God - do you believe?

[Fragile Bird]

Ok, I just re-read your post upthread. So lets take a look at this plan. You would purchase souls directly from the owners of said souls, and re-sell the paper to Wall Street types who'll package them up, sliced and diced so the paper would be given a higher credit rating (or, er, higher holiness rating? would souls be rated on their likelihood of getting to heaven? A+ for the really good ones?), to be resold on the open soul market.

Good in theory, but I'd have to see your detailed business plan. But I don't see the need for any evidence of solvency of the maker, rather I'd have to see evidence the soul is free and clear with no previous encumbrances registered against said souls.

But, to get back to my question above (which you seem to have misinterpreted as some kind of aspersion against my gratitude for sleeping beneath your protective blanket, the proverbial blanket of moral superiority, I assume?) what do you call the hunger within, if no soul resides within?

[Errant Bard]

But, to get back to my question above (which you seem to have misinterpreted as some kind of aspersion against my gratitude for sleeping beneath your protective blanket, the proverbial blanket of moral superiority, I assume?) what do you call the hunger within, if no soul resides within?

If I'm not hungry within and don't really know what you mean, does that mean I have no soul, or that I have enough to not want seconds?

[TheLoneliestMonk]

When you look at screening methods of Galup and similar companies you always see just three groups.

1 Yes there is GOD,

2. There is something

3. Nope

In all of Europe, USA and Canada third group is never over 30% and in most countries is at 5-10%

I don't know about Japan and Israel.

Personally I would define Atheist as somebody who will go to great lengths to convince himself that vacuum fluctuation

or some other quantum phenomena is able to create space/time. Universe also evolve and can create new Universe.

(I just got an idea about Theon crackpot theory)

You are missing the whole picture. Atheists are not assuming some phenomenon created the universe. It could have always existed. However, your assumption that everything must be created, so something must have made the universe, so it must have been god leaves the question: if everything must be created, what created god? Sorry for the huge ass run-on sentence.

[Isalie]

I believe in Totti.

[Isalie]

If I'm not hungry within and don't really know what you mean, does that mean I have no soul, or that I have enough to not want seconds?

I'm pretty sure it means you are inferior, unable to comprehend things beyond the material world and so on.

Even though I'm a firm believer in the Totti, I realize that in an alternative universe without football I might pray to the entity writing solo's posts.

[ljkeane]

I believe in Totti.

Blasphemy! Robbie Fowler is the one true God!

[str8 outta Old Town]

Science doesn't disprove the existence of God

No, but it finds no evidence for a god, so the rational minded individual shouldn't believe in one. There is no more reason to believe in any of the incarnations of Yahwe than Thor or the spaceship that was going to take the heavan's gaters home,

[Isalie]

Blasphemy! Robbie Fowler is the one true God!

They are not even in the same league, in so many ways ;)

[Seli]

When you look at screening methods of Galup and similar companies you always see just three groups.

1 Yes there is GOD,

2. There is something

3. Nope

In all of Europe, USA and Canada third group is never over 30% and in most countries is at 5-10%

I don't know about Japan and Israel.

Personally I would define Atheist as somebody who will go to great lengths to convince himself that vacuum fluctuation

or some other quantum phenomena is able to create space/time. Universe also evolve and can create new Universe.

(I just got an idea about Theon crackpot theory)

Even the middle group is vague as hell: ietsism.

Ietsism (Dutch: Ietsisme (pronounced [itsˈɪsmə]) - "Somethingism") is an unspecified belief in some higher force. In some Eastern European censuses (Albanian, for example), those having Ietsistic beliefs are counted as believers without religion. It is a Dutch term for a range of beliefs held by people who, on the one hand, inwardly suspect - or indeed believe - that there is “More between Heaven and Earth” than we know about, but on the other hand do not necessarily accept or subscribe to the established belief system, dogma or view of the nature of God offered by any particular religion. Some of the English language equivalent terms are agnostic theism and deism.

Atheist myself, of the high six variety.

[LuisDantas]

Seven are rare? Wow. That makes me few special.

[ManyFacedMember]

Eh, isn't it simpler and more accurate to just use the old-fashioned criteria? Either "an atheist is someone who doesn't believe that there are any gods" or "an atheist is someone who says that there are no gods"?

I don't know about you, but I'm very much an atheist and I don't know of any reason to "go to great lengths" to be one. Nor can I make heads or tails of that stuff you just mentioned.

Gee, it used to be far easier to qualify for Atheism, I swear. :)

The thing is, if you make simpler choices, then you get into being ‘very much an Atheist’. In my ‘crackpot’ definition here, I am just ‘an Atheist’.

You are missing the whole picture. Atheists are not assuming some phenomenon created the universe. It could have always existed. However, your assumption that everything must be created, so something must have made the universe, so it must have been god leaves the question: if everything must be created, what created god? Sorry for the huge ass run-on sentence.

'These are questions for wise man with skinny arms.' Just kidding. I never mentioned God, or assumed creation. This must be misunderstanding. Maybe I used word creation, but I did not assume

'creation on purpose'

Does Universe look like something created on purpose? To me, no.

Even the middle group is vague as hell: ietsism.

Atheist myself, of the high six variety.

May 'Seven' save us bro.

[Ser Greguh]

Personally I would define Atheist as somebody who will go to great lengths to convince himself that vacuum fluctuation or some other quantum phenomena is able to create space/time. Universe also evolve and can create new Universe.

Not really. We just think that it's more likely that the origins of the universe can be explained via physics than they can via the interpretation of texts that posit a suspiciously anthropomorphic intangible father-figure that displays an uncanny degree of favoritism toward the tribe that just so happened to have authored that text.

[Seli]

Seven are rare? Wow. That makes me few special.

'Seven' requires belief, especially given the vagueness of what god actually means. Most atheists don't do that.

[Ser Greguh]

Seven are rare? Wow. That makes me few special.

I would posit that a 7 on that scale requires intellectual dishonesty.

[Seli]

I would posit that a 7 on that scale requires intellectual dishonesty.

Way better formulation than mine.

[Sci-2]

I'm glad this topic was able to find new ground never tread before in the history of the board.

[ManyFacedMember]

Not really. We just think that it's more likely that the origins of the universe can be explained via physics than they can via the interpretation of texts that posit a suspiciously anthropomorphic intangible father-figure that displays an uncanny degree of favoritism toward the tribe that just so happened to have authored that text.

Jaime: "Is it "we" already? Have you taken your vows then?"

Just kidding. I think I said something very similar, but without being dead serious.

'Seven' requires belief, especially given the vagueness of what god actually means. Most atheists don't do that.

Unfortunately I don't se a way to avoid that funny word Belief.

' I believe in nothing but it is my nothing'

[straits]

Not really. We just think that it's more likely that the origins of the universe can be explained via physics than they can via the interpretation of texts that posit a suspiciously anthropomorphic intangible father-figure that displays an uncanny degree of favoritism toward the tribe that just so happened to have authored that text.

I don't really see atheists as advocates of science. Reeeeeeeally don't. Nor do I see religious people as the enemies of science. It's not even applicable as a general statement ('most atheists are.....most religious people aren't.....'). Tons of religious people are involved in science.

Edit: and they are not a 'group'. certainly not a group of the intelligentsia. just individuals.

[Isalie]

I'm glad this topic was able to find new ground never tread before in the history of the board.

I love reading these threads, once every three months or something is probably a good cycle.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Humans are strange. The question asked in the OP could have been answered by a simple "yes" or "no", but here we are, 8 pages later. :rolleyes: