So, it looks like I can't be my nieces godfather

[SphinxnihpS]

I disagree. Not believing in something because of a lack of evidence is not stupid. Not changing your beliefs in the face of evidence is. All current evidence points to all religion as simply mythology. So believing there is no god is simply the same as believing there is no Santa Claus or no invisible blowjob fairy living in my house.

What would be stupid would be to have direct, indisputable evidence that their is a god and then to deny it (like creationists do with evolution). If you had to be on the fence for everything you can't prove you need to think it's plausible that ghosts, psychics, santa claus, and ancient aliens all might exist. No one calls someone stupid for not evaluating the possibility that the easter bunny might be real.

But you're wrong. The definition of atheist is not what you think. That is my point in fact. Atheism is not the lack of belief, it is itself a belief.

 

[randomrogue]

But you're wrong. The definition of atheist is not what you think. That is my point in fact. Atheism is not the lack of belief, it is itself a belief.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Pretty sure Jupiter is simply laughing at your self-description of atheist, and your desire to announce such to anyone. You do realize that you can not be considered very smart if you truly consider yourself an atheist? You can not disprove god, yet an atheist is certain. Arguing that you are an atheist is the same things as arguing that there is most certainly a god (because the definition of atheist is that there most certainly is not). Both arguments are equally non-verifiable, i.e. stupid to get behind.

I doubt you're on that level of stupidity, so perhaps you should simply change your self-description to something more fitting?

I do agree with you that a lot of people that have posted in this thread have given silly advice based on their misunderstanding of a fairly clear scenario.

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

 

[nageov3t]

why do you have to hate on my imaginary friend Bob, jerkface? what did he ever do to you?

 

[Blackjack200]

But you're wrong. The definition of atheist is not what you think. That is my point in fact. Atheism is not the lack of belief, it is itself a belief.

From Wikipedia:

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."

So it can mean a range of things. I consider myself to have no belief w/respect to God. If I encounter compelling evidence that one exists, I will change my view, just as I do for anything else.

 

[OlafSicky]

It's not to late for you repent and all will be forgiven

 

[quikah]

How is it disrespectful? They are religious but they are not devout or anything.

A godparent has a very specific meaning in Christianity. If you are just "going through the motions" then you are not respecting that meaning.

It is pretty simple idea, do not participate in something that you do not agree with/believe in.

This is more a general comment, not necessarily directed at you OP, if your family doesn't really care then go for it if the church would allow it.

 

[randomrogue]

A godparent has a very specific meaning in Christianity. If you are just "going through the motions" then you are not respecting that meaning.

It is pretty simple idea, do not participate in something that you do not agree with/believe in.

This is more a general comment, not necessarily directed at you OP, if your family doesn't really care then go for it if the church would allow it.

Are you this serious about Christmas too?

OP your sister doesn't have to do the godparent thing through church. Maybe I missed it but has she considered this? Until this thread, and reading up on the net, I had no idea that there was a bible thumper version of a godparent.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Since apparently godparents need to be Christian.

Last weekend I'm visiting my sister and her little girl (3 months) in Chicago and she told me that my mom thought it would be sweet if I was the godfather. But she said when she spoke to the pastor that's doing the christening, he said that the godparent has to be a Christian. So that stressed my sister out because she didn't want to tell my mother that I was atheist, but she also didn't want it to seem like she didn't want me to be the godparent.

So I told her that I would talk to my mother, and I did. I pulled her aside and explained to her that I was atheist (which upset her like I knew it would, which is why I had never told her), and that even though I knew she had suggested it, the pastor said I couldn't be the godparent.

So then my mom tells me that she never made any suggestion to my sister about who the godparent should be.



I don't even care who's lying at this point. But now I have to have conversations about god with my mom, probably for the rest of my life. Ugh.

Yeah..get the family together and have a fireside chat over roasted marsh mellows!!

 

[KeithP]

I don't even care who's lying at this point. But now I have to have conversations about god with my mom, probably for the rest of my life. Ugh.

