Tila Tequila finds God

image

I actually had something else on the slate for today, but I stumbled across this and since I am [supposedly] the news man I thought it was better. She will always be Tila Nguyen to me – and who doesn’t like this girl?! Pics and more ranting after the jump.The augmented angel was a Time’s ‘person of the year’ a couple years back for her representation as a poster child in the world of social networking and blogging. She has just completed her MTV reality show “A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila” which is due out soon and where she is wooed by male and female contestants for her affection.

I always have to take a deep breath at moments like these when my imagine is running wild.

The full story from the obviouly happy report from the fundame, er, religious news source is here.

So here are a couple more pics:

image

image

(Visited 31 times, 1 visits today)

0 thoughts on “Tila Tequila finds God”

  1. Yeah. I just did a list on my website to be sold with my ebook of the 50 most beautiful Asian women, and Tila Nguyen, despite her possible personality flaws (arguably), is right up there.

    I remember her when she was Tila Nguyen before playboy or anything – when she just worked import car shows and had some modeling pictures. You could tell she was going to be something special – though I will say I’m shocked she became as popular as she did. Sometimes it feels like people stole my personal secret. “I knew her before she was famous” doesn’t really work with Asian models.

  2. Ha! It seems both ironic and appropriate that Sachiko’s new blog will be promoting atheism (we already have a couple of atheist links up, with plenty more pro-atheism stuff to come) – I guess you could say that Sachiko is kind of the anti-Tila Tequila in many ways. It doesn’t surprise me that Tila’s found God – people who are obviously lost often do, and she’s a shining example of the kind of hypocrisy that only Christians seem capable of. 🙂

  3. found God? didnt even know he was lost 🙂 i never really like her. cutesy but not traditionally pretty for an asian girl…plus she is a little weird and basically turned her back on her culture and parents….bad little girl, who needs a good spanking on that delicious booty 🙂

  4. oh yea..thanks for the boobs Bill…it has been slow here lately 🙂 i will email ya 🙂

  5. Dr. Lee – Isn’t atheism in itself a bit of a religion? ^^ I find atheists can be as fervent in their belief that those who believe in a “higher power” are loopy. At least with agnosticism it allows for the concession that if there’s a God or if there isn’t, it’s unknowable…

    Anyway, religion is such a divisive topic and I definitely wouldn’t want to take sides. That being said, anyone who fervently believes that their belief system is #1 needs a reality check.

    Frankly, I think this world would be a better place if people would stop worrying about what other people want to believe.

    *cough*

    I really need to get off my soapbox! haha…

    As per Tila, while I think she has an absolutely smoking body (how tall is she anyway?), there’s something about her that I don’t like. I think perhaps it’s that sort of cocky, smug look she has in many of her photos. Or is it just me (it probably is)?

  6. I really hate how religious types try to bring atheists down to their level by saying we’re the same as they are. Atheism is, by definition, the absence of belief in a deity or religion. It is therefore, by definition, not a religion, or even a belief system as such – it is the absence of belief. The only “belief” we have, if you can call it that, is that we shouldn’t believe in anything for which there isn’t any concrete evidence.

  7. Oh, and agnosticism is a form of atheism, in as much as they don’t believe in a deity or anything for which there isn’t any concrete evidence either. Agnosticism is more a philosphical perspective than anything else – one which is shared by all atheists and scientists. It is basically a restatement of the scientific postition: anything is theoretically possible in the light of new evidence, but one should not accept anything for which there currently isn’t any good evidence. ‘Weak’ atheists call themsleves agnostics; ‘strong’ atheists call themselves just that.

  8. Found God? Since when? I haven’t noticed. People who are lost, unloved, neglected, or unappreciated typically find God, say that they’ve found him, then go about doing the same things that they’ve been doing. And it is convenient that she’s found God but not religion so that she doesn’t have to go to church or make any changes to her lifestyle.

    Religion isn’t all that bad. People need to get their morality from somewhere if their parents aren’t going to teach it. The problem is that it’s in the hands of the few and use it to suit their needs. Plus there is a ton of hypocrisy in religion which is why I am no longer religious.

    And stories such as this one are written to appeal to the young people who are not coming into religion. I am happy for Tila, but God wouldn’t like her acting like a slut on tv, so she is a bad, bad girl in need of some spanking. 😉

  9. On religion, the thing is that people are going to do what they want no matter what and despite the teachings of their religion. And people are going to see what divides us instead of looking at our common humanity, whether it’s our race, religion, social class, etc.

