Gwyn, I'm not even 100% sure that you're not a solipsistic creation of my mind, so if I'm not to remain an agnostic regarding everything, 99% is as good as it gets.

Additionally, that dastardly Madelyn Murray O'Hare is responsible for this "100% positive, atheism as religion" view. Most atheists I know (and I know quite a few) go with the best possible explanation for things. Such explanations are what we are surest of. It requires transcendence to determine whether some assertion is 100% correct. One is agnostic only when one is equally sure of both possibilities. I'll take anyone's bet, no matter how large, that the earth revolves around the sun, but I'm not a 100% sure that this claim won't be overturned someday. Similarly, I never exit through windows, but gravity might be proven wrong.

If you're 90/10 in favor of there being no god, you'd say "I don't know"?

There is no evidence for even making me think there's a 10% chance. All the arguments for God's existence (e.g., morality, prime mover, ontological) have proven miserable failures. However, because these arguments were eloquently stated by incredibly brilliant individuals, I'll give a .01% chance for there being a god. (Note that all god-arguments are even bigger failures at proving a specific god.) There has to be some decent reason for giving some credence to any claim. A believer should attempt to provide at least enough evidence for making people like me agnostics. The last rational argument for a god was Pascal's wager in, I think, the 17th century. Since then, most intellectual Christians that I'm aware of simply claim a nonrational (not irrational) basis for their faith. Fine for them, but that doesn't do much to convince me, because I've never experienced their "touch of God" or "personal revelation."

[Note: This was written before the above post was visible. I think Charles and I are looking at things pretty much the same way but disagreeing over what to call it. Like it matters [img]http://207.69.158.95/ubb/smile.gif[/img]]

Charles: You seem pretty set against agnosticism and I'm probably doing a poor job of explaining how I view it myself but "Once more into the breech [img]http://207.69.158.95/ubb/wink.gif[/img]".

Agnosticism doesn't really come into it as much with organised religions, which can be argued against very strongly with logic and factual data (since I was a child I've always felt the Greek and Roman Gods had as much as a right to exist as the Christian God in terms of logic, and much more in terms of coolness). It's on the level of philosophical debate (especially those really simple/incredibly complex issues that are hard to tie down) that it tends to be put forth as the great equaliser.

All reasonable people (ie. those who aren't 100% devout believers) will have some doubts about their beliefs, and so whatever they profess as the most likley possibility of reality, be it Zen Buddhism, Nihilism, etc, it will only be their best guess. Those who admit this are basically agnostics with "leanings" to another philosophy. Agnosticsim is often professed by those seeking for higher truths but yet to find them.

"I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure--that is all that agnosticism means." Clarence Darrow, Scopes trial, Dayton, Tennessee, July 13, 1925.

[This message has been edited by Gwyn Boudreau (edited 10-11-1999).]

Wow, great thread! A few comments:

Ventura's stance re: religion is indeed a refreshing change from the days when Reagan (I'm pretty sure it was him) asserted that the First Amendment "guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion." (And yes, qualitatively it's not really any different from Marx's observation of religion as "opiate of the masses"...)

As for the portrayal of religion vs. secular belief in comics, I think most comics are actually quite secular in nature, insofar as there's no real focus on religion as a crucial part of the characters' lives. It's a little trickier to represent an activist anti-religion view, in the same sense that it's impossible to prove a negative. From a practical standpoint, it's easier and more visually rewarding to depict religious activism and particularly religious myths like Bible stories than it is to depict folks NOT believing in something. Let's face it, comics is a visual medium and Bible stories make for some great visuals!

Charles says, "Agnosticism is an acceptable position only when one has good reason for accepting both alternatives."

I thought agnosticism was basically open- mindedness to the possibilities that there may or may not be a God.

"I haven't found any evidence for the existence of a god..."

And I haven't found any evidence for the NON-existence of a god. (After all, you can't prove a negative. [img]http://207.69.158.95/ubb/smile.gif[/img] ) In any case, belief systems pertaining to religion don't work on objective empirical evidence, but personal experience and faith, stuff that isn't liable to be measured by the religion of science. Which is why, to me, organized religion DOES seem a bit dumb-- everyone who believes in God experiences that belief in a different way. Organized religion is good for certain rituals of comfort and solidarity, just like union meetings, and of course for showing off cool bonnets, esp. in England, but beyond that it's really been more an excuse for me to brush up on my Hebrew (and Bible stories!) and catch up on my sleep than anything else.

