CC Atheists - what do you think of them?

[jiminski]

What the hell is a fairy worshipper?

Ferry worshipers are those who live on Statten Island, commute every day to downtown Manhatten and who make their morning commute praying that the ferry doesn't crash into the dock.

this is nonsense!

Fairy worshippers are a small but devout sect (mainly from Torquay) who deify the humble-fairy!*
The sect sacrifices elfin virgins** each summer solstice, to ensure that the Apple crop will plentiful and the blossom pollinated by the fairies. this is vital for the holy-cider which in turn is consumed to glorify the Fairy Queen herself.



*Folk-lore has it that the humble-fairy was turned into the Bumble-Bea by Merlin the Magician, in order to hide them from Mogana; who sought their blood for her Arthurian love-spell. English history could have been very different if he had failed!
** A rare commodity, them being such slags. Due to their rarity the Sect has substituted Hedgepigs for their pointy-eared cousins.

[Bertros Bertros]

What the hell is a fairy worshipper?

Ferry worshipers are those who live on Statten Island, commute every day to downtown Manhatten and who make their morning commute praying that the ferry doesn't crash into the dock.

this is nonsense!

Fairy worshippers are a small but devout sect (mainly from Torquay) who deify the humble-fairy!*
The sect sacrifices elfin virgins** each summer solstice, to ensure that the Apple crop will plentiful and the blossom pollinated by the fairies. this is vital for the holy-cider which in turn is consumed to glorify the Fairy Queen herself.



*Folk-lore has it that the humble-fairy was turned into the Bumble-Bea by Merlin the Magician, in order to hide them from Mogana; who sought their blood for her Arthurian love-spell. English history could have been very different if he had failed!
** A rare commodity, them being such slags. Due to their rarity the Sect has substituted Hedgepigs for their pointy-eared cousins.

Being partly of Devonian heritage I can confirm this is mostly true except that most fairy worshippers have now moved to Totnes and there is even a break-away sect worhsipping pixies in Stroud but the Torquay community was pretty much wiped out by the Goblin Botherers when they went to the English Riviera on a day trip from Blackpool. As you say English histroy could have been so different if they had failed...

[jiminski]

I'm almost prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt but I still don't see how "layers of camouflaged superego" have anything to do with the ephemerality of faith? Sounds more like a cheap shot to me.

That being said faith is intrinsically ephemeral being as it is a concept rather than a entity. As to its relationship to belief much depends on your definition. In this context faith is the ability to believe something which your logical judgement determines you shouldn't believe. That doesn't mean it contains a conflict between what we want to know and what we in fact know, but rather that it removes the conflict between what we want to be true and what we know is most probably true. Rather than "fortified intellect traversing the vast crevasses of uncertainty" (another cheap shot?) it is really more accurately faith itself which provides the glue for extending belief beyond the believable.

why?.. it describes it perfectly! The context of the words have to be taken as a whole, not just described as 'cheap' when standing alone. The concepts are quite obtuse, so i do understand your reticence.
The point is that the truth is being hidden from the self... to do that you require the most complex system of checks and balances which confuses and justifies to the self under perpetual scrutiny.

Far from 'Cheap' I would say that the turns of phrase are lavish but not ostentatious.
They go further to evoke the heart of the quandary than your more spartan prose.

[jiminski]

this is nonsense!

Fairy worshippers are a small but devout sect (mainly from Torquay) who deify the humble-fairy!*
The sect sacrifices elfin virgins** each summer solstice, to ensure that the Apple crop will plentiful and the blossom pollinated by the fairies. this is vital for the holy-cider which in turn is consumed to glorify the Fairy Queen herself.



*Folk-lore has it that the humble-fairy was turned into the Bumble-Bea by Merlin the Magician, in order to hide them from Mogana; who sought their blood for her Arthurian love-spell. English history could have been very different if he had failed!
** A rare commodity, them being such slags. Due to their rarity the Sect has substituted Hedgepigs for their pointy-eared cousins.