    Ideally it would be nice if people weren’t so worried about the beliefs of others, but people don’t work that way. It would be nice to live in a world where there is peace, but things aren’t that simple. As long as there is greed, hate, prejudice, racism, xenophobia, extremism, religious fanatics, bad politicians and corrupt institutions, there will never be peace.

    Maybe the world would be a better place if we were all buddhists but I highly doubt that.

  10. Actually, I don’t have a problem with true Buddhism – indeed, it was originally a form of atheism as well, as the Buddha himself did not believe in deities. But most modern practitioners do believe in God(s) unfortunately. The good thing about them though is that they are still very peaceful for the most part – certainly a lot more so than the Abrahamic religions!

  11. All this religious talk is hurting my brain. Plus there’s nothing I can do about the world’s problems since they are so massive and complicated, so I am going back to talking porn.

  12. right Candyman

    we are not here to talk about religion (its a another problem)

    we are here to discuss about beautiful (or not) asian sirens and all about asian ladies

    anyway Tila is a very nice woman (body & face)

    but its behaviuor is not appreciate (i dont live in USA so i just read internet for that)

  13. I agree about the oddness of TTs face, despite her being a very healthy specimen. I think it’s a combination of her eye size & position, and her angular jawline. In some shots she looks to me like an evil elf, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find pointed ears under that hair.

    As for atheism being a religion or not, this seems to me purely definitional – what you regard a “religion” to be. Yawn. Ho hum.

  14. Dr. Lee, if you don’t stop trying to force your beliefs down my throat, I’m going to stop coming here!

  15. Curtis G: Aw, come on, dude! When Doc posts stuff like that he doesn’t do so as an AS moderator, but simply as a site member. He’s launching an opinion, not forcing it on us. And after all the original post was about the evil elf’s religious conversion, not just her bod. It’s still summer here in the northern hemisphere. Let’s lighten up!

  16. How come no one has pointed out the age of the article? I’m not cirtisizing in anyway I just thought to myself “A shot of love due out soon, what a third season or something” heh.

    I couldn’t make it through the entire article, its like trying to get a story with a positive democratic view from Fox, its possible that it might happen but you’ll die in agony first.

  17. she does look like an evil elf:)) but one with nice boobs and butt and lips :)) so do we have an elf fetish? or gnome:)

  18. Nice butt/lips/boobs…all store-bought!
    And the second she opens her mouth, all vulgarity & ignorance.
    Not my taste at all.

  19. Curtis G: as urgal says, I’m just expressing my opinion given the subject matter of this post – my opinion holds no more or less weight than anyone else’s, and as you know, I don’t nuke people’s comments just because I disagree with them.

    As for Tila’s apperance, “evil elf” is a pretty good description! She was pretty cute before all that facial surgery, but she always did look a little odd (in a cute way). But one the top 50 most beautiful Asian women? I don’t think so, especially now that she has all that surgery etc.

  20. Doc, I’m with you on most of the discussion here. You are simply stating your opinion, not shoving it down anyone’s throat.

    As for Tila, she was kind of cute, at one time, but belongs nowhere near any top x list now.

    I’m surprised that a woman as shallow in, well everything, as Tila, has provoked such interest. Oh, wait: Paris Hilton, Brittany Spears, Nicole Ritchie, Anna Nicole Smith…never mind, I’m not surprised at all.

  21. Hm… I’m fairly picky, but I have to disagree. I may not like all of the things she does, both to herself and in public, but I when I look at photos like this:

    I see some immense beauty. And her personality and behaviors have not ruined it for me.

  22. I’ll add that often times when I meet someone in public, my affection towards them has a lot to do with my attraction towards them. But when it comes to the Internet and television, the personality, past, and behaviors of these models really doesn’t bother me. I have a feeling if I knew Tila in person I’d probably be profoundly irritated and find her not at all appealing. But as long as she remains an online model and a figure on TV, I don’t care much.

  23. All I know is, I love her thighs in that bottom pic above. WoW…nice and tight. And flawless body too. I could give a ‘Ratts’ left buttock what her religion is either. Or lack thereof. Hindu…I’ll take it. Buddist…I’ll take it. Islamic…I’ll even take that one too. I’m real daring like that when it comes to tight little asian women with juicy glistening thighs.

