Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Is it cold in here?]

There was Dave, but I don't think they ever met.

[Delirium]

I don't think it's very likely Dave had anything more than a vague sense of a belief in God, certainly not to the extent that he would see it as necessary to attempt to convert a happy infidel like Penny. He probably went to a Unitarian Universalist church (one was depicted in the comic at one point.) As for Wil, he probably just sees God as a romantic notion, something to lament to in times of anguish. I can understand why Jeph doesn't depict any overtly seriously religious characters, such a thing would crack the fanbase like the Hammer of Aule.

[MrMonk]

IIRC, Jeph is an atheist.  He might not be comfortable creating a religious character if he thinks that he doesn't understand religious people.

[Is it cold in here?]

I'm too lazy to search for it, but I seem to remember someone asking about the characters's religion and Jeph saying it was a can of worms he preferred not to open.

Faye was almost certainly joking when she claimed to be a lacertatheist.

[Delirium]

Jeph is an atheist now. He was raised catholic.

Also, I googled lacertatheist, and the only other page to turn it up was a german gothic discussion board.

[benji]

Jeph tells us the religious upbringing of Dora, Faye, and Marten in the notes for 645. He also says that you can choose their current religion.

I don't think it's very likely Dave had anything more than a vague sense of a belief in God, certainly not to the extent that he would see it as necessary to attempt to convert a happy infidel like Penny. He probably went to a Unitarian Universalist church (one was depicted in the comic at one point.) As for Wil, he probably just sees God as a romantic notion, something to lament to in times of anguish. I can understand why Jeph doesn't depict any overtly seriously religious characters, such a thing would crack the fanbase like the Hammer of Aule.

I don't think concern for "cracking the fan base" is why we haven't seen any religious characters. I just don't think religion is part of the story Jeph is trying to tell.

[Delirium]

Man, what is up with your avatars?

If you don't know who my avatar is, you have no taste in television.

Or, if you're referring to how often I change them, that's just what I do.

[Surgoshan]

I don't think concern for "cracking the fan base" is why we haven't seen any religious characters. I just don't think religion is part of the story Jeph is trying to tell.

If I had to guess, religion just isn't important to Jeph, so it's not going to be a big part of anything he does, whether it's everyday life or his job.

[Is it cold in here?]

lacertatheist: lacerta (lizard) + theos (god). By analogy with pantheist etc.

[SleeperCylon]

As an atheist myself it kinda bothers me, especially since the whole "fundamentalist atheist" thing is a big farce. Atheism is about skepticism, not absolutism.

I'm an atheist myself.

I've met a lot of atheists who think everybody who isn't an atheist is stupid and ignorant.  That's really no different from a Christian thinking anybody who isn't Christian is evil.  It's elitism, pure and simple.  For you atheism may be just about skepticism, but if it is, you should also be skeptical of your skepticism.  Because the fact is, "The universe was created spontaneously" is just as big a leap of faith as "The universe was created by a divine being".  I think there is no God, but I don't pretend that I know everything, and since I don't know everything, how can I really call people who think there's a bearded guy in the clouds controlling our fates idiots?

What pisses me off is that all the atheist posterboys are smug little dipshits like Richard Dawkins. 

[KeepACoolin]

As an atheist myself it kinda bothers me, especially since the whole "fundamentalist atheist" thing is a big farce. Atheism is about skepticism, not absolutism.

I'm an atheist myself.

I've met a lot of atheists who think everybody who isn't an atheist is stupid and ignorant.  That's really no different from a Christian thinking anybody who isn't Christian is evil.  It's elitism, pure and simple.  For you atheism may be just about skepticism, but if it is, you should also be skeptical of your skepticism.  Because the fact is, "The universe was created spontaneously" is just as big a leap of faith as "The universe was created by a divine being".  I think there is no God, but I don't pretend that I know everything, and since I don't know everything, how can I really call people who think there's a bearded guy in the clouds controlling our fates idiots?

What pisses me off is that all the atheist posterboys are smug little dipshits like Richard Dawkins. 

Given that I am (probably) one of the few conservative Christians, if not the only one, likely to ever be on this message board...

1.  The idea is not that anyone who is not Christian is evil.  In fact, as a Calvinist, I believe that all people are on equal moral footing (that is, equally flawed) and that my faith in God has nothing to do with myself.

