RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register


Question: Religion Poll :: Total Votes:87
Poll choices Votes Statistics
christian (the bible is 100% literal truth) 1  [1.15%]
christian (not completely literal) 10  [11.49%]
jewish 0  [0.00%]
islam 0  [0.00%]
buddhist 4  [4.60%]
hindu 0  [0.00%]
unitarian 0  [0.00%]
wiccan/pagan/druid/new age 3  [3.45%]
agnostic (I don't think we can know about a god) 16  [18.39%]
atheist (I don't see any reason to believe in a god) 53  [60.92%]
Guests cannot vote
Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >   
  Topic: Religion Poll< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,13:36   

What do you all believe? I had about 20 choices, but the software's making me cut it down to 10. If you're not on the list, like Baha'i, add yourself in the comments.

   
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,13:48   

Quote (stevestory @ June 06 2006,18:36)
What do you all believe? I had about 20 choices, but the software's making me cut it down to 10. If you're not on the list, like Baha'i, add yourself in the comments.

I voted on the Agnostic category, but was torn between that and non-literal Christian. I'm with Ben Franklin: good moral code, shame about the religion.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,14:04   

I'm an Apatheist , which means i find the question completely irrelevant. For all practical purposes I am an atheist, except that I believe thinking about the problem enough to come to the conclusion that there is no God is a complete waste of time. In fact I am only posting on this thread because I consider myself an evangelical Apatheist, whos duty it is to dispassionately spread the principles of Apatheistc thought to those nonchalant enough to recieve them.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,14:14   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ June 06 2006,19:04)
I'm an Apatheist , which means i find the question completely irrelevant.

I thought of becoming an apatheist, but couldn't work up enough enthusiasm to join.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,14:26   

My sister-in-law once described herself as a 'fundamentalist Unitarian'.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,14:28   

lol.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,14:33   

you know, it would have been a hoot if someone had contacted us via PM ahead of posting the poll, and we ALL voted "fundy xian".

I wonder what AFD would have made of that?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,14:37   

He'd probably get annoyed, but there are many evangelical christians who reject YEC/ID on theological grounds so he can get annoyed anyway.

  
Rod



Posts: 13
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,14:49   

I used to worship the Great Frog (ribbit), God of Apathy, but then I realized I just don't care.  :)

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,14:49   

LOL cute idea, ickthyhk uh however you spell that.

I've got more poll ideas, but I'll wait a few days. don't wanna piss off Wesley.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,16:29   

Quote
LOL cute idea, ickthyhk uh however you spell that.


hey here's an easy way to remember:

just think Ichthyologist

and

evolutionistic

weren't you the one who kept complaining about my old name?

boy, ya just can't make some folks happy

;)

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,16:49   

I am agnostic in terms of god-in the apatheistic sense ;)  . But I had to vote buddist. Um, I guess because I am buddist to some degree. But you are aware that has next to nothing to do with god, right?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Crabby Appleton



Posts: 250
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,16:59   

Oh sure, blame it on the software that you have no entry for THE ONE TRUE RELIGION! I speak, of course, of the Church of the Subgenius. Prepare yourselves for The Stark Fist of Removal.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,17:34   



I was touched by his noodly appendage.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,17:39   

I actually deliberately left that off the poll, because I wanted to see what the real composition of people here are. I think most of us would have put FSM if we had the choice, and i wouldn't know the real composition.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,17:57   

lol.  i had totally forgotten about the Church of the Subgenius.

thanks Crabby!

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Crabby Appleton



Posts: 250
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,20:00   

Quote (deadman_932 @ June 06 2006,22:34)
I was touched by his noodly appendage.

Eww!

Why would you fall for that pink liberal PC folderal deadman? Next you'll be seeing octopods in trees.

The Subgeni have been around for decades, Bob has died and been resurected many times, we have several good books. FSM's book hasn't even been written yet and already those freaks have a schism.

How can you turn down Eternal Salvation or TRIPLE YOUR MONEY BACK?

Why won't you LISTEN?

I'm here to remind you of the emptiness and futility of existence without the Word of "Bob" permanently installed in your cranial soft drive.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,09:39   

I don't see any reason to believe in God.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,10:03   

Still no Jews? A little surprising, with this educated a crowd. Or are there nonobservant Jews here who voted for 'atheist' or 'agnostic'?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
PennyBright



Posts: 78
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,15:41   

Well.......   I'm agnostic....

But -   the deities I don't think I can know anything about are the Wiccan ones.

So I voted Wiccan.

--------------
Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)

  
Tim



Posts: 40
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2006,01:56   

Atheist.

Isn't the definition of atheist; one who denies the existence of God (or gods) rather than one not seeing any reason to believe?

Indeed, the OED gives the definition as the belief that God does not exist.

That sounds a lot more definite about the possibility of God's existence than not seeing a reason for his existence, as is posited in the poll here.

But perhaps I've just touched on the difference between strong atheism and weak atheism; the difference being, as Wikipedia puts it:

Strong atheism, sometimes called positive atheism, hard atheism or gnostic atheism, is the philosophical position that no deity exists. It is a form of explicit atheism, meaning that it consciously rejects theism. It is contrasted with weak atheism, which is the lack or absence of belief in deities, without the additional claim that deities do not exist. The strong atheist positively asserts, at the very least, that no deities exist, and may go further and claim that the existence of certain deities is logically impossible.

By these definitions, I'd be a strong atheist.

  
Caledonian



Posts: 48
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2006,04:07   

Certain deities' existence IS logically impossible, and all of the deities that fall under the most traditional definitions are logically impossible as well.

It is entirely possible that unimaginably powerful entities were responsible for some of the things deities are traditionally given credit for, though.  I see no reason to conclude that such entities exist, although I'm open to the possibility.  (Plus, they'd probably be disturbingly Cthulhu-esque, so I hope they don't exist.)

So:  am I a strong or weak atheist?  (I voted 'strong'.)

