I talked to one of them (who now recognizes me everywhere I go) and he said he's here for TWO YEARS!! I was like. no way, ur wasting your life..

In MUSC a random guy came up to me, asked if I had a few minutes to talk about religion. I said "sure" so he asked me what my stance on it was.

I told him I'd always been interested in religion. I explained to how I thought all religions were simply different ways of trying to explain man's role in humanity, in nature, and in the universe. I told him about how I thought the bible, and other Abrahamic texts, far from providing concrete rules on how to live one's life, were actually just a collection of metaphors used to give us insight, again, on where humans fit in with nature and the cosmos. Sure, they contain a lot of stupid and backward stuff, but I feel like the themes of the main stories at least have some value. (The Fall of Man in particular has always been one that rang true to me).

I made it clear that I personally had no need to actually practice religion, but that I was open minded to the idea of of a God and prophets, and that something billions of people believe in should at least be critically studied.

After telling him my thoughts, he didn't say anything about Jesus or the book of Mormon; he simply said thanks for my time and left politely. Not sure if he knew it was a lost cause to try and convert me, or if he figured I was already close enough to a "believer" to bother. Either way, he was a really nice guy, and I have no problem with people engaging students in religious discussions if they're not being overly pushy.

^ A friend and I had a discussion with two guys in MUSC a few days ago as well. It was a civil discussion - of course, they dodged a fair share of questions, but to their credit, they acknowledged it as well.

Despite not being religious in the slightest, it's nice to see that the (popular) religious mindset on-campus is more open to discourse & the idea of thought-paradigms than expected. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about the vitriol and unsubstantiated claims passed off as "fact" coming from my own side (that is, the irreligious one, particularly so-called "atheists")

Originally Posted by Mahratta

^ A friend and I had a discussion with two guys in MUSC a few days ago as well. It was a civil discussion - of course, they dodged a fair share of questions, but to their credit, they acknowledged it as well.

Despite not being religious in the slightest, it's nice to see that the (popular) religious mindset on-campus is more open to discourse & the idea of thought-paradigms than expected. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about the vitriol and unsubstantiated claims passed off as "fact" coming from my own side (that is, the irreligious one, particularly so-called "atheists")

Well I'd say it's because it's a lack of believing - in their mind, they aren't trying to prove anything, and they're forcing the religious people to prove that there is a God.

Since there hasn't been concrete proof, it seems like they've sort of "rested their case" on the idea that there is no God, without having to properly discuss it with an open mind.

Though that doesn't quite relate to your point - what 'facts' have Atheists been discussing? I always thought they seemed to think there was no God and that was enough - in my experience Atheists don't seem to explain much and instead force questions to the religious people that most of them have trouble explaining.

Originally Posted by Alchemist11

Well I'd say it's because it's a lack of believing - in their mind, they aren't trying to prove anything, and they're forcing the religious people to prove that there is a God.

Since there hasn't been concrete proof, it seems like they've sort of "rested their case" on the idea that there is no God, without having to properly discuss it with an open mind.

Though that doesn't quite relate to your point - what 'facts' have Atheists been discussing? I always thought they seemed to think there was no God and that was enough - in my experience Atheists don't seem to explain much and instead force questions to the religious people that most of them have trouble explaining.

Hurr durr, herp derp..

http://forum.richarddawkins. net/index.php

Sweet. Didn't know that existed.

Originally Posted by Alchemist11

Sweet. Didn't know that existed.

It doesn't. The webmaster was a douche and revamped the site and now it doesn't exist as a forum like this one :(

iidb and rationalia (users from rd.net ) are similar, if you're into that sort of thang.

Back to the original topic (with the asian guy)

I saw him outside my house down the street a few months ago (on the way to class)...
He asked me if I knew about Jesus Christ, and I told him that I went to Catholic school
(and avoided telling him that I'm agnostic because I figured he wouldn't bother me if he thought I was already religious).
Then he said how that's good and kept insisting that I listen to what he had to say.
I told him I was really busy and I'm in a rush.

Then he asked me if I can give him my address and he come by to talk to me when I'm free.
Who the friggen hell does that?

I flat out said no and just left.

Originally Posted by Alchemist11

Well I'd say it's because it's a lack of believing - in their mind, they aren't trying to prove anything, and they're forcing the religious people to prove that there is a God.

Since there hasn't been concrete proof, it seems like they've sort of "rested their case" on the idea that there is no God, without having to properly discuss it with an open mind.

I think that the whole idea of proof is really the problem - unfortunately, since "fact" (and hence "proof") can't be generalised universally from definitions within particular paradigms without belief, we're forced to either accept 'subjectivity' (used loosely) or dismiss everything that's not sense-perceptible (and reliant on natural inductive reason) as irrational.

To clarify, in this case I specifically mean the question of God is itself intellectual progeny of an absurdity within a strict paradigm of sense-perception, and thus the idea of proof is really pretty baseless.

This result is cool, since if we accept that which is not sense-perceptible as nonsense, we're hemmed into a sort of double-think; for example, I think the laws of physics or the principles of chemistry nearly self-evident, but only via the 'suppression' of reason. It's even more interesting when you boil it down further, since one can apply the same process 'recursively' reason itself.

However, the very asking of such questions is of interest for a plethora of reasons, but most particularly because it's at the heart of humanity's obsession with that which is not sense-perceptible (in harsher terms, nonsense).

