I’ve read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Speers autobiography, Mein Kampf, and many other books concerning Adolf Hitler. In my informed opinion Hitler was a master politician and manipulater. At one time he may have been devout and may have even believed, when his mother was encouraging him to enter the priesthood. Later though I firmly beleive that Hitler used Christian dogma in order to justify to the masses his anti-semetic mania not the other way around. Hitler was a destroyer of life in general and a deeply disturbed indiviual with a inate political sense and the ability to read situations and people very well. He was also in the right place at the right time, unfortunately for the world, to push his agenda of intolerance and hate. But here’s a theologic question I have. If Adolf Hitler was clinically insane or so emotionally unbalanced that he did’nt fully grasp or was unable to stop himself does God still grant him a Not-Guilty due to mental defect free pass or does this mean that God made him this way in order to fuck with us?

Wow, one might think y’all really like to be “converted.” I appreciate the responses.  Of all the things I wrote last night I forgot...what does all the disagreement among Christians show about their free will?

I still don’t understand how your definitions of atheists as having no belief in God (which I interpret to mean not trusting Him/Her) to be different from being sure God doesn’t exist.  Does it just mean that you believe God exists but are angry with what God has/ hasn’t / should’ve /shouldn’t have done?

Since I trust God loves me & wants what’s best for me, I think it would be torture to be away from Him/Her.  Whether or not the burning is literal or not...I kind of think of Sarah McLaughlin’s song on that one.

Well let’s consider a more mundane example, say my beliefs regarding your wooden leg.  Now I wouldn’t say that I believe that you have a wooden leg.  Indeed I don’t believe that you have a wooden leg.  Does this necessarily lead me to believe that your legs aren’t wooden?  I would say, “no”.  I have no idea about whether your legs are wooden or flesh.  As such though I don’t believe that you have a wooden leg that doesn’t lead me to believe that you don’t have a wooden leg. 

A similar case can be made for God.  I don’t actively believe in God.  That said, I don’t actively doubt the existence of God either.  I just have no definite opinion when it comes to the matter.  I think there’s a lack of evidence to decide the issue.

Now the fact that I don’t actively believe in God necessarily results in me being nonreligious (if by religious you mean an adherent of an organized system of faith in and worship of a deity), which is simply a synonym of “atheist”.  So this being the case I am in fact an atheist who doesn’t doubt God’s existence.  I just don’t particularly believe that he/she/it exists either.  I hope that clears up the issue of a non-doubting atheist.

I still don’t understand how your definitions of atheists as having no belief in God (which I interpret to mean not trusting Him/Her) to be different from being sure God doesn’t exist.

You seem to have a problem dealing with the concept that someone might not believe in God.  Saying “I don’t trust god” presupposes his existence.  An atheist is someone who does not have a belief in the existence of god.  So it would make no sense for that person to trust or mistrust an entity he does not believe exists.  Do you trust pink unicorns?  Mistrust them?  Never met one, so you don’t really know?

An atheist and an agnostic are different, but not incompatible things.

Agnostic means you don’t know - it comes from the Greek “gnosis” meaning “knowledge.  An atheist who affirms that there is no god, is not an agnostic because he claims to know.

There are at least two kinds of agnostics I can think of: one says, “the question cannot in principle be answered,” and the other says, “the question can, in principle, be answered, but I lack whatever is necessary to answer it.”

Based on what I know about the universe, I think there’s probably not a god.  That is the absense of a belief in god.  That is what makes me an atheist.  And the fact that I don’t think the question can be answered with certainty makes me an agnostic. 

Does it just mean that you believe God exists but are angry with what God has/ hasn’t / should’ve /shouldn’t have done?

No.  It means I think there’s probably not a god.

What DOF said.

I think the trick is figuring out that atheists are agnostic about god’s inexistence.

Not to forget the ignostics, by the way. There are no verifiable consequences if god were to exist, therefore it’s okay to be apathetic no matter what.

what does all the disagreement among Christians show about their free will?

Define free will, then prove that we have it. Then there’s this nagging problem of reconciling an omnimax god and free will, a topic discussed at length in the forums.

(Les) If it were up to me I’d spend more time discussing Half-Life than the afterlife.