  24. Are these old pics or were her tats PhotoShop’d out? I love the face and bod – especially now with a nice set of implants (although as usual I wish she’d gone one size bigger) – but can’t hack big tats. And the MTV show has proven she’s not a very attractive person on the inside.

  25. Doc, I have to completely disagree with your position.

    I would argue that atheism requires a “leap of faith” as much as any other religion. It requires an extreme position to take and frankly, having a conversation with an atheist and a devout Christian is often amusingly parallel. You can’t convince either to accept an alternative opinion.

    As per agnostics vs atheists, there is a key difference – agnostics are unwilling to take an extreme position related to anything metaphysical. Why? Because humans do not have the capacity to understand “the truth”.

    Anyway, I consider myself agnostic (as you may have guessed). I detest atheists as much as I dislike “religious” types. Wasting one’s time worrying about what someone believes or doesn’t believe is… well, a waste of time. And I certainly don’t need someone preaching for -or- against the existence of “God”.

    We live, we breathe, we die. What happens before or after? Who knows? Certainly no one on this particular planet.

    That said, it’s a polarizing subject. We may as well talk about abortion while we’re at it. ^_^

  26. Once again, if you really are an agnostic, then you are an atheist as well, because you don’t believe in God – as I said, that’s all an atheist is. It is not a “leap of faith”, it is a lack of faith, once again by definition. Judging from your comments, you aren’t really an agnostic – you simply don’t know whether God exists or not. A true agnostic assumes non-existence until existence is proven, but it seems you assume nothing. That means you aren’t an agnostic, atheist, theist or anything else. You simply don’t have any opinion about the existence of God.

  27. Doc, your definition of agnosticism is only way version of agnosticism. If I’m not mistaken, one of the most common definitions of agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God is inherently unknowable.

    Agnosticism is definitely a lack of faith, but is not the same as the most common definition of atheism, which is a clear/affirmative disbelief in God. This requires a certain amount of faith (but, not in God) that agnosticism does not embrace.

    Atheists know there is no God. Agnostics don’t think God, or the existence of God. is knowable.

  28. Actually, that isn’t true agnosticism – that’s “don’t knowism”! Once again, agnosticism isn’t purely related to religion; it is actually a logical, scientific attitude to have toward everything. I am both an atheist and an agnostic: I don’t believe in God because of the overwhelming lack of evidence for his existence, and the overwhelming mass of evidence against his exitence. But if something were to happen that overturns that (e.g. God appearing in front of me), then I would change my mind and accept his existence. That’s true agnosticism.

  29. BTW, I am aware that agnosticism has been co-opted to mean “I just don’t know” by many people today, but that isn’t what it’s supposed to mean. And by doing that, it certainly doesn’t give such people the right to say that atheism is a religion; indeed, it makes them unable say anything on this subject, as they are openly stating they know nothing about it. By accusing atheists of being just as religious as theists, they are adopting a religious position themselves: that the only “right” way is to say you know nothing!

  30. Sorry, Doc, that’s only one interpretation, and not the prevailing one, I might add.

    When you look at how Huxley (who coined the term “agnostic”), Hume and others have used it, you will see that Agnosticism always carries doubt. That is, man can not know certain things (and that all things which are known, have certain elements of doubt attacked).

    Atheism is the belief that God does NOT exist, in other words “there is no God”. A “true” agnostic would not take that position, as it is impossible to prove God does not exist as it is to prove God’s existance.

    Agnostics don’t believe in God…but, they don’t believe that God does not exist, simply that the knowledge of God is not available to us.

    There are a multitude of different sources and interpretations, but I think this is closest to what I would consider the prevailing view of what it means to be agnostic:

    http://www.skepdic.com/agnosticism.html

    Excerpt:

    “Agnosticism is the position of believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God is impossible. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism. Understood this way, agnosticism is skepticism regarding all things theological. The agnostic holds that human knowledge is limited to the natural world, that the mind is incapable of knowledge of the supernatural. Understood this way, an agnostic could also be a theist or an atheist. The former is called a fideist, one who believes in God purely on faith. The latter is sometimes accused by theists of having faith in the non-existence of God, but the accusation is absurd and the expression meaningless. The agnostic atheist simply finds no compelling reason to believe in God.”

  31. Doc, I’m not sure where you get the following:

    “I am aware that agnosticism has been co-opted to mean “I just don’t know” by many people today, but that isn’t what it’s supposed to mean.”