So, 'atheism' itself is pretty poorly-defined, as it includes not only those noncognitivists who regard the question of God as nonsense (i.e. a God has the same probability of existence as any one of the infinite number of non-sense-perceptible things, so it's best left a non-question in-paradigm) but also those that accept the question, and give the response in the negative, which is in itself nonsensical. Unfortunately, it seems that most atheists fall into the latter category, but like to use arguments as if they were really in the former when they're "accused" of belief.

Sorry for the tangential post, haha - hopefully some of that answered your question.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

I think that the whole idea of proof is really the problem - unfortunately, since "fact" (and hence "proof") can't be generalised universally from definitions within particular paradigms without belief, we're forced to either accept 'subjectivity' (used loosely) or dismiss everything that's not sense-perceptible (and reliant on natural inductive reason) as irrational.

To clarify, in this case I specifically mean the question of God is itself intellectual progeny of an absurdity within a strict paradigm of sense-perception, and thus the idea of proof is really pretty baseless.

This result is cool, since if we accept that which is not sense-perceptible as nonsense, we're hemmed into a sort of double-think; for example, I think the laws of physics or the principles of chemistry nearly self-evident, but only via the 'suppression' of reason. It's even more interesting when you boil it down further, since one can apply the same process 'recursively' reason itself.

However, the very asking of such questions is of interest for a plethora of reasons, but most particularly because it's at the heart of humanity's obsession with that which is not sense-perceptible (in harsher terms, nonsense).

So, 'atheism' itself is pretty poorly-defined, as it includes not only those noncognitivists who regard the question of God as nonsense (i.e. a God has the same probability of existence as any one of the infinite number of non-sense-perceptible things, so it's best left a non-question in-paradigm) but also those that accept the question, and give the response in the negative, which is in itself nonsensical. Unfortunately, it seems that most atheists fall into the latter category, but like to use arguments as if they were really in the former when they're "accused" of belief.

Sorry for the tangential post, haha - hopefully some of that answered your question.

Your last paragraph seems to give a negative connotation to those who accept this question and actually decide against the existence of a God, but I agree with that only in theoretical terms. In practice, I think people accept the question because I would think most people are unable to distance themselves from their own existence as well as all of the possibilities that come with it.

In other words, I think few people are able to think in a way where they consider the existence of God as a "non question" because they consider it out of their own sense-perceptible existence.
Instead, what I would presume most people do is, use their sense-perceptible existence, and try to sense for a God, which, of course, they will not detect, and come to the conclusion that there can't be a God.

Actually, now that I write that - it makes sense why it's a little strange. If your entire existence is within a box, and there are things outside that box that may or may not affect the inside of the box (depending on whether you're looking for them) your lack of sense does not change the existence of the outside.

But in their minds, I would think the ridiculousness of using sense-perceptibly to make a decision about God is vastly overshadowed by the belief IN God based on the same lack of sense-perceptible information.

Well...I think I've responded to your post, haha, I'm not sure if I've altered a few of your intended meanings with words like sense-perceptible, but it makes sense in my mind at any rate >_>

Every time I see this thread on the front page, I still read it as "morons on campus".

Originally Posted by Alchemist11

Your last paragraph seems to give a negative connotation to those who accept this question and actually decide against the existence of a God

You're right on this point for two reasons - first, I've got my own bias, of course, and second, there's an inherent difficulty in conveying the ideas of 'sense', and it's regrettable that words like 'nonsense' have come to be associated with something bad or negative (let's go with the general social definition of those two terms in-context). However, I think it's worth mentioning that whatever negative connotation was associated with that particular idea was meant for all who accept the question, including (traditionally-defined) theists, agnostics, and atheists.

There's nothing 'wrong', so to speak, in considering that which is not sense-perceptible, but again merely another paradigmatic difference. I do, however, see inconsistency in the arguments of those that use the scientific method (or any sort of empirical means) to justify their atheism / theism, since the use of any such method would be an implicit (or, in the case of the scientific method, explicit) acceptance of the restriction on that which is not sense-perceptible.

In other words, I think few people are able to think in a way where they consider the existence of God as a "non question" because they consider it out of their own sense-perceptible existence.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I've noticed as well that the existence/non-existence of God is decided because of it's non-sense-perceptibility, a conclusion which I think is flawed a priori since it may only be posed from an empirical paradigm.

Instead, what I would presume most people do is, use their sense-perceptible existence, and try to sense for a God, which, of course, they will not detect, and come to the conclusion that there can't be a God.

Yes, or that there is one, or that they don't know (while still accepting the question as containing cognitive meaning). None of this implies that any such claim is justified, however, as we don't know the root of the claim - that is to say, nonsense-perceptible belief may be an 'administrative' construct for purely social reasons, or an abstraction of the sense-perceptible in the same vein as mathematics and the sciences, or else besides.

Actually, now that I write that - it makes sense why it's a little strange. If your entire existence is within a box, and there are things outside that box that may or may not affect the inside of the box (depending on whether you're looking for them) your lack of sense does not change the existence of the outside.

I think that's well-put. Of course, you're supposing that there exist things outside the box, but the metaphor still holds regardless.

But in their minds, I would think the ridiculousness of using sense-perceptibly to make a decision about God is vastly overshadowed by the belief IN God based on the same lack of sense-perceptible information.

That's an interesting point. Again, there's no inconsistency with accepting that which is not sense-perceptible provided that one works in a non-empirical paradigm. In any case, it is indeed common to see the argument of sense-perception used the other way by those who espouse an empirical method, but I think it inconsistent, as from within an empirical paradigm, the statement "X is not sense-perceptible" doesn't hold meaning, and so "X is not sense-perceptible, therefore it exists / does not" is nonsense.