Ever played Afterlife? It’s cute for about an hour.

What DOF said.

We atheists are a motley crew
we smile we frown we laugh we stew
We have free will, and so do you
But if you diss us, then we’re through

And let’s not forget the meta-agnostics, who aren’t sure whether they’re agnostics or not…

So is it that y’all just hate labels, or want as many as possible, or just hate simplicity?  So you are cynical about the existence of God, recognizing the challenge of proving a negative, yet like to discuss it.  Is it ok to just stick with ignostic?  I thought I’d heard enough forms of the Greek gnosis when I studied the Gospel of John…

Y’all are a mystery to me.  If I were cynical about the existence of of pink unicorns, while acknowledging the challenge of proving a negative, I wouldn’t care to ever go into it with anyone, regardless of how prevalent the delusion was around me.  If they were doing cruel, horrible, silly, weird things in the name of the pink unicorns, ... hmmm, I’ll get back to y’all.

Ellie- You got it.  “They” are doing cruel, horrible, silly, and weird things in the name of their Pink Unicorns, whether they’re named Jesus or Allah or Dasher or Prancer, and we atheists (I know I’m going out on a limb here, claiming to speak for all atheists, but since I believe in the One True Invisible Pink Unicorn, my soul is pure) feel free to disparage the cruel and horrible, laugh at the silly, and revel in the weird things believers believe and do.

What about eggnogstics? Are they just really not certain what are the true ingredients in store bought eggnog, despite the Holy testament of ingredients on the side?

O.K., all joking aside, I used to mistakenly classify myself as agnostic, preferring to define it as a belief that each religion has snippets of truth, but none being 100% correct.  I use(d) Christian labels just to assist in avoiding controversy.  It wasn’t until I hit upon the ideology (or at least the parts that were in agreement from various sources) of Gnosticism that I found a more appropriate label.  I feel that God(s) can be knowable, but that may be highly improbable. 

I see existence as the ultimate artwork.  Like the proponents of ID, I feel the complexity of reality to vast to be explained away by randomness (also very unscientific).  Unlike ID fanatics, I feel science is a MUCH better method of understanding our existence (yes, I know ID proclaims to utilize the scientific method, but I have yet to ascertain any empirical evidence to back that statement up).  I feel a better understanding of how our world works will, if not inch me closer to comprehending divinity, at least allow for a greater appreciation of existence. 

My viewpoints are also biased to a modified pascal’s wager.  1) If there is a creator, then when I die I can express my complete admiration for the effort in creation.  I can also ask, “So what’s up with light? Particle or wave? What gives?” 2) If there isn’t a creator, then at least I made most of what I could with my life and the sum total of quantum energy that made up my being will either fizzle out or be collapsed into a singularity to oscillate the birth of a new universe. 

To ellie, you posted “I don’t think the Garden of Eden was a lesson God set up for us to learn, but a tragedy that distressed Him.” Working under a literalist assumption that the Garden of Eden story if factual, why would god even bother to place the tree of knowledge their and mention to not eat from it?  /sarcasm alert/ GOD: “Hmmm...well the garden seems all well and good, but it seems to be missing something.  What could it be?  Oh, I know! How about a nice tree of knowledge right over there.  Yeah, that’s great! Perfect...oh wait, if Adam or Eve eat from that one they will know what the differences between good and evil are and will gain the ability to die.  But it looks so darn cute there.  Right! The tree is staying.  Oh Adam! See this tree? Don’t eat from it! I mean it!  Why? Just don’t or I might have to squirt you with water or rub your nose it.” /sarcasm passed/

I’ll agree with Ellie that it wasn’t a lesson; instead it seems more like a catalyst and a poor one at that.  It had to be pushed along by the “serpent” because Adam and Eve just weren’t intelligent enough on their own to be curious.

Also, as a side topic/suggestion to Les, I’m still catching up on the archives to try and avoid repetitious posts, but I hit upon an idea that may make responding to similar fallacies easier though I don’t honestly know the practicality of implementation.  My idea is to have special character labels for the various types of fallacies that act as links to the definition of each particular fallacy.  Could also maybe set up reverse links back from a fallacy definitions to examples marked in various comments.  I think it would be fun to read through slippery slopes, red herrings, etc type posts as well as possibly educating those seriously bent on “converting” us.  Just my 2 cents.