    It is supposed to mean whatever it comes to mean…such is the nature of language. But, that aside, it should at least mean what Huxley intended, which is that the nature of certain truths (basically, those not of this earth) are unknowable. It is not meant to mean: “if you can’t prove it, it doesn’t exist”. If anything, that is a bastardization of what “true” agnosticism means.

  32. And, if there is to be any doubt, here is a quote from Huxley:

    ” When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain “gnosis,”–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

    So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of “agnostic.” It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the “gnostic” of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took. ”

    Clearly, Huxley thought there was a difference between Atheism and Agnosticism.

  33. Yes, agnosticism does always carry doubt: I am not certain of the existence or non-existence of anything actually – all we can do in practice is go with the evidence. Once again, before it was co-opted to mean what you say above, it actually started with the logical assumption of non-existence until existence is proven. To say that we can’t know whether God exists or not is a leap of faith in itself – there is no logical reason to assume that we can’t determine the existence or otherwise of God, as evidence for it (or against it) should be everywhere.

  34. “it actually started with the logical assumption of non-existence until existence is proven.”

    I think the quote above, by the man who coined the term, suggests otherwise.

  35. Oh yes, I am definitely not saying that there isn’t any difference between atheism and agnosticism – just that true agnosticism is a form of atheism, as you do not believe in God, which is what atheism is supposed to mean (a=lack of; theism=belief in God). It is a statement of an attitude that many atheists have, including myself. I’m starting from a position of not believing in the existence or otherwise of God (agnosticsim), so I take the logical position of assuming non-existence until existence is proven (atheism). One leads to the other.

  36. BTW, very few people in Huxley’s time were brave enough to openly profess to atheism, or even admit it to themselves – Darwin himself was much the same. Clearly Huxley was trying to avoid saying he was an atheist, but as he didn’t believe in God, that’s exactly what he was. I’m sure that if he and Darwin were alive today, they wouldn’t be so wishy-washy on this subject.

  37. Actually, Doc, I recall that Huxley actually did believe in God (in some form), but could not explicate what that meant…but I may be confused about that. He explicitly was not an atheist (who believed that God did not exist), but couldn’t prove that God did. He came to believe that even if God did exist, there would be no way for Man to know and/or understand God. That’s a far cry from saying, “if you can’t prove it, it doesn’t exist”.

    That’s why there can be agnostics with faith (those who believe there may be a God even though there is no proof/evidence) and those without. I would argue that to deny God’s existence takes faith (but not in God) as well.

    The “true” agnostic (in my eyes) takes no position on the God matter.

  38. “very few people in Huxley’s time were brave enough to openly profess to atheism, or even admit it to themselves”

    True enough. Who knows what they would espouse today?

    Time for bed. Excellent conversation, Doc.

  39. Actually, in a sense you are right: because we didn’t have the extensive scientific knowledge that we do now at that time, both he and Darwin were unable to conceive of how the universe could have originated without some kind of “higher creative force” – it’s a belief we now call deism. But can you call that God? Once again, agnosticism isn’t really a religious belief system; it is simply the attitude of saying one doesn’t know for sure. This leads logically to atheism, but it can lead to deism if you really can’t face the idea of no God.

  40. I would argue that to deny God’s existence takes faith (but not in God) as well.

    I would argue that to say that we can’t know whether God exists or not is a far greater leap of faith – logically, evidence of his existence should be everywhere. It is telling that we do not take this attitude toward anything else: the evidence for God is about as compelling as the evidence for the tooth fairy, but does that mean we should say we can never know whether the tooth fairy exists or not?

  41. He’s launching an opinion, not forcing it on us.

    Doc, I’m with you on most of the discussion here. You are simply stating your opinion, not shoving it down anyone’s throat.

    I’m merely parroting the anti-religionists’ favorite phrase to use when anyone dares to mention religion.

    That said, is this really the place for this discussion?

  42. In general, no. But in this specific thread, I would say yes. However, it probably would be best if we all got off this “is atheism a relgion” side-track and focused more precisely on this issue as it pertains to Tila, and perhaps other Asian glamour models’ attitudes toward religion.

    Like Bigfoot though, I’ve certainly found it to be a stimulating discussion!

  43. Dr Lee, you are wrong on atheism.

    Atheism is an affirmative belief that religion is wrong, and no deity or other supernatural force exists. It is not a lack of belief, it is a belief that all theistic beliefs are wrong.