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2006,04:33   

Tim: while I'm more of a strong atheists, I defined atheist in such a way to catch the weak ones too, who often feel drawn to the agnostic label. I did this becuase I don't think one should claim agnosticism simply for lack of conclusive proof--I don't have conclusive proof Santa Claus doesn't exist, but I'm going to believe he doesn't.

   
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2006,07:57   

Buddhist and weak atheist.  The two are completely compatible (depending the vehicle you choose).

  
Marcus Evenstar



Posts: 3
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2006,11:11   

As one of the few pagan/ witch/ etc. respondents, I would like to clarify my position. As a fully actualized Techno-Heathen, I appreciate the amenities of civilization (i.e. central heating, computers, pizza delivery, etc.) but have doubts about the most popular versions of religion as they've proven to be dull and boring. I can choose which divine influences are needed in my life, at this given moment. By selecting a Short-Duration Personal Savior, I can guide my life into appropriate channels, knowing that I'm on the Correct Spiritual Path.

Right now, I'm under the influence of His Noodly Appendage. When I need to get past some obstacle, I'll seek out Ganesha. If I need to be cunning, Loki gets the call. When I find myself in a polyamorous puppy-pile, I'm hoping that Pan is listening....

However, there's always a small voice in the back of head, telling me that's it's all inside my mind and that's there no actual proof of any of it. I totally agree with him but since I know I'm Pulling The Wool over my eyes, rather than some boring person, that's okay.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2006,11:36   

Quote
polyamorous puppy-pile


I'm adding that one to my list.

:)

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2006,12:08   

Quote
I'm an Apatheist , which means i find the question completely irrelevant. For all practical purposes I am an atheist, except that I believe thinking about the problem enough to come to the conclusion that there is no God is a complete waste of time. In fact I am only posting on this thread because I consider myself an evangelical Apatheist, whos duty it is to dispassionately spread the principles of Apatheistc thought to those nonchalant enough to recieve them.


Concur absolutely, though I usually refer to myself as an irrelevantist, because it's funny to hear the fundies try to say it.

:D

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2006,18:29   

Quote
How can you turn down Eternal Salvation or TRIPLE YOUR MONEY BACK? Why won't you LISTEN?
I'm here to remind you of the emptiness and futility of existence without the Word of "Bob" permanently installed in your cranial soft drive.


I find your views persuasive and intriguing, Sir. Tell me MORE!!!
(Prepares a noodly web of entrapment)

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Crabby Appleton



Posts: 250
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2006,21:46   

I'm glad you asked deadman, not only can we resurrect you at reasonable rates, but we can guarantee that if you end up in he11, we'll refund your money 300 fold AND sell you a guide for residing in he11 at very reasonable rates!

However, I have to inform you that OUR heaven has it's streets paved in gold (with cobblestones of diamonds the size of your fist) and those streets are literally and figuratively overflowing with Living Subgenii Topless Godesses (bottomless if you can see your way to pay me directly).

OUR heaven is superior to other versions of heaven, but to learn more about it you'll need to buy a copy of "Our Version of Heaven is Superior to the Other Versions of Heaven Because..." from thechurchofthepresumptuousassumptionpress.com $99.95  plus S&H

Now please keep your noodly appendages AWAY from me since they are obviously inspired by NDE apologists (BLASPHEEEEMY) and will be treated as such.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2006,22:34   

Oh, Crabby,

where would our good buddy AFDumbass fit into the Church of the Subgenius?

Is it possilbe he might need be sent directly to *gasp* Bob?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Crabby Appleton



Posts: 250
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,08:49   

Ickthyick, much as I'd like to be able to say that we could aurically augment DDTTD with an EZ Quick-Implant Brain Wipe, it just doesn't work that way.

Although DDTTD has a good handle on Mockery Science, Schizophreniatrics, Disto-Utopianity and Facetiouism, there are many other areas where he's too far gone in his pinkishness to ever recover, even were he to recieve the kiss of Dobbs.

I'm afraid that DDTTD's only hope is the Stark Fist of Removal and Resurrection BUT, he can be reassured by the fact that if he can afford a Beech King Air, he can CERTAINLY afford to achieve TRUE SLACKERY.

I'm pleased to say that I know the Reverend Spanky Lovelace, who leads the faithful of the KCMO Clench and have forwarded DDTTD's particulars to him.

Please send me your contributions so we can buy DDTTD a pipe and set him on the path that leads to ACTION -- THRILLS -- SUCCESS IN SEX AND BUSINESS GUARANTEED!

Remember, Bob is a bulwark against the unbearable fear and anxiety tormenting mankind and the only TRUE short cut to SLACK!

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,09:12   

Quote
Please send me your contributions so we can buy DDTTD a pipe and set him on the path that leads to ACTION -- THRILLS -- SUCCESS IN SEX AND BUSINESS GUARANTEED!


all my capital has already been invested in maximizing my potential for slack, as Bob intended.

Of course, all my dreams have come true.

I'm truly living la vida loca!

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,19:54   

I'm kind of amazed by these results. I didn't expect atheists/agnostics to comprise 80% of the community. No wonder I like it here so much.

   
clamboy



Posts: 188
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,20:09   

Oookay, so I voted as "atheist," due to my having sold my soul (for a heck of a great deal, including a lime green El Camino) to the one true lard Athe, but I notice there is no choice of "Elvis," which would be the most appropriate definition of my faith. I mean, why do you think I come here?!? It ain't evolution, it's Elvislution. Together we can defeat the forces of the anti-Elvislutionists, and it ain't just Micheal J. Fox any more! William Dembski has no Elvis in him. DaveScot has no Elvis in him. Elvis might be in afDave, but he's trying to get out! He's trying to get out, Davey!! Let the pink-gelled light of Elvis break through to you, afDave!! Come on, sing it with me!!
Elvis is everywhere!!
Elvis is everything!!
Elvis is everybody!!
Elvis is still The King!!