Being partly of Devonian heritage I can confirm this is mostly true except that most fairy worshippers have now moved to Totnes and there is even a break-away sect worhsipping pixies in Stroud but the Torquay community was pretty much wiped out by the Goblin Botherers when they went to the English Riviera on a day trip from Blackpool. As you say English histroy could have been so different if they had failed...

Thank you Bertos.. it is very tough to keep up to date with these shy and revering patrons!

[tzor]

What the hell is a fairy worshipper?

Ferry worshipers are those who live on Statten Island, commute every day to downtown Manhatten and who make their morning commute praying that the ferry doesn't crash into the dock.

Fairy worshippers are ...

Oh you wrote "fairy" not "ferry" nevermind then. I really need to finish my morning tea before I write replies.

[Bertros Bertros]

I'm almost prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt but I still don't see how "layers of camouflaged superego" have anything to do with the ephemerality of faith? Sounds more like a cheap shot to me.

That being said faith is intrinsically ephemeral being as it is a concept rather than a entity. As to its relationship to belief much depends on your definition. In this context faith is the ability to believe something which your logical judgement determines you shouldn't believe. That doesn't mean it contains a conflict between what we want to know and what we in fact know, but rather that it removes the conflict between what we want to be true and what we know is most probably true. Rather than "fortified intellect traversing the vast crevasses of uncertainty" (another cheap shot?) it is really more accurately faith itself which provides the glue for extending belief beyond the believable.

why?.. it describes it perfectly! The context of the words have to be taken as a whole, not just described as 'cheap' when standing alone. The concepts are quite obtuse, so i do understand your reticence.
The point is that the truth is being hidden from the self... to do that you require the most complex system of checks and balances which confuses and justifies to the self under perpetual scrutiny.

Far from 'Cheap' I would say that the turns of phrase are lavish but not ostentatious.
They go further to evoke the heart of the quandary than your more spartan prose.

Sorry run that by me again. How are references to "camouflaged superego" and "fortified intellect" both loaded phrases intended I believe to confer an arguably justified sense of superiority upon the atheist in anyway going further to evoking (if we're going to exercise pedantry with regards to spelling we should also ensure correct grammar ) the heart of the quandary of faith? Whilst I concur they are actually more accurately lavish shots they remain shots nonetheless.

The argument made stands up better when applied to faith itself which in your words traverses the crevasses of uncertainty than when attributed to belief which alone is unable to bridge any chasm of doubt with or without the support of layers of self-denial.

[jiminski]

Sorry run that by me again. How are references to "camouflaged superego" and "fortified intellect" both loaded phrases intended I believe to confer an arguably justified sense of superiority upon the atheist in anyway going further to evoking (if we're going to exercise pedantry with regards to spelling we should also ensure correct grammar ) the heart of the quandary of faith? Whilst I concur they are actually more accurately lavish shots they remain shots nonetheless.

The argument made stands up better when applied to faith itself which in your words traverses the crevasses of uncertainty than when attributed to belief which alone is unable to bridge any chasm of doubt with or without the support of layers of self-denial.

hmm well you are correct we should not make this into a test of grammar but i think 'further to evoke' would be correct but 'further in evoking' would be necessary for you to be right.

superiority upon the atheist

Did you read my first mail?

Why are they shots? are you saying that an element of metaphor does not illustrate a point with a more guttural and instinctive resonance, once unlocked? Symbolism is miniaturised allegory, attempting to swiftly take the reader to a place which may ordinarily take 2 more sentences. Your prose would remove the flourish but require greater exploration to reach the same destination.

As to your point regarding 'faith' and 'beleif' this is the very essence of my tenet.

[jonesthecurl]

"Fairy worshippers"
There may still be some, or at lest believers in fairies - when I was in Guernsey, I looked in a prehistoric burial chamber, and found a bunch of floweres which may well have been left for the fairies.
Guernsey, Jersey, and the other Channel Isles certainly contained believers well into the 20th century.

[joecoolfrog]

The fact is that the comparison is good. The leap from agnosticism to atheism in reference to god is the same as the leap from being undecided on fairies and believing that they don't exist. It's not that we deny the existance of God, it's that we don't actually believe in it.