Silly James.  You’ve obviously confused “eggnogstics” with “eggnostics”, believers in the Eggman (Scrambled be Thy Name, Thy Will be Done, Over Easy).  The deluded “eggnogstics” will burn in hell, or at least have terrific hangovers…

So you are cynical about the existence of God, recognizing the challenge of proving a negative, yet like to discuss it.

Ellie, you don’t seem to know what “cynical” means - an attribution of negative motives on the part of others.  It doesn’t make sense to say someone is cynical about the existence of something. 

I would never feel the need to discuss it except that some people seem to want to make it the basis of law and public policy.  They seem to think it’s important that all children learn their myth.  They want to deny equal rights to decent people for having different sexuality. They make it necessary for every politician to pretend to believe, excluding many worthwhile and rational people from public service.

Who are “they?” In this case, apparently, the strategists of the Republican party.

What are their motives?  If I said, “power and control,” or “money,” that would be cynicism.  But I would guess that is only true of some, and not of others.  Speculating about others’ motives has mostly entertainment value and is seldom verifiable.

Zilch - LOL!  Great poem, and do you have any eggnostic brochures you could leave?

DOF- No, but His Eggmanliness has graced us with His Running Yolks elsewhere.  I am but His humble White.

So is it that y’all just hate labels, or want as many as possible, or just hate simplicity?

You talk, but you do not listen.

Every group that self-identifies as X has a more nuanced definition of X compared to outsiders. My definition of a Christian is very simple - if you say you’re one that’s good enough for me. Would you agree to that definition?

In this case, the definition that Christians commonly apply to atheists misrepresents their general position in a way that’s calculated to put atheists on the defensive, so of course we object to it.

So you are cynical about the existence of God, recognizing the challenge of proving a negative, yet like to discuss it.

Apathetic, not cynical. Like to discuss, sure. Debate, no.

ellie,

I can’t speak for anyone else, but as far I am concerned....  I don’t actually feel particularly cynical about God.  In fact I think it would be terrific if God existed (though perhaps not the type of God that Fundamentalist Christians believe in, that God doesn’t seem particularly friendly or loving, indeed I would really like it if there existed the type of God that the Society of Friends or Bishop John Shelby Spong talks about).  So my disbelief in God has nothing to do with me disliking the notion of God, just as much as my disbelief in Santa Claus has nothing to do with me disliking Santa Claus.  It’s be great if Santa Claus was real, it would be great if God was real.  I just don’t see any reason to think that either is the case.

Ellie, Non-belief is not cynicism.  “Christians” confuse me a great deal and my father is a born again of that variety.  I work hard, try to live by the golden rule.  I volunteer my time when I can to good causes. I help the 70ish year old couple next door tend their yard because their children do not live close.  I try to avoid saying bad things about the people who REALLY piss me off.  I also believe that you reap what you sow, call it Karma if you like but a positive attitude helps.

SO..... Why exactly is it that I will be punished and burn in hell?  Why does god specifically need me to believe in him to verify his existance for him?  Why is it that “the good who follow these specific rules” will be rewarded and “the good” will not?  Please prove to me that the bhudists, Hindu’s, Muslims, Hare-krishna’s, Satanists, or any other flavor are wrong and “Christians” are right?

And where did these creationists come from who think you can determine the age of the universe by adding up peoples’ ages from their storybook?  If the U.S. education system was to adopt the theory of creation being what 4500-6k ago wouldn’t that be a majr setback for science in America.  Would you need to go to a special University that modified say Geology, Physics, Geophysics to match your theory and not upset your Christian philosophy. WHEW.  I hate being at the office on a weekend I feel better now.

Ellie appears to be confused about a great number of definitions. I am cynical about many things, but God isn’t one of them.

Like Socialist Swine, I think the idea of a “higher power” that watches out for us and punishes the wicked while rewarding the good would be wonderful if it existed, but I don’t feel there are any valid reasons to believe that to be the case. I’m a big fan of the idea of Santa Claus as well and I’ve had more proof of his existence in my life than I ever did of God(s).