2.  I absolutely agree about the elitism, though- on both sides.  Too many Christians are incredibly self-righteous (me included), which is wrong in and of itself given how the gospels speak of Pharisees, and I know plenty of people who, despite being worse students and probably less intelligent in general than me, acted like I was a complete moron for believing in an orthodox version of Christianity.

3.  The "bearded guy in the clouds" thing is a caricature.  That's the rough equivalent of someone saying that evolution means people descending from monkeys.  The anthropomorphic image of God comes primarily from our art (i.e., Creazione di Adamo) and secondarily through metaphoric passages from scripture, as in God's self-references that describe Him as having a back or eyes/ears/etc.

[Pypoli]

Why's Jeph raggin' so hard on crazy atheist Penelope? As an atheist myself it kinda bothers me, especially since the whole "fundamentalist atheist" thing is a big farce. Atheism is about skepticism, not absolutism. I understand that they're just characters and dialogue, but it all comes from somewhere, and I don't like the way some of her views are being treated in the comic.

I know I shouldn't complain and just be happy that Jeph makes such a great comic, but I can't help but be bothered by the latest few Penelope strips. I'm not making a big deal about it though, I just want to see what a few other people think. Are you bothered by it? Or does it seems like a fair portrayal of atheists that you met? Or am I just a crazy person who gets offended by nothing?

Discuss.

I think you're wrong when you say that atheism isn't absolutist.
Atheists think there is no god. As such, atheists consider religious people to be slightly gullible, because why would you believe in something when you have absolutely no proof of it actually being true. At least that's how I, as an atheist, feel. I don't make that particular view known because it's bound to be badly received.

If you're just sceptic, uncertain of the existence of a supreme being, and mostly unwilling to follow any particular religion, you'd qualify more as an agnostic.

That being said, I don't feel the least bit offended by the portrayal of some of Penelope's ideas. Though that might be because I have no clue what you're refering to.

[Surgoshan]

Gullible?  That has negative connotations I, a fellow atheist, wouldn't impute to the faithful.  I call them credulous.

[Pypoli]

Gullible?  That has negative connotations I, a fellow atheist, wouldn't impute to the faithful.  I call them credulous.

I watered it down with "slightly" for that very reason. I just couldn't come up with a word that didn't have a negative connotation, and to be frank, why would I. Being credulous, gullible, or any synonym you can think of is derogative.
I realize some people will take it to mean "I disagree with you hence i think you're stupid," but hey. It holds partial truth.

[Is it cold in here?]

Being offended by the portrayal of Pennelope probably means you're taking it as being a Message. If a character is annoying or flawed, that only means Jeph did that character that way for dramatic reasons, not that he's pushing an agenda.

Jeph actually said once that if you absolutely have to read a Message into the strip, you should tell yourself that it's that people should be nice to each other.

Pennelope is dogmatic because she's Pennelope, and she probably got that way from her upbringing, a point Dora called her on.

[Delirium]

In what way is Penelope a negative portrayal of atheists?

[JohnWWells]

Penelope is a potentially negative portrait of atheists because:

* She gives an unreasoned, emotionally-loaded response to an honest question, and acts as a classic Strawman.

* Her atheism is implied to be at least partially a result of a rebellious immaturity.

* Sympathetic portrayals of open atheists are rare in pop culture, outside of science fiction, and one more "crazy atheist" might seem like fuel for the fire.

I'm not offended as an atheist because:

* Jeph is an atheist; while it's possible that he's pandering to some kind of perceived theist audience, it's more likely that he's poking fun at people who treat atheism as a cause in itself, rather than a belief about the universe.

* It's impossible to say that this is an anti-atheist trend unless another unsympathetic atheist pops up.

* Just about everybody in the strip has some kind of hang-up, regardless of their belief system.

* Straw Atheists DO exist, though they're much more common on-line and in heavily religious environments than on the street.

* Dora did push her buttons a little.

I'd actually be more offended if Jeph presented a Straw Christian, because I'd think he was pandering.

In any case, I'm leery of people who form their entire perception of atheism based on Dawkins, who made a few steps in the direction of a good argument and then retreated into a simpler arrogance. Bertrand Russell was a better, sharper voice of atheism than him, by far:

The question of how to define Rationalism is not altogether an easy one. I do not think that you could define it by rejection of this or that Christian dogma. It would be perfectly possible to be a complete and absolute Rationalist in the true sense of the term and yet accept this or that dogma. The question is how to arrive at your opinions and not what your opinions are. The thing in which we believe is the supremacy of reason. If reason should lead you to orthodox conclusions, well and good; you are still a Rationalist. To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.