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,20:30   

Elvis IS everywhere...

http://www.uncoveror.com/elvites.htm

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Crabby Appleton



Posts: 250
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,21:56   

Quote (clamboy @ June 11 2006,01:09)
Elvis might be in afDave, but he's trying to get out! He's trying to get out, Davey!! Let the pink-gelled light of Elvis break through to you, afDave!! Come on, sing it with me!!
Elvis is everywhere!!
Elvis is everything!!
Elvis is everybody!!
Elvis is still The King!!

No, no NO! clamboy. Mojo Nixon is mistaken when he claims Elvis is KING. Living Colour refuted that premise on Time's Up.

Mojo is a follower of Bob, he just doesn't know it yet.

Screamin' Jay Hawkins, Bo Diddley and Elvis were Apostles before the light ever hit Mojo on his reversed retina.

DDTTD has NO Elvis in him. If Elvis was in DDTTD would you blame him for wanting out?

  
Crabby Appleton



Posts: 250
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,22:04   

Steve are you big boned?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,22:32   

No, not big boned. 6', 235, I'm a little on the fat side (a case of beer a day will do that to you) but not big boned. My natural weight is probably around 185. Since I quit chain smoking 9 mos ago, I gained about 20 lbs.

lol a friend of mine has a neologism, "Steve Chain-Smoking". That's when you light more than 2 cigs off each other in a row. That's a thing of the past, so far. MMMM, but the Camels were so yummy....

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,22:44   

edit: removed personal stuff

   
Nebogipfel



Posts: 47
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2006,23:07   

Quote (stephenWells @ June 06 2006,18:48)

I voted on the Agnostic category, but was torn between that and non-literal Christian. I'm with Ben Franklin: good moral code, shame about the religion.

What he said :D

If you'd put Humanist in the list, I would have voted for that.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,05:09   

Quote (Nebogipfel @ June 12 2006,04:07)
Quote (stephenWells @ June 06 2006,18:48)

I voted on the Agnostic category, but was torn between that and non-literal Christian. I'm with Ben Franklin: good moral code, shame about the religion.

What he said :D

If you'd put Humanist in the list, I would have voted for that.

Yeah, why wasn't 'Wicked Secular Humanist' one of the choices?  :p

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2006,20:14   

Quote (Crabby Appleton @ June 06 2006,21:59)
Oh sure, blame it on the software that you have no entry for THE ONE TRUE RELIGION! I speak, of course, of the Church of the Subgenius. Prepare yourselves for The Stark Fist of Removal.

Wait—I thought the ONE TRUE CHURCH was the Church of God the Fairly Competent.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Crabby Appleton



Posts: 250
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2006,21:36   

Quote (ericmurphy @ June 13 2006,01:14)
Wait—I thought the ONE TRUE CHURCH was the Church of God the Fairly Competent.

Eric, did you found a new church?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2006,12:13   

I think that this deserves a bump.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,14:14   

Yeah, while Wes might disagree, I think this tells us interesting things about the PT/AtBC readership. Certainly surprised me.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,14:51   

Quote (stevestory @ July 05 2006,19:14)
Yeah, while Wes might disagree, I think this tells us interesting things about the PT/AtBC readership. Certainly surprised me.

What did you find surprising? It went pretty much as I expected, except for the zero Jewish vote.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,14:58   

I would have guessed roughly

literal christian - 5%
sane christian - 40%
jew - 5%
agnostic - 25%
atheist - 25%
buddhist/new age/wicca/etc ~1%
muslim 0%

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,15:03   

Quote (stevestory @ July 05 2006,19:58)
I would have guessed roughly

literal christian - 5%
sane christian - 40%
jew - 5%
agnostic - 25%
atheist - 25%
buddhist/new age/wicca/etc ~1%
muslim 0%

Wow! You surprise me. I thought it was very plain that the majority on this board are non-religious. I would be surprised if the anti-religious did not outnumber the religious (by which I mean theist).

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,15:16   

Actually, I'm wondering who the Druid is.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,15:20   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 05 2006,20:03)
Wow! You surprise me. I thought it was very plain that the majority on this board are non-religious. I would be surprised if the anti-religious did not outnumber the religious (by which I mean theist).

Anti-religous?  Hmmmm, I don't consider myself anti-religous, merely anti-extremist.  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2006,15:38   

Quote (MidnightVoice @ July 05 2006,20:20)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 05 2006,20:03)
Wow! You surprise me. I thought it was very plain that the majority on this board are non-religious. I would be surprised if the anti-religious did not outnumber the religious (by which I mean theist).

Anti-religous?  Hmmmm, I don't consider myself anti-religous, merely anti-extremist.  :D

LOL. Touche!

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2006,13:33   

Quote (Tim @ June 09 2006,06:56)
Strong atheism, sometimes called positive atheism, hard atheism or gnostic atheism, is the philosophical position that no deity exists. It is a form of explicit atheism, meaning that it consciously rejects theism. It is contrasted with weak atheism, which is the lack or absence of belief in deities, without the additional claim that deities do not exist. The strong atheist positively asserts, at the very least, that no deities exist, and may go further and claim that the existence of certain deities is logically impossible.

There is a third category, though -- what I refer to as an "evangelical atheist" or a "fundamentalist atheist".

They not only make the positive claim that there are no gods, but they will not rest until no one ELSE believes in them, either.

Like their counterparts, the fundie theists, they simply cannot tolerate anyone having religious opinions different from theirs.

I think we've all met one or two people like that . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2006,13:58   

Quote (stevestory @ June 11 2006,03:32)
No, not big boned. 6', 235, I'm a little on the fat side (a case of beer a day will do that to you) but not big boned. My natural weight is probably around 185. Since I quit chain smoking 9 mos ago, I gained about 20 lbs.