As for proving a negative, not all negatives are unprovable. I can, for example, prove that there aren’t any Diminutive Underwear Trolls in my dresser. I can’t prove that they don’t exist someplace in the universe, but if they do exist then they’re definitely not in my dresser.

Garden of Eden, Tree of Knowledge, I see as a catalyst of free will because love cannot exist without the freedom not to love.  Not that Adam & Eve were too dumb to be curious, but God wanted them to have an opportunity to be suspicious & therefore exibit trust as a foundation for love.

getting back to the pink unicorns, I’ll have to take Persig’s way out: all analogies are flawed, but I’ll continue with it the best I can:

1st of all, like in anything, it only takes a minute amount of crazies to poison a sample; we ignore the mediocre stories that aren’t fantastically good or fantastically bad.  In other words, few followers of the pink unicorn are truly dangerous.  Say I’m a crazy who is evil, wanting to be cruel to others for my own advantage & get away with it.  Most around me believe in some pink unicorn as a good source of moral standards.  The most intelligent thing for me to do is to use that pink unicorn for my advantage.  Therefore the only way I can be proven wrong is by another true believer in the pink unicorn because I can ostrasize the minority claiming there is no pink unicorn, & any of their use of the pink unicorn’s scruples is false.

Interestingly, I saw an old friend from high school that I went to church with.  He & I mentioned that we used to think that most people in general, religious or not, were intelligent. But now we’ve both come to see a vast majority of people as mentally lazy, equally inside the church & outside.

The problem I see with (I)Gnosticism as a basis for proving evil people to be unscrupulous is that the source of scruples is you & your brain.  People are NOTORIOUS for NOT CARING what anyone else things unless that someone else has a direct effect on them & what they want.

The only way to prove that all have access to this knowledge that cruel behavior is wrong is natural law, which must have some source. (Why is Lordklegg’s mention of the golden rule better than Machiavelli?) (Romans 1) This is why I say that intelligent (I)Gnostics have ignorance of Christian beliefs.  My Christian beliefs are based out of my heart & experience, not my mind.  I constantly hear someone quote some obscure passage from Mosaic law, yet never hear them mention New Testament epistles that I use to guide my life & correct crazies within the church.

Even I am not ignorant enough to thnk that the Republican party strategists consider Christianity much.  They like Bush as much as the Democrats like Clinton.  He’s a tool to give their party power, they don’t like most of his middle of the road beliefs.  My best friend is a key republican strategist & he’s a gay (I)Gnostic who supports abortion rights, & he’s DEFINITELY not alone in the party.  They just see money as God, & happen to be bedfellows with Christians because economic freedom is a Christian value, & they already live their social lives the way they want, who cares if the government legally sanctions it?

Hinduism is a collection of superstitions that all contradict one another. Jesus is just another ceified ancestor to pray to for luck. Buddhism is Atheist/(I)Gnostic.  It’s a set of moral codes based on meditation, designed to bring us closer to nothingness.  So I don’t have to prove them wrong to other people, its just a different way to live life that I don’t choose.

Hinduism is a collection of superstitions that all contradict one another.

Ironically, much the same could be said about Christianity.

So is it that y’all just hate labels, or want as many as possible, or just hate simplicity?

I don’t like it when people have an urge to oversimplify, such as Christians who refer to all non-christians as “devil worshippers”. 

Sometimes people just don’t get that the square piece won’t fit in the circle hole.  But they sure do bang the hell out of the box trying.

I haven’t figured out Ragnosticism yet…

Even I am not ignorant enough to thnk that the Republican party strategists consider Christianity much.  They like Bush as much as the Democrats like Clinton.  He’s a tool to give their party power, they don’t like most of his middle of the road beliefs.

Now that is cynicism: the attribution of negative motives to others.  I’m not even a Democrat and I really like Clinton.  As for the Republican strategists, how do you know they don’t sincerely believe in Christianity?  Wait… here’s why:

My best friend is a key republican strategist & he’s a gay (I)Gnostic who supports abortion rights, & he’s DEFINITELY not alone in the party.  They just see money as God, & happen to be bedfellows with Christians because economic freedom is a Christian value, & they already live their social lives the way they want, who cares if the government legally sanctions it?