Except that is different. We are not comparing God to fairies, we're comparing the belief in God to believing in fairies, i.e. agnosticism on it is silly.

Sorry for the late reply but I was away yesterday. The problem is that you are equating a general with a specific. It's easier to disprove a specific but almost impossible to disprove a general.

Just because you don't believe in something is no reason to a-priori insult and ridicule and dismiss those who do. I don't believe in a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that the people who believe in them are ignorant savages of a bygone era not worthy of my intelectual attention.

Every Sunday young children are told in no uncertain fashion that to be an atheist will sentence them to an eternity of hell and suffering, do you not consider this rather more scandalous than a grown man having his faith gently mocked.

[MeDeFe]

This thread is awesome. I never knew fairies could be that fascinating creatures.

[jiminski]

This thread is awesome. I never knew fairies could be that fascinating creatures.

Those little flying bastards can be blamed for a heck of a lot!

[Bertros Bertros]

Superb Jim (may I call you Jim?), I commend you Sir on some formidable word play.

Shots? Surely whether acting as metaphor or otherwise the assertion of a 'superego' or 'fortified intellect' is ultimately ascribing negative connatations to the holders as a group when applying the traditional interpretation of these terms?

You are entirely correct that my comments on faith and belief align with the central tenet of your argument but I am not suggesting you are wrong on this, only that your argument is far more convincing if applied to the existence (or lack thereof) of theists rather than atheists. This is quite clearly upheld by the sentence below in which you describe most accurately the concept of faith; a mechanism for hiding the truth from the self.

The point is that the truth is being hidden from the self... to do that you require the most complex system of checks and balances which confuses and justifies to the self under perpetual scrutiny

I agree wholeheartedly its just that whilst your is a beautifully presented and well reasoned argument it would work so much better if applied in reverse.

Ok your probably right about the grammar I knew I was on dodgy ground there but couldn't resist...

[Frigidus]

This thread is awesome. I never knew fairies could be that fascinating creatures.

Who would have thought that backglass would eventually be reprimanded for potentially hurting the feelings of those that believe in fairies? Strange times...

[jiminski]

I agree wholeheartedly its just that whilst your is a beautifully presented and well reasoned argument it would work so much better if applied in reverse.
...

heheh shhhh that was the point... and of course you may call me Jim!


but i was playing with the idea of the argument being reversible (not strictly theists swapped for Atheists but the nature of the 2 sides, diametrically opposed) .. and if an idea is 'almost' reversible, then no wonder the debate goes on forever.

[tzor]

Every Sunday young children are told in no uncertain fashion that to be an atheist will sentence them to an eternity of hell and suffering, do you not consider this rather more scandalous than a grown man having his faith gently mocked.

They are not here. Lots of things go on every day, but that they happen in the world out there doesn't excuse anyone in the forums here. Heck these same morons also say that to be a Roman Catholic will sentence them "to an eternity of hell and suffering." Have you ever read a Jack Chick "comic?"

Just becasue there exists an idiot does not mean you are right. Just because there exists an idiot who hates you doesn't mean that no one else is equally hated. Just because you believe in X does not mean you can simply argue that those who believe in not X are morons.

As for the argument that, "be an atheist will sentence them to an eternity of hell and suffering," I can state that categorically this is not the position of my own faith, the Roman Catholic Church. (And yes I can back that up with citations from the CCC!) Not only that but in the liturgy of Good Friday a special prayer is said for all those who do not believe in God.

[Bertros Bertros]

I agree wholeheartedly its just that whilst your is a beautifully presented and well reasoned argument it would work so much better if applied in reverse.
...

heheh shhhh that was the point... and of course you may call me Jim!


but i was playing with the idea of the argument being reversible (not strictly theists swapped for Atheists but the nature of the 2 sides, diametrically opposed) .. and if an idea is 'almost' reversible, then no wonder the debate goes on forever.

shhhh I kinda guessed that a few posts ago but once the fray was entered the bait was impossible to resist, I've always been a sucker for a well worded entrapment

[jiminski]

I agree wholeheartedly its just that whilst your is a beautifully presented and well reasoned argument it would work so much better if applied in reverse.
...

heheh shhhh that was the point... and of course you may call me Jim!


but i was playing with the idea of the argument being reversible (not strictly theists swapped for Atheists but the nature of the 2 sides, diametrically opposed) .. and if an idea is 'almost' reversible, then no wonder the debate goes on forever.

shhhh I kinda guessed that a few posts ago but once the fray was entered the bait was impossible to resist, I've always been a sucker for a well worded entrapment

heheh top man, most enjoyable Bertros! And the fact that it was punctuated by the far more important businness regarding the fairies, made it light relief!