Geez, I'm 5'6 and 135 lbs, dripping wet.  Didn't smoke (well, at least not tobacco), but sure put away an awful lot of beer in my lifetime (I still brew my own).

Of course, being scrawny and having a big mouth can be a dangerous combination.  ;)  But as a kid I never lost a fight --- I was always faster than everyone else, and was always able to dart around behind them, jump on their back, and choke them till they passed out.

Since then, I've studied quite a bit of medieval weaponry, and am pretty efficient with a longsword, and absolutely lethal with a  rapier.   ;)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2006,14:25   

Quote
but they will not rest until no one ELSE believes in them, either.


Until recently I wouldn't have agreed with you. I thought when people said 'we need to encourage more critical thinking to defeat creaitionism' I thought they meant in the sense of better science teaching. But everyone I've heard use the phrase recently actually means, 'if we could just make everyone into secular humanists this problem would go away'. If I was religious I would feel pretty insulted and patronised.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2006,15:00   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 06 2006,18:58)
Quote (stevestory @ June 11 2006,03:32)
No, not big boned. 6', 235, I'm a little on the fat side (a case of beer a day will do that to you) but not big boned. My natural weight is probably around 185. Since I quit chain smoking 9 mos ago, I gained about 20 lbs.

Geez, I'm 5'6 and 135 lbs, dripping wet.  Didn't smoke (well, at least not tobacco), but sure put away an awful lot of beer in my lifetime (I still brew my own).

Of course, being scrawny and having a big mouth can be a dangerous combination.  ;)  But as a kid I never lost a fight --- I was always faster than everyone else, and was always able to dart around behind them, jump on their back, and choke them till they passed out.

Since then, I've studied quite a bit of medieval weaponry, and am pretty efficient with a longsword, and absolutely lethal with a  rapier.   ;)

OT: I am pretty certain that a rapier is not a medieval weapon.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2006,15:14   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 06 2006,20:00)
OT: I am pretty certain that a rapier is not a medieval weapon.

Depends on definitions.  ;)

Most authorities define "medieval" as the period from 1000 CE to 1450 CE.

The first written references to "espada ropera", the Spanish dress sword that became the rapier, is from 1475. However, these sort of straight, unedged, sharp-pointed thrusting swords (and the technqiues for using them) were already established before then.

But it is true that the rapier style of fighting did not really hit its peak until the middle of the 16th century, during Renaissance times.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2006,15:26   

Yep, definitions can make all the difference.

But generally IIRC rapiers became popular after full plate armour became obsolete. Which is pretty much after the medieval period. Although once again, it is not a definite rule.

Personally I would class rapiers as renaissance.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2006,15:46   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 06 2006,20:26)
Yep, definitions can make all the difference.

But generally IIRC rapiers became popular after full plate armour became obsolete. Which is pretty much after the medieval period. Although once again, it is not a definite rule.

Personally I would class rapiers as renaissance.

Well, Renaissance works for me.  (shrug)

But it isn't true that they were the result of plate armor going out of use.  There were always thrusting swords that were specifically designed to be inserted between the joints of plate armor, and these were the ancestors of the rapier.

The true rapiers, in any case, weren't designed to be used in military conflict.  They were dress swords worn by the nobility and aristocracy, and used almost exclusively for judicial (or private extrajudicial) duels, and for self-defense against street criminals. And since no one clanked around in medieval cities wearing plate armor, there was no need for such a sword to be able to defeat plate, even during the time that plate was still being used on the battlefield. Indeed, the Spanish continued to use armored breastplates in battle well into the 17th century.  Until then, most firearms weren't able to penetrate a good plate armor  -- armored breastplates were tested against musket balls, the resulting dent indicating that it was "proof against bullets", or "bulletproof".

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2006,17:44   

I must admit that I was thinking of the military use.

Yes pointed weapons where used against full plate armour. But hardly rapier like weapons they tended to be much "heavier".

I guess we would need to agreee about what we mean by the term "rapier". For me i think of it as a long slender weapon. Best used in point atacks against an unarmoured foe.

Medieval weapons being much heavier/robust.

EDIT: Of course I could be completely wrong, my roleplay is strictly the 1600s and I just carry a huge stick/pike and try to knock-over any oposition.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2006,01:25   

Well, they had to be heavier, since they were battlefield weapons being used against armor.

I suspect this is another of those "definition" thingies, though.   ;)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Julie Stahlhut



Posts: 46
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2006,01:26   

I really like Chris's coinage of "apatheist".  It describes me pretty well.

I grew up in a tepidly Catholic home, and became a well-indoctrinated little Catholic in my Saturday morning "instructions".  I still became an atheist at 14, which didn't shock my parents, whom I'd describe as "non-atheist apatheists"; maybe that's a long way of saying "deists". In some ways I identify as Unitarian Universalist, since I belonged to a UU congregation in Michigan for years and occasionally attend one here in upstate New York.  But, while UU has theist roots and adherents, it's not necessary to be a theist to be a UU.

The main thing I've taken away from my UU experiences is a broader understanding of what many UUs call "God-language", meaning the use of words and ideas like "God" and "prayer" whether or not one believes in or prays to a deity.  To me, it's just figurative language, like talking about "Mother Nature".  Some skeptics use God-language (I sometimes do), while others don't.

That said, I don't spend much time thinking about either belief or disbelief in gods.  It's just not something I consider important.  Quite a bit of my formal ethical education came from Catholic instructions, and I have few if any complaints about it, but I see no reason why one must use supernatural ideas to teach ethics.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2006,01:34   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 06 2006,22:44)
my roleplay is strictly the 1600s and I just carry a huge stick/pike and try to knock-over any oposition.

My first weapon choice was the axe, particularly the two-handed daneaxe (always had an emotional sympathy for the Vikings -- anti-authoritarian free-roamers, ahhh, what a way of life).  After a while, I switched to longsword.