I don't like the way Russell used the term "Rationalism," which had a more specific meaning than "believer in Reason," and I'd weaken his point by saying that it's also possible to be reasonable without relying exclusively on scientifically admissible evidence, but I think his general point stands. I'd like to think that I have more in common as a debater with tragic_pizza, who cited specific citations to deal with relatively weak arguments, than with most of the arguers on the thread.

Also notice that atheism comes with the natural conclusion that religious people are at worst misguided and foolish.

I'm not sure what the phrase "at worst" means in this context! Either it makes the claim vacuous, because of course any group of people can 'at worst' be misguided and foolish, or it's just there to soften the statement "atheism comes with the natural conclusion that religious people are misguided and foolish."

You may find that conclusion natural; I certainly don't.

[KeepACoolin]

I think that absolute dependence on scientifically admissible evidence is a mistake regarding the question of God: as someone I know says, "Measure me out a pound of justice, then we'll talk about scientifically proving God."  I find it unlikely you could prove the existence of any person in an abstract way via entirely scientific evidence, and God (assuming He exists) is more than personal.

[Surgoshan]

If I were to punch you, would you agree that I exist? 

Or would I have to punch you again?

[KeepACoolin]

Again, "in the abstract."  As in, me sitting in this room, proving that you (exactly you) exist.

[Surgoshan]

That's just it; you can get as existential as you want, but the only evidence we will ever have will be scientific.

[SJCrew]

As an atheist myself it kinda bothers me, especially since the whole "fundamentalist atheist" thing is a big farce. Atheism is about skepticism, not absolutism.

I'm an atheist myself.

I've met a lot of atheists who think everybody who isn't an atheist is stupid and ignorant.  That's really no different from a Christian thinking anybody who isn't Christian is evil.  It's elitism, pure and simple.  For you atheism may be just about skepticism, but if it is, you should also be skeptical of your skepticism.  Because the fact is, "The universe was created spontaneously" is just as big a leap of faith as "The universe was created by a divine being".  I think there is no God, but I don't pretend that I know everything, and since I don't know everything, how can I really call people who think there's a bearded guy in the clouds controlling our fates idiots?

What pisses me off is that all the atheist posterboys are smug little dipshits like Richard Dawkins. 

Given that I am (probably) one of the few conservative Christians, if not the only one, likely to ever be on this message board...

Yo.

Quite frankly, I find it easier to practice my religion when I abstain from full-length discussion with a dissenting viewpoint. Unstoppable force to an immovable object doesn't usually result in a win on either side.

[KeepACoolin]

That's just it; you can get as existential as you want, but the only evidence we will ever have will be scientific.

Even if all other phenomena could be explained perfectly via scientific methods, the final brute fact will remain that this universe exists.  It is equally a leap of faith to believe in self-existent or spontaneously generated matter as to believe in a self-existent God.  Ultimately, the only truly valuable evidence is either historical or personal. 

I should mention that I find the question of evolution wholly irrelevant to the existence of God- I don't believe that God would have some qualms about causing life to evolve, and I still believe that abiogenesis is impossible in a purely atheistic universe.

[Surgoshan]

The lack of explanation for a phenomenon is in no way proof of the existence of god.  It just means that the explanation hasn't yet been found.

[JD]

Quite frankly, I find it easier to practice my religion when I abstain from full-length discussion with a dissenting viewpoint. Unstoppable force to an immovable object doesn't usually result in a win on either side.

This guy is winning this thread.

[KeepACoolin]

The lack of explanation for a phenomenon is in no way proof of the existence of god.  It just means that the explanation hasn't yet been found.

I meant to suggest that the question would remain valid: "Is there a God?" in such a situation.  And I don't believe there is any possible scenario that could conclusively determine the origins of the universe- hence, on a purely logical basis, the question is eternal and unsolvable.  Therefore, I believe that the question is best determined on a historical and personal basis.  That is all I am saying.

[KeepACoolin]

Quite frankly, I find it easier to practice my religion when I abstain from full-length discussion with a dissenting viewpoint. Unstoppable force to an immovable object doesn't usually result in a win on either side.

This guy is winning this thread.

On the contrary: "Faith is like a muscle- the less you use it, the weaker it gets."  There is value in discussion, if only because it forces you to think.  It can be considered logic practice.