    Agnostics are not a sub-set of Atheists, they are completely different. They simply lack belief. They don’t claim theists are wrong.

    Atheism is like a religion in the sense that it displaces religions and offers an alternative belief system (albeit a depressing one) that there is no greater meaning to life, and you cease to exist when you die.

    Atheists like to hold themselves up as paragons of reason, but logically speaking, Atheism is inferior to Agnosticism, because Atheism, like Theism, purports to know the unknowable to a certainty, whereas Agnosticism admits that theism can neither be proven nor disproven, and Agnostics, unlike Atheists, are free to move on with their lives instead of rudely putting down the belief systems of others to feel better about themselves.

    😉

  44. Dr Lee, claiming that belief in God is on the same level as belief in the tooth fairy is exactly why Atheists are held in contempt by the vast majority of the population.

    The attitude you speak of is the difference between knowing to a reasonable certainty and knowing to an absolute certainty. Atheists, unlike Agnostics, claim to know God does not exist to an absolute certainty.

    No one needs to claim that the tooth fairy does not exist to an absolute certainty, because those of us who do not believe in the tooth fairy choose not to make asses of ourselves by insulting those who do choose to believe. In other words: no one particularly CARES if I believe in the tooth fairy in the way that Atheists seem to care that I believe in God.

    The only way around Pascal’s Wager for an Atheist, particularly in criticizing others, is to claim that they know to an absolute certainty that God does not exist. That is just as irrational as people who think theyre going to get 72 virgins when they die.

  45. And yes, given that to utterly disprove God, science would have to completely displace Him, the limitations of science are such that it would never provide us with the kind of complete answers that would eliminate any room for theism.

    Rational people can recognize this and accept that science is not a religion, and will never provide us with all the answers, so we should stop pretending it can.

  46. Once again, the definition of the word atheism is a lack of belief in God (a=none, theism=belief in God) – it’s as simple as that. If you don’t believe in God, you are an atheist, just as if you do believe in God, you are a theist. A true agnostic does not believe in God, and is therefore an atheist. I am an agnostic, because I do not claim that God (or anything else) does not exist to an absolute certainty. However, I can claim that God does not exist to the same reasonable certainty as I can claim that the tooth fairy does not exist, so I am also an atheist.

  47. Oh, and there is no logical reason to assume that science cannot provide all the answers, given enough time to gather enough empirical knowledge. And science does not need to disprove the existence of God or anything else; if you claim that something exists, the onus is upon you to prove it. It is actually very difficult to absolutely disprove anything, but it is also unnecessary – logically, we must assume something doesn’t exist until its existence is proven. This is an agnostic attitude, and a scientific one. And it inevitably leads to atheism (no belief in God).

    And even if science never can provide all the answers, that doesn’t mean you should just believe in whatever you want to fill in the gaps! This is utterly illogical and ridiculous – religion needs to support its claims just as rigorously as science does. But it cannot, so we must logically assume that religion’s claims are false until proven otherwise.

  48. Oh, and one more thing: even if you do see atheism is an affirmitive belief in the non-existence of God, this is still an infinitely more logical position than believing in something fantastic and totally outside the laws of nature (or even the universe as we know it), for which there is absolutely no good evidence whatsoever. These two “beliefs” are not even in the same ball park! An atheist’s “belief” that you shouldn’t believe in this kind of thing is logical; but thinking that you should believe in this kind of thing is indeed akin to believing in the tooth fairy.

  49. “Oh, and there is no logical reason to assume that science cannot provide all the answers, given enough time to gather enough empirical knowledge. And science does not need to disprove the existence of God or anything”

    The problem here is, that at any given point in time, we KNOW there are things which we do not know. There is ample proof that, at certain points in man’s existence he did not know things which we, now, take for granted as knowledge.

    To take the position that, until something is proven, we assume that it does not exist, is absurd. I would say no real scientist believes that, and I suspect you really don’t either. Are we to assume that there is no life, except for Earth? We have no proof that there is. However, to believe it doesn’t exist isn’t a sound conclusion. The sound conclusion is that we simply do not know…we have yet to find any evidence of that.