Alas, both of those require brawn to swing around and use effectively, and I am not a brawny guy.  Hence, the rapier is far better suited for me.  

Interestingly, my intellectual fighting tactic is similar.  While I do put out some long swingy speeches occasionally, I much prefer the quick pithy single verbal thrust that goes straight to the heart.  ;)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2006,01:43   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ July 06 2006,19:25)
Until recently I wouldn't have agreed with you. I thought when people said 'we need to encourage more critical thinking to defeat creaitionism' I thought they meant in the sense of better science teaching. But everyone I've heard use the phrase recently actually means, 'if we could just make everyone into secular humanists this problem would go away'. If I was religious I would feel pretty insulted and patronised.

One sure sign of an extemist ideologue is their attitude of "gee, the world would be a much better place if only everyone thought exactly the same way *I* do".

Me, I think the world would be crashingly dull if everyone thought the same.  (shrug)

That's one reason why I don't waste any effort on trying to "convert" the fundies.  Quite aside from the fact that it simply doesn't work, I sincerely think that the fundies have the same right as anyone else does to think whatever they want to.

What they DON'T have the right to do, though, is use the coercive power of the state to force everyone ELSE to think it, too.

That, of course, is precisely what they want.  And that, of course, is precisely why I fight them.

And if the evangelical atheists gained political power and used it to push their ideological agenda onto others like the fundies are, I'd fight them just as vehemently.  And for the very same reasons.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2006,23:53   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 07 2006,06:34)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 06 2006,22:44)
my roleplay is strictly the 1600s and I just carry a huge stick/pike and try to knock-over any oposition.

My first weapon choice was the axe, particularly the two-handed daneaxe (always had an emotional sympathy for the Vikings -- anti-authoritarian free-roamers, ahhh, what a way of life).  After a while, I switched to longsword.

Alas, both of those require brawn to swing around and use effectively, and I am not a brawny guy.  Hence, the rapier is far better suited for me.  

Interestingly, my intellectual fighting tactic is similar.  While I do put out some long swingy speeches occasionally, I much prefer the quick pithy single verbal thrust that goes straight to the heart.  ;)

I am quite involved in re-enactment. Prefer a Sword and shield or spear and sword. Pole-weapons are also nice to intimidate someone with, as long as you can maintain range. I have no luck with a basterd sword or great sword. I am pathetic with a rapier... but quite comfy with a broadsword.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,01:10   

Lenny,

Quote
I sincerely think that the fundies have the same right as anyone else does to think whatever they want to.

What they DON'T have the right to do, though, is use the coercive power of the state to force everyone ELSE to think it, too.

That, of course, is precisely what they want.  And that, of course, is precisely why I fight them.

And if the evangelical atheists gained political power and used it to push their ideological agenda onto others like the fundies are, I'd fight them just as vehemently.  And for the very same reasons.


Gotta say I agree with you wholeheartedly there. That is 100% how I think about the issue too.

I haven't met many atheists that would want to push all religious people into thinking exactly like them (the one's I have met were obvious lunatics).

I often see the expressed desire for a secular state with freedom of/from religion for all and no religious preference made into a hastily contructed strawman which would appear to desire a "mandatory atheist state" or some such, however.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,16:03   

Quote (Renier @ July 10 2006,04:53)
I am quite involved in re-enactment. Prefer a Sword and shield or spear and sword. Pole-weapons are also nice to intimidate someone with, as long as you can maintain range. I have no luck with a basterd sword or great sword. I am pathetic with a rapier... but quite comfy with a broadsword.

I've done a few Viking shield walls, with spear and shield.  Mostly my job was just to stay alive and keep the bad guys from getting at the good guys.

;)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 10 2006,21:12   

Lenny, the Viking shield walls, sounds like SCA?

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2006,05:19   

I dont think that Lenny is/ has been in the UK, suffice to say that over here theres hardly any SCA, since we have the likes of Regia, The Vikings, for shield walls, and a bunch of other societies for medieval.  I have been away at the battle of Tewkesbury this weekend, a re-enactment of a 1471 battle.  I can second what is said about pole arms- the point being that pole arms are great in a battle field.  In more constricted circumstances, swords and daggers are better.  Moreover, in real life your hand and a half was entirely useable against a mass of pole arms because your armour would take care of their attacks.  

However, I do disagree with Lenny:
Quote
Alas, both of those require brawn to swing around and use effectively, and I am not a brawny guy.


THose would be modern reproductions suitable for re-enactment use?  A proper blunt reproduction for Historical fencing will weight something like 3 to 3.5 pounds, roughly speaking, and some are lighter still.  That is actually quite light, I understand that a lot of period rapiers were nearly that weight.  Hence you dont need to be particulalry muscly to use a longsword, at least not any more than you do a rapier.  And at least your knees stay in one piece better with a long sword.  

My understanding is that when it came to battles, peopel still used sabre/ single hand swor dlike weapons, often in the 17th century re-enacting called "hangers".  The problems with rapiers were adequately explained by George Silver in the 16th century; he preferred to knock the rapier aside then smash its users head in, using what we would think of now as a hanger, a basic cut and thrust sword.



Quote
One sure sign of an extemist ideologue is their attitude of "gee, the world would be a much better place if only everyone thought exactly the same way *I* do".

Indeed.  I worked that one out a few years ago myself, but then I have run into the problem of what kind of basic rules of the game do we need to have the most generally suitable society, where peoples happiness and opportunity etc are maximised.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2006,13:58   

Quote (Renier @ July 11 2006,02:12)
Lenny, the Viking shield walls, sounds like SCA?

Yep.  I myself never was a member, but several of my friends were, and I tagged along.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
wheatdogg



Posts: 8
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2006,16:21   

Religious Society of Friends (Quaker).

The closest choice in your poll was Christian (not entirely literal), but like most Quakers I'm on the low end of the literalism scale. So I refrained from adding myself to that group.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,21:03   

It is interesting to see how many re-enactors there are that visists this forum.