[joecoolfrog]

Every Sunday young children are told in no uncertain fashion that to be an atheist will sentence them to an eternity of hell and suffering, do you not consider this rather more scandalous than a grown man having his faith gently mocked.

They are not here. Lots of things go on every day, but that they happen in the world out there doesn't excuse anyone in the forums here. Heck these same morons also say that to be a Roman Catholic will sentence them "to an eternity of hell and suffering." Have you ever read a Jack Chick "comic?"

Just becasue there exists an idiot does not mean you are right. Just because there exists an idiot who hates you doesn't mean that no one else is equally hated. Just because you believe in X does not mean you can simply argue that those who believe in not X are morons.

As for the argument that, "be an atheist will sentence them to an eternity of hell and suffering," I can state that categorically this is not the position of my own faith, the Roman Catholic Church. (And yes I can back that up with citations from the CCC!) Not only that but in the liturgy of Good Friday a special prayer is said for all those who do not believe in God.

There are certainly areas of Catholicism that I would disagree with but I applaud its stance regarding inter faith tolerance and understanding, its a pity that the evangelists cannot follow suit in this regard. It seems to me that on the whole the Roman Catholic church has moved ( albeit slowly ) with the times whilst certain branches of the protestant movement seem intent on going back to the middle ages.

[Frigidus]

Every Sunday young children are told in no uncertain fashion that to be an atheist will sentence them to an eternity of hell and suffering, do you not consider this rather more scandalous than a grown man having his faith gently mocked.

They are not here. Lots of things go on every day, but that they happen in the world out there doesn't excuse anyone in the forums here. Heck these same morons also say that to be a Roman Catholic will sentence them "to an eternity of hell and suffering." Have you ever read a Jack Chick "comic?"

Just becasue there exists an idiot does not mean you are right. Just because there exists an idiot who hates you doesn't mean that no one else is equally hated. Just because you believe in X does not mean you can simply argue that those who believe in not X are morons.

As for the argument that, "be an atheist will sentence them to an eternity of hell and suffering," I can state that categorically this is not the position of my own faith, the Roman Catholic Church. (And yes I can back that up with citations from the CCC!) Not only that but in the liturgy of Good Friday a special prayer is said for all those who do not believe in God.

There are certainly areas of Catholicism that I would disagree with but I applaud its stance regarding inter faith tolerance and understanding, its a pity that the evangelists cannot follow suit in this regard. It seems to me that on the whole the Roman Catholic church has moved ( albeit slowly ) with the times whilst certain branches of the protestant movement seem intent on going back to the middle ages.

It's incredibly ironic considering how the protestant movement started.

[CoffeeCream]

It's an AWESOME movie. I've seen it no less than 3,000 times.

Uhhh 3,000 times! I thought I liked movies

[tzor]

It's incredibly ironic considering how the protestant movement started.

That all depends on your point of view.

You almost have to take it back and look at the 50,000 foot overview. In the middle ages the relationship between church and state was kept together through an odd strucutre. The backbone of the state was (and always is actually) the military but in the middle ages the backbone of the military was the landed knight. Knighthood, although designed for serivce to a secular power was something overseen by the church. Thus the orders of knights were the lynch pin that kept the church in a position of power over the state. (Mind you that never stoped everyone and their neighbors from attacking Rome even to the point where the popes had to flee to France for several centuries.)

This relationship was also good for the state. There was nothing quite so easy as writing to the Pope and getting rid of your troubles through a church sanctioned inquisition. But the problem was that not everyone thought this way. Once discent formed in the ranks of the church, these leaders realized that they could solve the whole problem of the Church by being thier own Church. And without a lynchpin of knighthood there was nothing the church could really do about it.