    As we evolve, so does our knowledge. But, to think that, as man, we have the ability to know all that is to be known, is a little odd, to me. We are simply another one of the many species of life, on Earth. We all have different abilities, and I think different levels of ability, to interpret our surroundings. Before Man, there was no being (that we know of) that could understand the world in the detail we do now (or think we do now). Why should we believe that Man is the pinnacle of what nature may be able to produce as a being t of intelligence and discovery? Actually, to think that would put Man in a very God-like position.

    As the prevailing definition of Agnosticism is ” the position of believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God is impossible” the prevailing definition of Atheism is “Atheism is traditionally defined as disbelief in the existence of God. As such, atheism involves active rejection of belief in the existence of God. ”

    http://www.skepdic.com/atheism.html

    But, yes, there are many Atheists who simply are indifferent to God, but most have formed an opinion that God, in any form, does not exist. This is completely not Agnostic, which, in pure form, can’t and won’t take that step.

    But, I think that both Agnostics and Atheists would agree with “we must logically assume that religion’s claims are false until proven otherwise”. The Agnostic would add the claims of those Atheists that are certain that God does not exist, because an Agnostic thinks those sort of things are simply unknowable, to man.

  50. …continued from above…

    But, I think that both Agnostics and Atheists would agree with “we must logically assume that religion’s claims are false until proven otherwise”. The Agnostic would add the claims of those Atheists that are certain that God does not exist, because an Agnostic thinks those sort of things are simply unknowable, to man.

    For the record, I consider myself a fairly classic Agnostic. I’m far too skeptical to believe in something for which there is no evidence, but also to disbelieve simply based on the lack of such. Obviously, I think that some things are more likely than others, but people who BELIEVE (in most anything of importance) scare the crap out of me.

    I can see the logic in the assumption that there are some things we, as Man, are not capable of understanding or finding evidence of (given out limited senses and mental abilities). So, I assume there are things that we will never know, and cannot prove. I also assume that there is something (a force? other beings?) greater (at some levels) than Man. The question is, if we can’t know it, does it matter? For the most part, I’d say “No”.

    Like you, I find most claims of God, and most religious dogma, ridiculous. The things that most of the major religions have in common, though, is the idea that we should be good to one another (our brother’s keeper…that sort of thing), not kill one another, and such. While most followers of these religions manage to completely ignore these basic tenets, and instead attempt to force their beliefs down the throats of others (even if it means killing them for their disbelief) those tenets are still good, IMO. But, we don’t need religion, or God, to believe those things. They are simply good for Man.

    And, finally, I think this is a fine place for this discussion, given the initial post…and it is a LOT more interesting than Tila. But, to those who don’t find it interesting, skip these posts. Pretty simple, no?

  51. Finally, here are two interesting quotes on this topic. The first is from Kurt Vonnegut, who believed in God, but didn’t believe in religion (as far as I can tell). This is from The Sirens of Titan:

    “The name of the new religion…is The Church of God the Utterly Indifferent. . . The two chief teachings of this religion are these: Puny man can do nothing at all to help or please God Almighty, and Luck is not the hand of God.”

    The next one is from a contemporary Atheist, Stephen F. Roberts:

    “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

  52. But, to think that, as man, we have the ability to know all that is to be known, is a little odd, to me.

    Actually, I think this is a key point – I didn’t bring it up in the interests of brevity! But now that you have, clearly one of the biggest reasons people believe in religion is because they want to think they know the meaning of our existence. But in reality, there is no logical reason to think we can – or even should – know why (or how) we are here. Science can theoretically figure it out (and it certainly has a far greater chance of doing so than religion!), but there will most likely always be many things we don’t know.

    Oh, and I’m with Stephen F. Roberts (as you might imagine). 😉

  53. Oh yes, Bigfoot’s point on alien life is an excellent way to demonstrate what I am saying above. I take an agnostic position on this question, in as much as I don’t (and with our present level of knowledge can’t) know the answer one way or the other. But if somebody was to say to me that they know alien life exists, I would respond that I will assume what they are saying is false, until they can prove their claim. What’s more, we know life does exist on earth, so it is not fantastic to think it might also exist elsewhere. But God is like nothing else we know of.

  54. Oh, and once again: to state that the question of the existence of God is inherently unknowable is a positive affirmation of having a superior knowledge of this question to others. This is not a neutral position, and it isn’t a logical one either – there simply isn’t any reason to think the answer to this question is unknowable, given that evidence of the existence of God should be everywhere (if he actually did exist). The lack of evidence for God makes starting from an assumption of non-existence the most logical – and indeed most neutral – starting point in this debate.