I belong to the SCA here in South Africa. Still small. The DVD of Estrella war XX is awesome. So many people having a nice good war. Guthrie, your group, is it "live steel"?

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,21:32   

Oh great! Someone just dropped Kent E Hovind's dvd, "Age of the Earth" on my desk...

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,21:33   

Just about everyone in the UK used "lives steel".  There are less SCA groups, partly because a lot of people got into re-enacting in the 80's and some even earlier, with an entirely different ethos.  Here, perhaps because we have all the history on our doorstep, accuracy has been quite important (But its always a struggle) from the start, and most people never got into the calling each other odd names and taking on personas.  Our reenacting is different.  
There are few people who use Rattan, steel is much better- as long as you are wearing appropriate kit, they are both not very dangerous.  

Which period do you do?  I do medieval, around 1300 to 1500.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2006,22:10   

Guthrie.

If you use live steel, what is your armour requirements for going up against, say, a spear or pole-axe?

My own SCA persona is early period Swedish (Viking - 980). Busy making myself a nice centre grip shield.

Some friends and myself play with blunt steel swords (2mm edge) and are thinking of forming a "live steel" group here, outside of the SCA of course. We don't do actual bouts with the live steel yet, only a fairly fast unpowered "sword dance", and I love it. The sound of steel on steel just does it for me.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,00:01   

We call them blunts- and nobody does full strength blows.  So all that is really needed is some moderately thick padding, such as a jack, aqueton or similar.  Add that to restricted target zones, (though I have been hit lightly in the face) and you have combat that is fairly safe and applicable to large numbers of people.  
However, if you want to go the whole hog, you put on fencing masks, elbow pads and metal armour, then you can start thinking about full speed hardly slowed blows.  

But anyone telling you they do full strength full contact fighting is almost certainly lying- real full speed and strength and technique combat would be really rather brutal when you were hit.  (Thats my opinion anyway)
If you are interested in swords, I suggest you go here:
http://swordforum.com/

The fourum there is frequented by scores of western martial artists and historical fencers, you might be able to find some close to you.
Fighting with metal swords is different, they bounce and stick differently, and its hard to get ones the right weight and so on, but it can be done.  
Finally, I am a member of this group:
http://www.dawnduellists.co.uk/

As a matter of interest, why do so many people seem to like Viking?  I mean you dont have much in the way of armour, shields make combat a bit more restricted, and they were just a small part of the diversity across Europe at that time.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,00:50   

guthrie.

Thanks for replying. I am fairly hungry to talk to other re-enactors.

As you know, we don't fight with live steel in the SCA, we use Rattan. Our armour standards ar such (metal helm with grill etc) that we can do full powered and fast combat. We also have limited target areas, ie knees and below and the wrists and hands. All else goes. Even with the Rattan it gets "brutal" and I always have a nice bruise, somewhere. Still, it is great fun!

As for my Viking persona, I don't really know, expect that I love the old norse mythology and related icelandic sagas. Also, I can play as a "pagan/heathen". Yeah, the armour aint that great, like say Gothic plate armour, but it still looks good. I am busy with a maile "suit". ####, lots of rings.

The sword and shield is one of my favorite styles. It's nice to stick/press the shield into the "enemy's" sword arm bend and prevent him from striking back. It's nice to rush a pole-axe and stick the shield on the "enemy's" chest to prevent use of his weapon. We also have "knights" in the SCA. One from Sweden and one from Finland recently visited us and we got our @sses handed to us on a silver plate.

I know swordforum, but haven't been there for a while. You ever heard of "Tournament Productions"? Those guys are nuts! I had a look at the link about your group. Looks very interesting. Do you guys allow "gappling" during combat?

The fencing masks won't work with a broad sword, I don't think so anyway. It might take the first blow but it will crumple. We use 1.6 mm plate helmets with a grill in front. That would be better for live steel, no?

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,01:01   

I've never heard of tournament productions.  
As for grappling, yes, we do allow it, most historical fencing groups do, with the usual proviso that you dont just heave your opponent over your thigh and let them drop, partly because we dont have any crash mats.

Grapplings kind of fun, if you get it right, but its also important to learn the moves and skill, so that small or light people can throw heavy people, or at least prevent themselves being thrown.  

As for fencing masks- its a common misconception that they wont do.  If you use 1600N competition kind of masks, they last for years, again with the proviso that you dont use full power and strength on them, although I doubt that they would be punctured, but your neck might not take the force very well.  I've been fighting with fencing mask for nearly 3 years now, and have had no trouble at all, even against some fairly brutal opponents.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,01:26   

Guthrie.

It's great that you allow gappling. That's one historical aspect that the SCA lacks. I would also LOVE to bash someone with the shield, but that's not allowed, since you can do serious damage with that kind of weight. It does sometimes happen in "war" scenarios, as I am sure Lenny would be able to tell you. I've seen clips of viking shield walls charging over people...

I'll check up on the fencing masks you talk about. Maybe it would be able to take a blow from a viking broad sword, but we will have to test it first. We have HEAVY gorgets that will protect the neck.

Find a SCA shire or chapter and pay them a visit. They also do fencing (rapier and dagger, bucker, cloak) etc, so it might be a change to "poke" some other people that use different styles (to test your own). They don't grapple, however. Nice chatting to you about this!

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,01:28   

Aye, its always good to meet a fellow enthusiast, even if only electronically.

  
Caledonian



Posts: 48
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,04:11   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 07 2006,06:43)
One sure sign of an extemist ideologue is their attitude of "gee, the world would be a much better place if only everyone thought exactly the same way *I* do".

Me, I think the world would be crashingly dull if everyone thought the same.  (shrug)

Oh, you poor dear.  Mathematics must be so terribly boring for you -- all of those equations with rigidly-defined correct answers, with no diversity of opinion or differing views.