[pwhodges]

I find it easier to practice my religion when I abstain from full-length discussion with a dissenting viewpoint. Unstoppable force to an immovable object doesn't usually result in a win on either side.

But when they disagree on a sufficiently clearly defined issue, one (or both!) must be wrong.  Is it not one of the duties of a practicing Christian to try to persuade others of the rightness of thir position?

Gullible?  That has negative connotations I, a fellow atheist, wouldn't impute to the faithful.  I call them credulous.

Another judgemental word, I think; I would prefer to say that it appears to me that they are wrong.

[SJCrew]

I find it easier to practice my religion when I abstain from full-length discussion with a dissenting viewpoint. Unstoppable force to an immovable object doesn't usually result in a win on either side.

But when they disagree on a sufficiently clearly defined issue, one (or both!) must be wrong.  Is it not one of the duties of a practicing Christian to try to persuade others of the rightness of thir position?

No, it's to witness your faith to those willing to listen, not to actively put it in question and engage in pointless arguments. It's not about who's right and who's wrong, but what you believe and why. If you have a reason, you have a right, and no one deserves to have it taken.

[Is it cold in here?]

Pennelope gave as a reason for her lack of faith that there was, in her view, "no evidence" for anything supernatural. So she seems to come from the empiricist line of thought.

[Pypoli]

That's just it; you can get as existential as you want, but the only evidence we will ever have will be scientific.

Even if all other phenomena could be explained perfectly via scientific methods, the final brute fact will remain that this universe exists.  It is equally a leap of faith to believe in self-existent or spontaneously generated matter as to believe in a self-existent God.  Ultimately, the only truly valuable evidence is either historical or personal. 

My view of the universe is as an eternally existing cycle. There is no starting point, there is no ending point. The universe explodes and expands till, according to the law of entropy, everything slows down to a stand still. At this point I make my own leap of faith. I believe, that we underestimate the force of gravity, and that an incredibly large black hole, like the one at the center of our galaxy will slowly pull back everything in the universe to itself, slowly agglomerating into a new potential big bang, until it has once again gathered to much matter in one place and explodes again.

Now at this point in time, science disproves my theory. It is however, what i choose to believe because it is the only thing that makes sense to me. By choosing not to believe in a god, i have also chosen not to believe in spontaneous creation of matter, and therefore a never ending cycle is the only thing that makes sense to me. There can be no starting point, and there can be no ending. There can only be periods of time identifiable by significant events (explosion, stop, agglomeration).

I realize it is being somewhat hypocritical, as I choose to not believe in what science thinks to be fact at this point, when as an atheist, science should be my referal. But i choose not to blindly beleive in anything, religion, or science. Sadly, as an atheist, I also believe i will never get to know wether or not I am right.

[Delirium]

So everything that has happened, has happened before, and will happen again?

Oh man. That sucks.

[Pypoli]

So everything that has happened, has happened before, and will happen again?

Oh man. That sucks.

Oh no. Just because the major events of the universe like the explosion and agglomeration happen repeatedly doesn't mean that everything else is on repeat. The minute details are allways different.

[Delirium]

given enough cycles of bangs and crunches, the laws of probability dictate events will repeat themselves.

[Surgoshan]

Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.

[KeepACoolin]

I can't remember who said it, but I prefer the statement "History may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" to the original- which I believe was by George Santayana (?).

[Pypoli]

given enough cycles of bangs and crunches, the laws of probability dictate events will repeat themselves.

Technically correct.
But considering the amount of data being treated, the chance of it happening is paramount to that of getting hit by lightning in the middle of new york city on a sunny day.
Possible, but even if once every billionth cycle we get a repeat performance, i think i can forgive the universe. Nobody's lifespan is long enough to really care.

[Border Reiver]

So everything that has happened, has happened before, and will happen again?

Oh man. That sucks.

Sounds like the underlying religious philosophy in Battlestar Galactica...

[jonarus_drakus]

Am i the only person here who is the trulely non-opinioned Athiest?

You see, i dont think its even a matter of wether 'God' exists or not. To me it doesn't matter either way. 'God' and 'Religion' (and to a lesser extent, some fields of science) are just anwers to a question i dont see the point in even asking to begin with.

So, people are welcome to thier opinions, the only time have an issue is when they try to force thier opinions/beliefs upon me (simply talking about thier beliefs is not an issue unless i ask them to stop and they dont).