How do you know anyone was lying? Lying suggests a deliberate untruth. Maybe your mom just mentioned it in passing and doesn't remember saying anything about it? Maybe your sister misunderstood something your mom said? Maybe a combination of both? I am sure there are other possible explanations rather than lying.

If you are an adult, certainly you can simply refuse to have a conversation on a particular subject with your mom. Can't you?

Should be fun at Christmas this year.

He is an atheist, why would he be celebrating Christmas?

-KeithP

 

[shadow9d9]

Pretty sure Jupiter is simply laughing at your self-description of atheist, and your desire to announce such to anyone. You do realize that you can not be considered very smart if you truly consider yourself an atheist? You can not disprove god, yet an atheist is certain. Arguing that you are an atheist is the same things as arguing that there is most certainly a god (because the definition of atheist is that there most certainly is not). Both arguments are equally non-verifiable, i.e. stupid to get behind.

I doubt you're on that level of stupidity, so perhaps you should simply change your self-description to something more fitting?

I do agree with you that a lot of people that have posted in this thread have given silly advice based on their misunderstanding of a fairly clear scenario.

That was one of the dumbest things I have ever read here.. and I've been here a while.

The belief in a fantastical supercreature(s) without a shred of evidence is foolish...

You can not disprove something that doesn't exist... and therefore someone who chooses not to believe in fantasy without a shred of evidence is the stupid one? AHAHAHAHAHA.

They aren't "equally unverifiable." It is up to someone who is making a claim to prove it.. not for someone to disprove it.

Believing that unicorns exist or not are equally unverifiable! Believing that leprechauns exist or not are equally unverifiable! See! Believing in something without a shred of evidence and disbelieving in something that has no shred of evidence are BOTH stupid!



Listen brainiac. The default stance of something is disbelief until something is PROVEN to be real. You don't go around in believing in unicorns, aliens, leprechauns, the loch ness monster, big foot, santa, or a god or gods unless there is serious proof.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

From Wikipedia:

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."

So it can mean a range of things. I consider myself to have no belief w/respect to God. If I encounter compelling evidence that one exists, I will change my view, just as I do for anything else.

No. The "broad" definition may be popular but it is wrong. Slithery Dee's examples are also wrong.

A (without) theo (god) --> without god. Agnostic already covers all of Dee's middle examples. Simpler is better and you have to have absolutes to measure things.

I also have no belief as it relates to god, but I also have a dictionary.

The most inclusive definitions are always the worst.

My reason for taking this stance may sway you though. I feel that there is simply a lot of confusion for people when arguments of this nature come up (every day), and many people can not even grasp the difference between a belief and an entire religion, and even more can not grasp the difference between religion and a specific religion, such as Christianity. This type of confusion is certainly aided in part by broad (popular) definitions, and the results are people arguing about nothing.

We already have concrete definitions for the only three words we need in these debates, atheist, agnostic, theist, so it would be better if those identifying themselves as atheists simply used the correct definition (or subject themselves to ridicule).

If you think I am wrong, go argue with some IDer about scientific "theory".

 

[SphinxnihpS]

That was one of the dumbest things I have ever read here.. and I've been here a while.

The belief in a fantastical supercreature(s) without a shred of evidence is foolish...

You can not disprove something that doesn't exist... and therefore someone who chooses not to believe in fantasy without a shred of evidence is the stupid one? AHAHAHAHAHA.

Making what you wrote dumber? I am not the one misunderstanding anybody here.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

I just love it when I attack so-called atheists' positions, only to be presumed a theist, even though I carefully word everything so that that conclusion can not be reached without some fallacy of logic.

 

[shadow9d9]

The idea behind a "god"parent is creepy anyway. Consider yourself spared.

 

[Aikouka]

The whole Godfather/Godmother thing is a Catholic-ism, I believe. You're supposed to keep an eye on the youngster's spiritual development, and be available to step in if a parent is removed from the scene for some reason.

I thought the whole point of it was to give me the right to make terrible Marlon Brando impressions!?

 

[KeithTalent]

I thought the whole point of it was to give me the right to make terrible Marlon Brando impressions!?

This was my understanding of it as well.