And science must not be able to hold your interest, with such widespread agreement on the nature of matter, the age of the Earth, the origin of species, and so on.  Hardly anyone accepts such interesting hypotheses as a Hollow Earth filled with saucer-flying alien Greys, alchemy, or Penta water.

What a pity that you were born into this tediously uninteresting modern age instead of the fascinating world that existed five hundred years ago.  Except that people were actually compelled to believe things then or face societal exclusion, persecution, and death.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,04:34   

Vaguely on topic- I didnt realise there were 81 people posting here.  (Assuming no one was rigging the poll)

Thats quite a lot, for the interenet.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,13:45   

Quote (Renier @ July 13 2006,02:32)
Oh great! Someone just dropped Kent E Hovind's dvd, "Age of the Earth" on my desk...

Thne print THIS out and drop a copy on THEIR desk ----

Published - July, 13, 2006
Evangelist arrested on tax evasion
Michael Stewart
@PensacolaNewsJournal.com
A Pensacola evangelist was arrested Thursday and indicted in federal court on 58 charges that include income tax evasion, making threats against investigators and filing false complaints against Internal Revenue Service agents.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Miles Davis handed down the indictment against Kent Hovind, who operated a creationist theme park Dinosaur Adventure Land, off Old Palafox Road.

Hovind’s wife, Jo Hovind, was also indicted on 44 of the counts and appeared in court alongside her husband.

Arraignment for the Hovinds is scheduled for2 p.m. Monday. The couple was released pending their trial but are not allowed to travel outside the Northern District of Florida.




Looks like Caesar is gonna get his share after all.

(snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2006,16:06   

Quote (Caledonian @ July 13 2006,09:11)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 07 2006,06:43)
One sure sign of an extemist ideologue is their attitude of "gee, the world would be a much better place if only everyone thought exactly the same way *I* do".

Me, I think the world would be crashingly dull if everyone thought the same.  (shrug)

Oh, you poor dear.  Mathematics must be so terribly boring for you -- all of those equations with rigidly-defined correct answers, with no diversity of opinion or differing views.

And science must not be able to hold your interest, with such widespread agreement on the nature of matter, the age of the Earth, the origin of species, and so on.  Hardly anyone accepts such interesting hypotheses as a Hollow Earth filled with saucer-flying alien Greys, alchemy, or Penta water.

What a pity that you were born into this tediously uninteresting modern age instead of the fascinating world that existed five hundred years ago.  Except that people were actually compelled to believe things then or face societal exclusion, persecution, and death.

Umm, yeah, OK.  If you say so.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2006,15:26   

*quick poke*

cale, you're so far off wrt Lenny it's scary.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2006,16:43   

Quote (Caledonian @ July 13 2006,09:11)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 07 2006,06:43)
One sure sign of an extemist ideologue is their attitude of "gee, the world would be a much better place if only everyone thought exactly the same way *I* do".

Me, I think the world would be crashingly dull if everyone thought the same.  (shrug)

Oh, you poor dear.  Mathematics must be so terribly boring for you -- all of those equations with rigidly-defined correct answers, with no diversity of opinion or differing views.

And science must not be able to hold your interest, with such widespread agreement on the nature of matter, the age of the Earth, the origin of species, and so on.  Hardly anyone accepts such interesting hypotheses as a Hollow Earth filled with saucer-flying alien Greys, alchemy, or Penta water.

What a pity that you were born into this tediously uninteresting modern age instead of the fascinating world that existed five hundred years ago.  Except that people were actually compelled to believe things then or face societal exclusion, persecution, and death.

Wow, you live in a modern world where everything's been figured out with certainty? Science has nailed down all of it?

Cool, you'll have to drop me a postcard sometime.

PS: You have no idea what Lenny's getting at here. Just so ya know.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2006,16:47   

(holds finger to lips)


If you're very quiet, everyone, and don't scare him away, you'll get to see an Extremist Ideologue, in his natural environment . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2006,16:59   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 14 2006,21:47)
(holds finger to lips)


If you're very quiet, everyone, and don't scare him away, you'll get to see an Extremist Ideologue, in his natural environment . . . . .

Aw shit, I forgot my Peterson guide!

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2006,17:23   

Re "in his natural environment . . . . ."

An internet blog? ;)

  
Tim Hague



Posts: 32
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2006,06:55   

I got a bit stuck on the poll.  Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive you know.  One is statement of knowledge, the other is a statement of belief.  

As such, I am an agnostic (weak) atheist.  

I don't do strong atheism because I don't think it's scientifically tenable.

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2006,07:08   

Well I'm an agnostic atheist, I don't believe that god believes in science, otherwise why would he have fundies?

I have run all sorts of scientific tests for western conservative gods, eastern mystical gods, new age postmodern gods and the lab won't return the results.

I think they're Calvinists.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Tim



Posts: 40
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2006,00:24   

Quote
I don't do strong atheism because I don't think it's scientifically tenable.

I think strong atheism is perhaps more a philosophical position than a scientific one.

The existence of God cannot be proven either way scientifically.

But I can think of plenty of philosphical reasons as to why God doesn't exist.

On the flipside, I'm sure a religious person can think of plenty of philosophical reasons as to why God does exist.  :)

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2006,00:36   

I'll rate myself as strong atheist. Reason is that I "believe" there is no god, just like I "believe" there is are no pink unicorns. In my view, there is the same amount of evidence for a god than what there is for fluffy pink unicorns. It would still be easy to convince a strong atheist that there is a god, by showing him some scientific evidence. Just wish the fundies will come to realise that gaps in our scientific knowledge is not evidence for any god...

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 29 2006,09:16   

how one views atheism vs agnosticism has to do with the philosophy of knowledge. What's the default position on a question where there's no evidence? The agnostics say, on the issue of god, that the default position should be 'I don't know'. I think their reasoning is wrong, and they're giving god an unfair break, one they would not extend to Santa Claus or Bigfoot or El Chupacabre, or any other organism whose existence is disputed.