This is what you think of your best friend: someone who sees money as god and uses Christians’ devotion as a means to power?  What do you think of your enemies?  You might have a clue to his motives - because he told you what they are - but in general you need a lot of information to speculate about the motives of someone not personally known to you.

Since we’ve worked on defining standard terms like “agnostic” and “atheist,” would you mind defining your nonstandard term, (I)Gnostic?  You introduced the term on 11/20 but have not defined it (and have added the possibly significant capital letters and parentheses since.)

If you studied John and Corinthians, you know that “Gnosticism” (capital G) was a heresy of the 1st century church and quite a different thing than the way the word is used today.

Whoops, I meant to ask this, too… “Economic freedom is a Christian value?” Did you forget that the first-century church described in the Acts of the Apostles was a commune?  Or that God struck dead a man and wife in the church who didn’t contribute their money in just the right way?

Or that Jesus supported paying taxes? 

And does “economic freedom” mean borrowing huge amounts of money, putting the bill in an envelope, and mailing it to our grandchildren?

I think you all probably feel as pigeon holed & misrepresented as I did when those quotes of mosaic law were posted as literal Christian legislation.  Though the only refrence to Gnostics I was previously familiar with was the heresy that the Counsil of Nicea declared based out of John.  The way James & elwedriddsche described it, I figured it was a more acceptable term for all parties.  People who held these beliefs (about the inability to know God) before the Counsil of Nicea called themselves Christians because they liked Jesus’ moral teachings but did not believe God exists as a physical being, but more like a spirit of goodwill.  After the Council of Nicea they were Ignostics or Agnostics.

I probably don’t use the term best friend the way most do.  He’s the person I’ve known the longest out of my 10 closest friends.  I didn’t attribute those motives to him, he explained them to me himself through discussion.  Why am I still friends with him?  We have fun together, but I know that he’s an individualist & can’t rely on him for much.

Jesus said to pay taxes to an empire because his kingdom was not of this world.  In our current republic, we have some say in the amount of those taxes.  Christians generally want want economic freedom in the form of lower (not abolished) taxes NOT so they can spend more of it on themselves, but so they can contribute more to charities & the church rather than the government.  So the size of the commune has expanded.  Many church budgets heavily subsidize the needy within their own body.

Ananias & Saphira were died.  It doesn’t say they were struck dead, it is within the realm of probability that they died of shock that they were caught & fear that their reputations were ruined & they’d be oput out to face the Roman Empire on their own.  Peter clearly states, they lied to the Holy Spirit; he never mentions money.  He told Ananias that the money was at Ananias disposal.  I speculate within the context that the punishment was more severe than other lies regarding money because it was hypocritical & greedy.

Through reading CS Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” I’ve come to understand the being the Bible refers to as the Holy Spirit to metaphisically mean a physical existence created out of unity.  Their lie was directly against the physical unity of the church.

The Gnostic heresy was not agnosticism; it was a sect that revolved around the belief that there was special, esoteric knowledge that only (they) the few possessed.  The most common thread was an extreme dualism such that either 1) it was necessary to engage in severe asceticism to liberate the spirit, or 2) one could engage in any physical debauchery without harming the spirit.  This is what Paul was writing against in 1 Timothy 6:20-21 (and in other places.) Some of the apocryphal gospels were from Gnostic sects and were weeded out of the canon early-on.

You are right that Ananias and Sapphira were said to have dropped dead - it is not explicit that they were struck dead.  That is implied by the general fear that spread among the whole church afterward.  There’s been a lot of discussion about that over the years with scholars leaning this way and that.

In any case, while a few entrepreneurial types in the New Testament are favorable characters (like Lydia, the dealer in purple at Thyatra,) Jesus was pretty clear about making profit secondary to mercy and compassion.  If he were around today, he’d be a Mother Jones subscriber and probably vote for Ralph Nader (shudder!)

I probably don’t use the term best friend the way most do.

You don’t use a lot of terms the way most people do.  It makes communication difficult.  There is a real advantage - especially in a text-based medium like this - to using standard definitions whenever possible.