KT

 

[arkcom]

Just found out today that I can't become a Rabbi because I'm not Jewish. So messed up.

 

[IronWing]

Just found out today that I can't become a Rabbi because I'm not Jewish. So messed up.

You should sue them. :thumbsup:



Oh, yeah, guess you're screwed.

 

[tHa ShIzNiT]

You should sue them. :thumbsup:



Oh, yeah, guess you're screwed.

pretty sure I see what you did there...

 

[Blackjack200]

No. The "broad" definition may be popular but it is wrong. Slithery Dee's examples are also wrong.

A (without) theo (god) --> without god. Agnostic already covers all of Dee's middle examples. Simpler is better and you have to have absolutes to measure things.

I also have no belief as it relates to god, but I also have a dictionary.

The most inclusive definitions are always the worst.

My reason for taking this stance may sway you though. I feel that there is simply a lot of confusion for people when arguments of this nature come up (every day), and many people can not even grasp the difference between a belief and an entire religion, and even more can not grasp the difference between religion and a specific religion, such as Christianity. This type of confusion is certainly aided in part by broad (popular) definitions, and the results are people arguing about nothing.

We already have concrete definitions for the only three words we need in these debates, atheist, agnostic, theist, so it would be better if those identifying themselves as atheists simply used the correct definition (or subject themselves to ridicule).

If you think I am wrong, go argue with some IDer about scientific "theory".

Actually the term is A-theist, not Atheo

A - without (or negation)
Theist - One who believes in god

So it literally means one who has no belief in god.

 

[sourceninja]

No. The "broad" definition may be popular but it is wrong. Slithery Dee's examples are also wrong.

A (without) theo (god) --> without god. Agnostic already covers all of Dee's middle examples. Simpler is better and you have to have absolutes to measure things.

I also have no belief as it relates to god, but I also have a dictionary.

The most inclusive definitions are always the worst.

My reason for taking this stance may sway you though. I feel that there is simply a lot of confusion for people when arguments of this nature come up (every day), and many people can not even grasp the difference between a belief and an entire religion, and even more can not grasp the difference between religion and a specific religion, such as Christianity. This type of confusion is certainly aided in part by broad (popular) definitions, and the results are people arguing about nothing.

We already have concrete definitions for the only three words we need in these debates, atheist, agnostic, theist, so it would be better if those identifying themselves as atheists simply used the correct definition (or subject themselves to ridicule).

If you think I am wrong, go argue with some IDer about scientific "theory".

Great then define me.

I do not believe in any gods. I do not even consider them a possibility any more than I do santa claus.

However, if I was presented with testable, scientific evidence I would worship that god in any means it asks to gain it's favor.

Similarly, I don't believe in any leprechauns. I do not even consider them a possibility any more than I do santa claus.

However, if I was presented with testable, scientific evidence I would find that damn pot of gold and make that leprechaun grant me wishes.

I'm not leprechaun agnostic, I just don't fucking believe in leprechauns! It's silly that their is even a word for someone who doesn't believe fairy tales are real.

 

[Ns1]

Great then define me.

I do not believe in any gods. I do not even consider them a possibility any more than I do santa claus.

However, if I was presented with testable, scientific evidence I would worship that god in any means it asks to gain it's favor.

Similarly, I don't believe in any leprechauns. I do not even consider them a possibility any more than I do santa claus.

However, if I was presented with testable, scientific evidence I would find that damn pot of gold and make that leprechaun grant me wishes.

I'm not leprechaun agnostic, I just don't fucking believe in leprechauns! It's silly that their is even a word for someone who doesn't believe fairy tales are real.

so much this.

 

[Iron Woode]

why are people still posting in this thread?

it's over. He's not a Christian. He's not going to be a Godfather.

A Godfather has nothing to do with child guardianship.

Atheists don't believe in religion. Atheism is not a belief.

everyone should go back to their lives now.

 

[IronWing]

everyone should go back to their lives now.

Maybe we don't want to go back to our lives. You didn't think about that did you? You didn't think about us at all. Some of us might not have lives to go back to. Your words were very hurtful.