This whole problem was taking place at the same time as the great rip off artists of the period were making a killing. These were people who went from town to town and in ways that would make McCarthy jealous were able to round up hundreds of people on the charge of witchcraft, confiscating their property and getting more leads on who to torture and rob from next. Thus the petty leaders of the proto-nations of Europe, the petty religious leaders who suddenly had the power to enforce their own belief systems, and the witch hunters all worked towards making compromise not only a dirty word, but one where you would be tortured for and then burned alive at the stake.

[DangerBoy]

Have you ever read a Jack Chick "comic?"

Yes, quite regrettable

[jiminski]

Have you ever read a Jack Chick "comic?"

Yes, quite regrettable

is your evangelist strangling a kitten ?

[Neoteny]

Have you ever read a Jack Chick "comic?"

Yes, quite regrettable

is your evangelist strangling a kitten ?

Howard Dean, sir.

Yeeeaaah!!!

[protectedbygold]

While i regret that i seem to have touched a nerve, im not exactly sure what your driving at. I, hopefully being one of the first to admit this, have biases that are reflections of my worldview, and religion touches into that ground as well. However i suppose in a tradition of statements without absolute knowledge (which i can only hope comes sometime after this point in life -as ive yet to obtain it yet) i believe there are biases which are worse than others. While admittedly it took me a while to realize a rather haphazard notion that you pointed out, you have yet to, in a number of posts between us acknowledge something that i think people on both sides of the belief/non-belief issue would admit...you wish to apply a standard to non-believers that is unequal, makes their position untenable and it would seem (though of course i couldnt be certain) allow you to justify disapproval in a reciprocal fashion toward their attitude against you. Of course the last part is perhaps a stretch, but you seem to have left yourself open to one.

Yes, the reason for applying a different standard is because in one case you are admitting to the possibility of something's existence. In order to absolutely say that something doesn't exist you need to rule out all possibilities. You can only do that with unlimited knowledge.

The nerve you hit has to do more with my incredulity over the way you talk. You make it sound like someone who holds a different position is unbalanced because of their bias. Unfortunately bias is part of how everyone views the world. You and I have different experiences which produce our biases. It's not a bad thing but you were acting like to have a bias makes one's opinions unbalanced. By that reasoning everyone is unbalanced.

Its hard to know how to progress, as you seem to have reached a point where you will not read what im writing. I will maintain that you can believe in something without having absolute knowledge. While this is an imperfect example at best, i feel i am able to make snap judgments about numerous things in my day to day world, without having complete knowledge of all the relevant background information, other potential causes/outcomes, and other possible alternatives. The fact of the matter is, we are beings which deal in terms of imperfect information as you have suggest, because we do not have perfect sets of knowledge. The fact that we are able to make any assertion about the world at all (correct or incorrect being irrelevant) suggests its possible to do so without perfect information. The fact that you can know even the most possible outcomes, as perhaps is the case in a game of chance, without being certain of the exact outcome, allows us to make decisions and hold stances, even without perfect knowledge.

Agreed, which is why I tend to think the most likely scenario is that there isn't a God.

Should you choose to maintain this line of thinking, its clear we wont be able to bridge much of a gap, though im not sure you are trying to do so. The stance you maintain is pretty biased, and someone seemingly petty in your response to other posts about the issue.

I wasn't trying to bridge any gap. You are allowed to disagree or agree with anything written. The problem comes about when you try to make yourself sound like you're taking both sides of an issue when in reality you are very biased on this subject. We all are! Anyway, it probably just comes out that way over the internet. But for f*ck's sake, just be straightforward about what you actually believe or don't without labeling those who disagree as unbalanced.

If your going to post and i find it relevant to remark about it, i might consider doing so. If your going to get emotional about it, i apologize as that wasnt my intent to provoke that type of response, and it would seem i have done so.

OK, but just take a definite stand on what you believe. Nobody can tell you that you're absolutely wrong (because that would take unlimited knowledge to say so )