   
Tim Hague



Posts: 32
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2006,02:40   

Quote (stevestory @ July 29 2006,14:16)
how one views atheism vs agnosticism has to do with the philosophy of knowledge. What's the default position on a question where there's no evidence? The agnostics say, on the issue of god, that the default position should be 'I don't know'. I think their reasoning is wrong, and they're giving god an unfair break, one they would not extend to Santa Claus or Bigfoot or El Chupacabre, or any other organism whose existence is disputed.

I think the default position on everything lacking evidence should be "we don't know".  It's a big old universe out there, and we've only (partly) explored an incredibly tiny bit of it, so who's to say what might be out there?  I'm not ruling out fluffy pink unicorns at this stage.  

The problem - as it often is - is one of scope.  We're fairly sure that Santa Claus does not live at the North Pole.  But that's only because we've limited the scope of where Santa Claus could live.  If the claim was that 'Santa Claus exists somewhere out there in the universe, and might be invisible/undetectable' then there really is no way to falsify that claim - the scope is simply too large.

I can say - "God in the form of an old bearded man is not currently sitting in my closet".  And I can open my closet and confirm the lack of bearded old men.  Small scope, confirming my hypothesis.  But to say that "no God exists anywhere" is too large a scope to be realistically testable.  I can't demonstrate my hypothesis, so I can't say for certain either way, just as I can't say for certain that there is no such thing as fluffy pink unicorns.

   
truth machine



Posts: 33
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2006,21:35   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 07 2006,15:03)
Still no Jews? A little surprising, with this educated a crowd. Or are there nonobservant Jews here who voted for 'atheist' or 'agnostic'?

Yes.

  
truth machine



Posts: 33
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2006,22:01   

Quote (Tim Hague @ Aug. 07 2006,07:40)
 
Quote (stevestory @ July 29 2006,14:16)
how one views atheism vs agnosticism has to do with the philosophy of knowledge. What's the default position on a question where there's no evidence? The agnostics say, on the issue of god, that the default position should be 'I don't know'. I think their reasoning is wrong, and they're giving god an unfair break, one they would not extend to Santa Claus or Bigfoot or El Chupacabre, or any other organism whose existence is disputed.

I think the default position on everything lacking evidence should be "we don't know".  It's a big old universe out there, and we've only (partly) explored an incredibly tiny bit of it, so who's to say what might be out there?  I'm not ruling out fluffy pink unicorns at this stage.  

The problem - as it often is - is one of scope.  We're fairly sure that Santa Claus does not live at the North Pole.  But that's only because we've limited the scope of where Santa Claus could live.  If the claim was that 'Santa Claus exists somewhere out there in the universe, and might be invisible/undetectable' then there really is no way to falsify that claim - the scope is simply too large.

I can say - "God in the form of an old bearded man is not currently sitting in my closet".  And I can open my closet and confirm the lack of bearded old men.  Small scope, confirming my hypothesis.  But to say that "no God exists anywhere" is too large a scope to be realistically testable.  I can't demonstrate my hypothesis, so I can't say for certain either way, just as I can't say for certain that there is no such thing as fluffy pink unicorns.

I know exactly what counts as encountering a fluffy pink unicorn or a bearded old man, but nothing at all counts for me as encountering God, so it's not possible that God exists anywhere, no matter how large or small the universe is or what is out there.  It's not a matter of "scope", it's a matter of "God" being a string of letters with no coherent meaning.  I can make no more sense of "God in the form of an old bearded man" than I can of "a square circle in the form of an old bearded man".  For that matter, I can't make sense of "a fluffy pink unicorn in the form of an old bearded man", so I think that a sequence like "God in the form of an old bearded man", while syntactically correct, does not actually express any idea, any more than Chomsky's "green ideas dreaming furiously".

  
truth machine



Posts: 33
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2006,22:23   

Quote (Tim Hague @ Aug. 07 2006,07:40)
If the claim was that 'Santa Claus exists somewhere out there in the universe, and might be invisible/undetectable' then there really is no way to falsify that claim - the scope is simply too large.

Consider the claim that "Santa Claus exists somewhere out there in the universe, but doesn't have a beard, a red suit, a fat belly, reindeer, doesn't give presents, and in fact lacks any of the defining characteristics of Santa Claus, because if he did we could detect him".  Largeness of the search space is irrelevant; the claim is incoherent, because saying that Santa Claus exists has implications that are contradicted by denying Santa Claus's detectability.  We might as well say that Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and Daffy Duck all live at the North Pole but are entirely undetectable, or that there is a prime number of angels dancing on the head of every pin.  The problem is not that there are too many pins to examine, but that the words are just words, they don't correspond to any actual possibility.

  
truth machine



Posts: 33
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2006,22:49   

Further:

Suppose that "God" really is meaningful, referring to "the creator of the universe" (I don't believe that phrase is coherent, but for the sake of argument ...).  Now, if we encounter what appears to be an old bearded man, what would it mean to say that it's actually God in the form of an old bearded man?  How would we distinguish that claim from the claim that, say, one strand of the old man's beard is actually God in the form of a hair?  Or that a turd in the old man's rectum is actually God in the form of a turd?  Perhaps the turd disappears in a puff of smoke and a huge figure with a booming voice appears in the sky -- well then, the turd will have disappeared in a puff of smoke and a huge figure with a booming voice will have appeared in the sky, but it still isn't clear what it means to say that the turd (which no longer exists) was the creator of the universe.

The thing is, these aren't really claims, they are just strings of words that resemble claims.  The individual words, and some of the substrings of words, refer to something, but they are put together in combinations that don't.  Some people insist that, because these strings of words seem (if not carefully examined) like they mean something, and numerous people use these sequences of words as if they meant something and think they mean something, then they must mean something, but that simply isn't true.

  
  97 replies since June 06 2006,13:36 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]