  55. The acceptance that there are simply some questions/things that, given our limited senses and mental abilities, Man will never be able to answer/understand/know may be a leap…but it is a logical one, IMO. If we accept that there are things that an ant/flower/monkey can’t know/understand, then, by extension, wouldn’t the same be true for Man?

    With that said, I would say there is much evidence of a higher being (or beings), should you decide to interpret the evidence that way. That same evidence can also be interpreted in other ways, to be sure. The Agnostic believes that there is no way for Man to really know which is the proper interpretation.

    I wanted to add to this, excellent, point you made earlier:

    “one of the biggest reasons people believe in religion is because they want to think they know the meaning of our existence.”

    Agreed, I would also add that another traditional function of religion was to get people to act in a humane manor and to aid in the socialization process. It did this by creating the notion of ONE Supreme being and with the threat of eternal damnation, or the reward of eternal bliss.

    With this, I return to Vonnegut:

    “Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead.”

  56. Yea, I’m going to stick to talking about Tila and stay out of the religious chat. For WestCoast, those pics are from when she wasn’t all tatted up. I miss the way she looked back in the day, so it was nice to see Bill use those pics for this article.

  57. All religions of the world have hypocrisy, especially the Abrahamic (Judhiasm, Islam, Christianity). Science itself is a religion if you think about it. You have beliefs (theories) on how things work but even when proven true, they’re still considered a theory (anyone in electronics and or physics know this). I love the debate about religion. But I say live and let live. Just wished more people lived like that.

  58. The linked article about Tila “finding God” is nothing new, it is dated last year. Obviously, whatever her views of God really are, it hasn’t changed her lifestyle (or her overt sexuality) too much. It seems more like the writer of the article is trying to make it seem like she has had some sort of evangelical conversion, but if that was really true, she would have to speak out against homosexuality, a no-no for evangelicals. With her Shot at Love show, she seems to be doing just the opposite.

  59. juice, that is really addressed in the article. Tila’s belief in God apparently isn’t the traditional, conservative kind to which you refer. There are several churches that accept homosexuality and bi-sexuality, and one doesn’t need to belong to a church to believe in God. In fact according to Tila:

    “Tequila said she didn’t meet God in a church, which she had avoided going to with her “‘gay’ problems.” And she didn’t meet the God worshipped by churches that preached condemnation. Instead, she said she made amends with “the God that I can feel and hear in my own heart.”

    Why would she have to speak out against homosexuality if she believes what she says she believes? She doesn’t claim to be a conservative evangelical.

    I think you may need to re-read the article, as you seem confused about the point being made by the article. Just IMO, of course.

  60. It amazes me that so much time is spent on dissing religion, agnosticism, and atheism, with so little reference to resources. Contrary to an underlying assumption, one opinion is not as good as another!!!

    A favorite, fairly modern theologian by the name of Paul Tillich defined “religions” as that to which you give ultimate concern and commitment. This means it is not limited to the fundamentalism of any “religion” that seems to be assumed by the majority of the writers here.

    There are healthy religions and unhealthy religions.

    And doc, you protest and privatize your views too much. 😉

    Back to the original line of thought, I liked Tila better before she got her silicon. But that’s a matter of my aesthetics. Sometimes women get a good job done; but other times, they do not. Tila’s was the latter.

    Would you be as critical of a woman who had a careful and creative haircut as you are of a woman who rarely shows any concern about her hair?

    Relax guys. Your superficiality is showing. 🙁

    petalsandpearls

  61. You’re right BF Dean.

    All I was saying is that she didn’t “find God” in the usual sense and therefore it’s kind of a non-story that someone twisted into a story.

    If she became a born-again Christian and started speaking out against sexuality on TV or something like that, THAT would be a story.

  62. petalsandpearls,

    I’ve never seen Tila without the silicon. She had them since I first saw her as a Cyber girl with Playboy. Did she model before she had them? I agree she didn’t get a good boob job, though. I liked her lot better without all the tattoos, too. I always thought she was cute, be the last year or so she’s starting to look rough.

  63. juice, I hear ya. i thought maybe you were confused, but it sounds as if you aren’t, at all.

    :#)

    petals, dunno if you are talking about the discussion between Doc and me, if not then disregard. If so, I don’t think it has been superficial at all (given the context of this forum) and we have, indeed, cited references and resources. Hell, the discussion has invoked Huxley, Hume, Vonnegut (ant others) and, with your contribution, Tillich. Fairly heady stuff for a board devoted to looking at beautiful Asian women, dontcha think?