Jim Hanley recollects re: his aunt, "What, was I going to to convince her that she had spent sixty years of devotion to a fantasy?"

Hey, if it can't be done with comic book fans, it probably can't be done with nuns.

Jean-Marc insists, "Faith is not about tolerance, guys. You're either on the side of Truth with a capital "T" or you're not."

See, I've never seen it that way. To me, faith has always been what the annoying DeMoss commercials currently refer to as "a personal relationship with God." Key word being PERSONAL. And tolerance has always been about respecting other people's personal relationships with God or their spouses or their friends or their pets or their comics or whatever. Not agreeing with those relationships, just respecting them. I see no reason why you can't do that and hold different personal beliefs from those for whom you practice tolerance.

And to bring this back around, I'm fairly sure Ventura wasn't slamming personal faith when he expressed his opinion on organized religion.

- Elayne

There's an old saying. It goes- "There are no Athiests in foxholes!"
I don't know how fair an assessment that may be. As I've said before it's not my place to judge since A.) I'm not an athiest B.) Thank God, I've never been in a foxhole!
Going back to the futile debate of the default position I only have this to add.
I've never been to California, but I've heard it exists. There is no tangible proof from my hillbilly perspective that it is really there, but I accept it as a posibility.
Henceforth I'll fall into line with the agnostic default. (For what it's worth.)
Joe- Thanks for submitting such a thought provoking thread. I just hope we can all be civil after the debate finally dies down.
Which I'm certain it will... eventually... one day... maybe... (I'm kind of agnostic on that one.)
Sam Edmisten http://www.redhillsonline.com

Sorry. Hit the button twice. Won't happen again.

[This message has been edited by Sam Edmisten (edited 10-11-1999).]

[This message has been edited by Sam Edmisten (edited 10-11-1999).]

Jim,

I don't believe in the three yards and a cloud of dust. I like a quick slant over the middle or a play action deep into man to man coverage.

As for plate t, bottom line is these folks believe (so the theory goes), that at one time there was just one land mass which split into to continents you see today. Like evolution, great sci-fi. Oh yes, I know that certain masses are drifting away at a what an inch every 100 years? That is based on the assumption that rate of drift has been constant, yadda yadda. Gosh I love sci-fi!

As for the Jesus debate, I may not know the Bible as well as some, but I seem to remember a comment He made, "I and the Father are one."

Having been the recipient of intolerance from secular folks in the schools (I was in public school, not far from O'hare), I don't care too much for fiction in schools. It's like teaching everyone in public school that there is a Santa Claus. I was a victim of religious intolerance in public school. I sought neither to convert anyone (I was only in the third grade at the time), and had my books confiscated (my math, writing and religious books), given straight Cs and told that I was to be retained in the third grade. So much for fairness in public schools. I am grateful for a father who didn't put up such nonsense and he had a little chat with the principal(suits may have been mentioned) and magically I was promoted to the fourth grade. Any more questions from the intolerent ones on this thread?

Sam

Some random thoughts:

-- If you're a catholic, I mean a believer, you certainly should show tolerance towards folks who dont believe as you do (no more crusades, inquisitions etc), but at the same time, you should pray & hope that they see the light & convert to catholicism before they die. Sorry, Kady, there's no escape clause.

-- To the agnostics: there are modern, medically well documented stories of unexplainable cures (I hate the word "miracles") that can really shake one's unbelief in the existence of God -- and have done so. I recommend a book by nobel-prize winner & medical doctor Alexis Carrel, a non-religious man who witnessed such a cure. Interestingly, the catholic religion has far, far more of these than any other religions. Maybe it is a better "software" for communicating with God?

-- The signs of the existence of God... In addition to the "miracles" mentioned above, I find some of the cutting edge stuff in physics almost... divine. When I was writing the VISHANTI back-up in DR STRANGE, I remember writing a page or so on the presence of God in mathematics. The editor (Ralph Macchio) got really confused on that one. Like, "Duh?".

