic acquaintances about this and they agreed with me that if they were arguing about gods they would not start at that point. They agreed that arguing a specifically vague definition of gods in such a way is not honest and they would not do it since all it does is define gods in such a way that it puts gods into a gap of ignorance where you can be an ass about it. An honest person would not do that without acknowledging that it is irrational. I guess some people prefer being an ass than a human being.

 

For one...IF this thing we humans call "the universe" is a creation...whatever created it...is a god.

 

Anything else?

If not, what is a universe?

 

Right.

My own vagueness about what is god was more in the other direction, where I'm not going to argue about the nature of the god at all. To me, if there is a supernatural consciousness, then it's "game over" for the atheist or agnostic.

 

Sure, as soon as someone demonstrates it, I will no longer lack belief. It once took over 1000 posts to get a definition of gods out of someone in another forum I regularly visit, can you imagine someone so afraid to even give a definition that it took them that long to choke one up and when they did it avoided practically all definitions that theists generally attribute to gods in favour of a single attribute that was basically a philosophical word game? In the set of god attributes, the troll chose the one that suited their purposes rather than a complete one that they knew would blow their argument. If anything, my ignorance is not the existence of gods, it is what the hell a god actually is! If I talk to people in general terms, they tend to say (slightly sarcastic here), 'well they are nice fluffy warm things that we can't detect'. Well, so are pink unicorns and faeries but, we don't entertain them as serious notions, well I don't in any way that is not satirical.