So yeaj, go to church and pray or go howl at the moon if you lean that way, I'll be pointing at you and laughing either way. 

[nurgles_herald]

@Jonarus-

EXACTLY!  I'm not an agnostic.  It's not that I can't make up my mind.  I just don't care.  If there is a god, or gods, or animistic spirits, or what have you, they don't have any effect on this world that I can see.  It's not that I'm an atheist because I go with that whole "logical" thing- it's just that I can't be bothered to care about something that has left no measurable impression upon my life.  Equally, I don't devote minutes or even seconds worrying about mutant cannibal pirate zombie ninjas from the future sent here to enslave us to Galactus before he eats our world.  Though now that I've painted that picture, I am suddenly trembling in fear.  Or anticipation.  I'm not really sure.

[KeepACoolin]

You know that- theoretically; I will not here press any claims- that's the equivalent of saying something like "I can't be bothered to be immunized against polio/bubonic plague/hepatitis/meningitis/various other potentially deadly diseases, they haven't made any impression on my life!"

My point being here that- again, theoretically- you could be dealing with the fate of your being for eternity.

Mind you, I will not demand or even (at this point) suggest that you adopt that view.  I just remind you that the potential stakes are quite high.

[nurgles_herald]

Ah, Pascal's Wager.  Yeah.  Fine.  Whatever.  If all you need to do to get into heaven is accept Jesus Christ as your savior, I'd rather not go there.

[jonarus_drakus]

You know that- theoretically; I will not here press any claims- that's the equivalent of saying something like "I can't be bothered to be immunized against polio/bubonic plague/hepatitis/meningitis/various other potentially deadly diseases, they haven't made any impression on my life!"

My point being here that- again, theoretically- you could be dealing with the fate of your being for eternity.

Mind you, I will not demand or even (at this point) suggest that you adopt that view.  I just remind you that the potential stakes are quite high.

I've actually had this very argument leveled at me before, so i'll give the same response:

1) I DONT get imunisations - I hate needles!

2) I Believe that as long as i stick to MY OWN principles then i can do no wrong. If there is a god, how can he punish me for doing so. If the isn't then my actions ould have ensured i lived the longest most forfilling life posible. Either way I WIN!



I just remember something else, just a little joke:
> There is only one thing to worry about: If you are well or if you are sick. If you are well you have nothing to worry about.
> If you are sick, there is only one thing to worry about: If you will get better or if you will die. If you get better you have nothing to worry about.
> If you die, there is only one thing to worry about: If you will go to 'heaven' or if you will go to 'hell'. If you go to 'heaven' you have nothing to worry about.
> If you go to Hell, you'll be too bussy shacking hands with old friends to worry...

[chronoplasm]

1) I DONT get imunisations - I hate needles!

You do realize, of course, that by refusing immunizations, you aren't just putting yourself at risk; you are putting every person you come into contact with at a greater risk for infection.
Thanks a lot.

[Delirium]

So everything that has happened, has happened before, and will happen again?

Oh man. That sucks.

Sounds like the underlying religious philosophy in Battlestar Galactica...

Yes (love that show, incidentally), but that philosophy comes from far older sources. Nietzche, for example. And some greek philosopher whose name escapes me at the moment.

Also, I really, really wish people would stop dredging up Pascal's Wager. It was never conceived as a serious argument in favour of religion. Anyways, you have to take into consideration that at least one other religion, Islam, also threatens an eternal hell. Hell, even the Talmud states that Christians go to hell forever, boiling in feces, no less. Then you have all different interpretations of the Bible and Qu'ran, and whatever other wierdo religions believe in Hell, even private fucking revelations, and you have to adhere to every one of them to truly take the Wager. Except you can't, because some of them would get jealous and throw you into hell anyways.

[jonarus_drakus]

1) I DONT get imunisations - I hate needles!

You do realize, of course, that by refusing immunizations, you aren't just putting yourself at risk; you are putting every person you come into contact with at a greater risk for infection.
Thanks a lot.

This thing sucks at sarcasm...

Not that its a biggy to me. To be a threat to the health of others i'd have to get sick myself, and i dont get sick. I mean, once in every 2-3 years i get a bad head cold or something, max...
Unless of course you include alcohol poisoning under the 'sick' heading...

[Surgoshan]

Mind you, I will not demand or even (at this point) suggest that you adopt that view.  I just remind you that the potential stakes are quite high.