-- While we're on the subject of comics again, I also used some interesting bits of history about the Popes, the Malachi Prophecy and the marriages of priests (before the first Council of Lateran) also in the VISHANTI back-up. I think it got me one letter of abuse from some kind of pseudo-Christian nut who couldn't deal with it. So much for my theological input into the Marvel universe!

JM

I think what Joe Zabel really meant when he was talking about a "positive portrayal of unbelief," had nothing to do with all the indoctrination people have been going on about. I am an atheist and I have no desire to indoctrinate anyone -- and I am proud of this fact, as it distinguishes me from many religious individuals I have known. But we unbelievers are frequently vilified by believers, portrayed as immoral, selfish, unhappy nihilists. What I think Joe meant was that this stereotype isn't true, but there aren't images in the media which contradict it.

There has been a lot of talk about agnosticism versus atheism in this thread, and I want to clarify something. The word "agnostic" was coined in 1870 by Thomas Henry Huxley, primarily because the word "atheist" had taken on so many negative connotations that he felt a new word was needed to express the same thing. That's right, atheist and agnostic were originally synonyms. And here's from my dictinary (Webster's New World, 3rd College ed.): "agnostic -- a person who believes that the human mind cannot know whether there is a God or an ultimate cause or anything beyond material phenomena." I am an atheist, and that definition echoes my thoughts quite accurately. It's not just that we don't know, it's that we can't know.

Now, there are atheists who believe there is NO god -- I prefer not to believe there IS a god, if you see the distinction.

Joe: Thank you for the kind words! I am of course, more than willing to take credit for doing "the best minicomic in America." That Joe knows what he's talking about!

Gwen, and anyone else who reads Irish: You got the translation almost right, but I'd substitute the word "sore" for "sick." It's a play on the Irish proverb "Níl aon tinteán mar do thinteán féin" -- there's no hearth like your own hearth, or there's no place like home.

------------------
Níl aon tóin tinn mar do thóin tinn fein.

Although I'm aware that it will be to no avail (I hear ya Charles, and I knew it beforehand... you can't reason with someone who thinks the whole of reality can be contained in a single book), I must point out that rock composition, and indeed the fossils within them, are identical on the eastern coast of South America and the western coast of Africa -- to say nothing of the obvious near-puzzle-piece matching of these two land masses (I'll concede, that could be a coincidence) -- which is difficult to explain considering the 6000+ miles that separate them now. And curiously, there are fossils of fish, shrimp, and other marine life and sea plants to be found in the highest peaks of the Rockies, Andes, and Himalayas -- at altitudes of over 20,000 feet, on rather steep slopes, in ambient temperatures that forbid the presence of liquid water. Imagine that. Oh and radioactive dating -- another product of the "Sci-Fi" mentioned above (which coincidentally is reponsible for the fact that your computer obviously functions, even tho it's a Windows PC) -- shows these fossils to be in the multi-millions of years old. So even if the Flood reached depths of 30,000 feet, according to standard Bible-derived dogma, it was only a few thousand years ago. My, how could those fish have gotten there? I guess God just puts things like that around the world so we'll have some neat stuff to dig up on our camping trips. Gee, He's so cool! But also very sneaky, trying to fool all those erstwhile scientists like that. Shame on Him.

Gosh I can be snitty... but it's all in fun.
However, IMHO, I think all this stuff is there to be found PRECISELY BECAUSE we need to learn things about this big ol' universe that God has whipped up for us... that the clues to the Questions (and Answers) of Life, The Universe, and Everything are scattered throughout the whole of creation for us to find. If God made us in His image, then our innate gifts of curiosity, intelligence, skill of handicraft, and the desire to understand it all are from Him.

