Nothing in this blog can be believed. If you think that anything in this blog is true or factual, you'll need to verify it from another source. Do you understand? No? Then read it again, and repeat this process, until you understand that you cannot sue me for anything you read here. Also, having been sucked into taking part in the mass-murder of more than 3 million Vietnamese people on behalf of U.S. Big Business "interests", I'm as mad as a cut snake (and broke) so it might be a bit silly to try to sue me anyway...

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

what do you get if ...

... you cross a dyslexic insomniac with an agnostic philosopher?

Answer: Someone who will stay up all night wondering whether or not there is a dog...

So you think you're an atheist, do you? Ok, do this simple little process:

[1] No god? If you agree, goto [2]. (If you don't agree, you're not an atheist.)

[2] Define god, then goto [3]

[3] Why did you limit your definition of god thus? If you wish to redefine god, goto [2], otherwise, goto [4]

[4] Post your responses to [2] and [3] in the comments below.

Good luck... :-)


Blogger Esque said...

Does a definition as without sapience or personality qualify as a possible definition of a God? Or am I atheist when I say that any God I believe in falls into this definition?

November 29, 2005 11:38 PM  
Blogger Gerry said...

Esque, given the definition you offer, are you saying that you believe such a god exists, or are you saying that god as defined thus does not exist?

November 30, 2005 8:00 AM  
Blogger Esque said...

God, as defined thus, has no difficulty existing as it could be satisfied by god merely being one and the same as the universe. This would take from it some of the omni- prefixed words that most definitions of a god require, but it could still have those prefixes replaced by most.

This is probably an atheist position, with a lot of false accomodation to the theists.

November 30, 2005 9:01 AM  
Blogger Gerry said...

Esque, you're being cute. Stop it please. The algorithm is aimed at atheists i.e. those who believe that god does NOT exist.

If you claim that god exists, or could exist, under your definition, then you're not an atheist and the algrithm does not apply to you. There are no trick questions.

November 30, 2005 9:12 AM  
Blogger Gerry said...

By the way, readers who have not read this post and the comments therto, are well advised to do so before commenting.

November 30, 2005 9:15 AM  
Blogger Link said...

Hi Gerry, great posts.

You are in a great position to be debating this, because you are able to remain pragmatic and clear headed because you are not invested one way or another in the outcome.

Me, I'm not an atheist, nor am I agnostic, nor am I religious, save an innate religiosity which I don't fully understand. But please don't ask me to 'prove' that there is a God, because obviously I can't.

I agree with you, about the arrogance of atheists (and I know all about arrogance!) (reminder to Self - God hates arrogance duh.

I think modern claims to be atheistic stem from some sort of sixties or seventies desire to be hip and unfettered by society's pre-exsiting ideas of morality which possibly stemmed from the Depression, Prohibtion and of course the ubiquitous religious wowser/nutter. Atheists also imagine themselves to be intelligent types who have really thought things through and concluded somewhat simplistically that there is obviously no God. They tend to think that belieiving in God is by necessity tied up with being some dorky kind of church going Christian twit. (with apologies to the above).

But good on you for pointing out the flaws in the atheist's stance. Personally, I don't believe in atheists and I've known ones who can be seen praying like there is no tomorrow when crunch times comes a'knocking. But they can be a nasty vindictive lot who also seem to think, erroneously that they are in some kind of moral, secular majority complete with a holier than fucking Thou attitude.

Philip Adams, for instance, makes claim to be an atheist, but in terms of his morality and ethics he is one of the most actively Christian types I know - indeed a far better Christian than I. But I won't go on, I'm not entering into this debate as you can see!

November 30, 2005 10:42 AM  
Blogger Gerry said...

Thanks, Link. Interesting that you mention Philip Adams. It's skeptics of his ilk who eventually caused me to cotton on to what was really goin' down in their little religious cult called The Church Of True Believers In The Non-existence Of God.

And yes, they are fundamentalist bigots, and they are pompous, and they are arrogant. They are not true skeptics (maintaining a position of open-mindedness), they are supercillious pseudo-scientific sophists.

Oh, by the way, Link, did I tell you I had a wee philosophical issue with them? :-)

November 30, 2005 1:28 PM  
Blogger Davo said...

So, that is your response to a genuine question? Consider. Would the principle of god exist if there were no human beings? Would the universe exist if there were no thought.

November 30, 2005 11:02 PM  
Blogger Gerry said...

Davo, does a turd have buddha nature?

November 30, 2005 11:13 PM  
Blogger JahTeh said...

Who made up God in the first place?
Who named God, God?

December 01, 2005 9:48 PM  
Blogger Gerry said...

JT, there's actually a really long and involved answer to that. I'm just not going to go there. To heavy for me for today. :-(

December 02, 2005 12:17 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<<<<< Home