Nonsense.  Before you can remind me about stakes, you have to convince me that there's even a game.  I've yet to see any evidence of such.

[Pypoli]

You know that- theoretically; I will not here press any claims- that's the equivalent of saying something like "I can't be bothered to be immunized against polio/bubonic plague/hepatitis/meningitis/various other potentially deadly diseases, they haven't made any impression on my life!"

My point being here that- again, theoretically- you could be dealing with the fate of your being for eternity.

Mind you, I will not demand or even (at this point) suggest that you adopt that view.  I just remind you that the potential stakes are quite high.

I disagree with that as well. I'm preety sure that with the current state I've lived my life, even being a proclaimed atheist, and not having attended mass once in my life, if there was a god, i wouldn't be in danger of being eternally damned.
Why? Because in some ways, I do follow some of the basic rules of religion. Not because I'm afraid of eternal damnation if i don't, but because it's the right thing to do.
Following a dogma because you're afraid of the repercussions isn't really what i call enligthenment. Following your ideas, the fact that you should, whenever possible, avoid hurting the people around you, and help those that you can, purely because it is what YOU believe is right; THAT is what life should be about.

It also has the advantage of not causing fanatism and religious wars. Believe in god if you will, but following every single one of the dogmas written down in the Coran, the Bible, the Torah or whichever religious book you're following is listening to the voices of men that have died 1500 to 3000 years ago, when times were very different.

You should keep the general ideas, but do you really need the protocol?

Bottom line is, as long as i live a good life, I don't believe a potential god would condemn me to hell over a technicality. And if he does, he doesn't deserve any of us to believe in him.

[KeepACoolin]

Also, I really, really wish people would stop dredging up Pascal's Wager. It was never conceived as a serious argument in favour of religion. Anyways, you have to take into consideration that at least one other religion, Islam, also threatens an eternal hell. Hell, even the Talmud states that Christians go to hell forever, boiling in feces, no less. Then you have all different interpretations of the Bible and Qu'ran, and whatever other wierdo religions believe in Hell, even private fucking revelations, and you have to adhere to every one of them to truly take the Wager. Except you can't, because some of them would get jealous and throw you into hell anyways.

I have never advanced Pascal's Wager as a specifically Christian argument, nor should it be considered as such: it is a generically theistic argument.  And I was more interested in pointing out the potential mistake in being completely uninterested in the sort of questions that atheism and theism each bring up.  I think confronting the questions of God, eternity, etc. is a necessary step in developing a coherent worldview.  I think it is essential as a part of determining what to do with your life, even if you do ultimately reject the idea of God.

[jonarus_drakus]

Also, I really, really wish people would stop dredging up Pascal's Wager. It was never conceived as a serious argument in favour of religion. Anyways, you have to take into consideration that at least one other religion, Islam, also threatens an eternal hell. Hell, even the Talmud states that Christians go to hell forever, boiling in feces, no less. Then you have all different interpretations of the Bible and Qu'ran, and whatever other wierdo religions believe in Hell, even private fucking revelations, and you have to adhere to every one of them to truly take the Wager. Except you can't, because some of them would get jealous and throw you into hell anyways.

I have never advanced Pascal's Wager as a specifically Christian argument, nor should it be considered as such: it is a generically theistic argument.  And I was more interested in pointing out the potential mistake in being completely uninterested in the sort of questions that atheism and theism each bring up.  I think confronting the questions of God, eternity, etc. is a necessary step in developing a coherent worldview.  I think it is essential as a part of determining what to do with your life, even if you do ultimately reject the idea of God.

I reject the suggestion that I HAVE TO consider the whole god/no god question, what difference is it going to make in terms of my view of the world? None so far as i can tell. The world is the world, it will always be what it is wether god exists or doesnt or even if i decided that its not important at all - the world will not change just because of my personal beliefs.

Now, keep in mind, i am an (admitadly amature) writer, so the suggestion that THINKING the world is different DOES make it different is not lost on me. The problem with this idea is that the only thing that has changed is our own perception of reality. The imutable laws that goven the existence of reality dont get re-writen, we just percive them differently. Take two people, one who can see normaly, and another who is colour blind. Put a coloured object infront of them and they will give differing answers, but just because the colour blind person percieves a different colour due to thier condition the actual object does not change its colour IN REALITY!

>GASP< pant pant pant... oh sweet air! To take a breath again!