My main problem with most organized religion is that it is dogmatic; it writes down some rules and by golly, everyone has to stick by them forever. Change is NOT ALLOWED! Authority is PARAMOUNT! "Do what we say and all will stay the SAME!" And therefore... safe? If you pay attention to the world we live in and the universe around us, the one basic observable truth is that there is no such thing as a static system. EVERYTHING is changing ALL THE TIME. There is nothing you can point to and say, "this never changes." But a lot of "religion" is dedicated to maintaining (a) the status quo, and (b) control over its constituents. Hmm, just like Communism and Fascism. Interesting. Anyway, so I have to conclude that in many cases, for many people, religion becomes a palliative for FEAR OF CHANGE. But there's no reason to be afraid of change, it's happening all around you every day.

Also, lots of people are afraid because they don't have all the answers. It's quite unsettling to realize you don't know much, it's easy to be afraid of a universe that you can't immediately figure out. Religions claim to have all the answers; so it's very comforting to believe in a doctrine which leaves nothing to chance, which covers all knowledge. In this way, religion becomes a solution to FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN. However, by definition we can never have all the answers; God is omniscient, so only God knows everything. The various holy books notwithstanding -- there is certainly a great deal of information about reality that they don't contain. Otherwise there'd likely be a Bible book that tells you how to build a computer, or an internal combustion engine, or even a pulley or the ancient water-screw (invented by either the Greeks or the Egyptians -- long before Christ mind you -- as a method of irrigating fields). All useful items that apparently God felt we needed to figure out on our own. Or, according to some, they are not in the sight of God, and are the work of the Devil -- I've heard fundamentalist preachers swear up and down that if something isn't in the Bible, it's the work of the devil.

So any of you fundamentalist Christians out there, if you're using a computer, driving a car, living in a house with electricity, and drinking water out of the tap -- to say nothing of eating food that has been selectively bred by us humans for thousands of years, without modern genetic techniques -- you're using the tools of the Devil and thus you are SINNERS, by some of your own group's standards. The life you live today, with all our modern conveniences and the absences of some pretty deadly diseases like smallpox, diphtheria, polio, etc., was created by science. The same science that came up with the evidence for evolution, for plate tectonics, for nuclear energy... using the same methods that resulted in TV, vaccines, automobiles, and hey, even sheep with lots of wool (be they clones or not).

I'll make it easy for ya. All you gotta do is show me where the Bible tells us how to grow enough potatoes, corn, wheat, and sheep to feed your local village, and I'm with ya. Heck, show me where it tells you how to start a fire! Oh by the way, the people who wrote the Bible had never seen corn. It was found in America -- which Columbus found after discovering Eratosthenes' scientific experiment that demostrated the world was in fact round, not flat.

Buona Dia di Colombo! [img]http://207.69.158.95/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

Oh one more thing. Somewhere in the Bible (I don't remember where, but it can be looked up), it says that the value of pi (the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its radius) is 3. Now, you can hit the pi button on a calculator, and you'll come up with 3.1415927, which is a round off of what science tells us is an irrational number -- in other words, the digits after the decimal go on forever. I can prove to you that the Bible is incorrect when it says pi=3, with a 50' tape measure, 40' of rope, a metal spike and some chalk, in the shopping center parking lot of your choice.

Now, since it's easily provable that the Bible is inaccurate in this respect, and Evangelists and fundamentalists insist that everything in the Bible is God's whole truth, then this is a problem. Well, maybe someone copied it down wrong when God was telling it to them. But then... what else in the Scripture might have been garbled in the translation??? I have both the King James and the New Edition of the Bible... and in some places they contradict each other. They're certainly both a bit murky in places, even the modern English one. Which is God's word? I don't know.

OK... this is really all in fun, I'm not trying to knock anyone's faith. I'm also not trying to offend Christians, tho I know that I'm certainly doing so. But I have to point out these inconsistencies -- they stand in the way of people like me "seeing the light" of Christ. I don't necessarily need to see proof of the existence of God, or of His plan for me, but you'll need to show me something that's a lot more consistent before I'll start believing your explanation.

I'm pleased with your faith if it guides you well, keeps you from harm, removes hate and fear from you, and lets you raise your children with love and kindness.

But if you're the type where I can show you in front of witnesses that the circumference of a circle that has a radius of 10 feet is 31 feet 5.003124 inches, and you still claim it's 30 feet because it says so in the Bible, then you're just being stubborn.

------------------
Jeff Zugale
Pagan City Comics
www.pagancity.com