  64. excuse me here but i wonder do you doctor discourage people that belive in a higher being? i see things like this: if you believe, more power to you. if you don’t, more power to you. to each their own. i have been reading some of these entries and wow i guess there’s a hidden requrement in this website to not believe in God, buddlha, allah who ever. i respect your guys opinion in not believing in the Lord, please respect my belief in him and everyone’s belief in their own belief in a higher being. btw tila’s cute not hot to me.

  65. Actually, at least one of the people in this debate (lawfin) is actually a theist – he just tries to say he’s an agnostic to give himself more “street cred”. I am often amused by how a lot of theists like to do this these days, especially with the old line “I used to be an atheist but…” It’s as if they’re ashamed to admit they believe in God, and/or are willing to resort to deceit to try and gain points in this debate. I would have thought that was a mortal sin? 🙂 Anyway seoul86, I salute you for having the courage and integrity to openly state what your true beliefs are!

  66. thanks like i said to each their own. well tila is cute( isaid that already huh?) i guess her appeal to me is gone. she just follows in line with others who have to have a “reality show”( is there such a thing anymore) to become famous. sad just sad.

  67. Even if she is not such a great personality, she’s still hot and could rule my world (at least for one night lol).

    If religion does anything good to her, fine. I just hope she doesn’t take it very seriously and keep taking the clothes off.
    Because we already have many religious people, but we don’t have enough naughty girls around here. 🙂

  68. Wow, impressive thread! Didn’t realize I was opening a can of worms, but a good exchange of ideas and debate is always welcomed.

    Thanks for all your comments, they are much appreicated. Indeed I did not see the date on the article, but living over here in Asia we don’t get to see shows until 2-3 years [sometimes] after their North American and European release…

    I guess I am a bit out of date! 🙂

    Cheers all!

  69. Bigfoot, et al,

    Citing names is not the same as USING their ideas correctly. That’s why I gave the name (Tillich) and then showed how his thoughts on religion apply. Using his definition, I’d say the general orientation of this post is to define “god” as “myself.” No offense intended. That’s just the way it seems.

    So far, no one has responded to my question about a creative hair cut and styling.

  70. Hate to break it to you petals, but you did nothing more than I did, with respect to using sources and such…but, I whatever. I’m prepared to let this rest.

    With respect to her hair, I always find it far too altered to really give a damn about.

  71. There are three steps to arguing with authoritative sources:

    1) Identify your source and define your terms;

    2) State #1 clearly;

    3) Apply the principle to the issue in question.

    The “argument” here is Tila’s “religion,” a term that needs to be defined because there are many haphazard meanings to the term.

    PS I never said anything about Tila’s hair.

  72. I actually think the discussion was, mainly, about Tila finding God, not her religion. Those are two VERY different things.

    While there are mentions of particular religions, many of the posts are devoted to exploring the existence of God, and are not really about religion, per se. I’m not sure which posts you find lacking, but I don’t think you have added anything of merit to the discussion, to be frank.

    My response to your random hair comment was an attempt to make it relevant to this particular thread.

  73. I have to agree – while I found my discussion with Bigfoot quite stimulating, IMHO all petalsandpearls has contributed is hollow pretension.

    BTW, Sachiko read this discussion with great interest, and after a long discussion with me about it, has done her own marathon post on this topic on her blog. Please feel free to carry on this discussion there!

  74. I notice it is easier to sling accusations than to present a reasonable argument. I’m sorry that is the case. The good man who established this site would be ashamed. I will refrain from burdening you with any more opposing points of view, however “hollow” and “pretentious” they might appear to be.

  75. “I notice it is easier to sling accusations than to present a reasonable argument.”

    I think that’s exactly what you have done here, petals. You have pointed out that the discussion here is substandard, but have done nothing to help raise the level of the discussion. With the sole exception of a post discussing Tillich’s division of religions into “healthy” and “unhealthy” varieties (which, as far as I can tell is tangential to the discussion here), all you have done is sling accusations at the posters here.

  76. Did you hear the one about the apathetic agnostic? He didn’t know, and he didn’t care. That’s me, and I never try to preach to 🙂 or convert anyone (except my kids know exactly where I stand on this subject).

Leave a Reply