Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Rants and Stuff => Topic started by: daman on April 20, 2009, 03:35:46 AM
-
SCAM?
-
Please read site rules. (http://www.timewastersguide.com/forum/index.php?topic=11.0)
SECOND ITEM: Avoid 'spam' posting.
Spam posting is when you post a short, pointless post to a thread without contributing anything. Â When you post, try to make certain that your post is on-topic and valuable to the discussion. Â Don't divert the thread, and don't simply post a smiley face or a 'lol.' Â Many of the forum users employ the 'show the last ten posts' function to see what topics are hot. Â If all they get are a bunch of one-word posts, they tend to get annoyed.
FOURTH ITEM: Be polite. Â
I can't stress this enough. Â Being insensitive to others' opinions is a failing of both newcomers and long-time posters. Â Try not to contribute to this atmosphere. It is good to have strong opinions, and it's even better to have opinions that are different from those of other posters. Â The forum experience is about discussion and disagreement. Â However, you can disagree with someone without calling them names or otherwise insulting them. Â Be nice and respect people's differences.
TENTH ITEM: Â Starting threads.
You are welcome to start new and interesting threads for people to discuss in. Â However, don't spam here either. Â Think carefully about your new topic--is it in the right category? Â Is it something the rest of the forum will be interested in? Â Is it something that, perhaps, might be better as a single post inside of an already-established thread? Â (Such as 'cool things found on the internet.)
2: There was no explanation as to why you think the way that you do. Therefor it qualifies as spam.
4: Many of the people on this forum are Mormon. Blatantly saying that their religion is a 'scam' is rude. You could argue validity, IF you provided useful discussion information.
10: There are many topics about this already. One of which being General Religious Discussion (http://www.timewastersguide.com/forum/index.php?topic=6629.0).
EDIT: Also, this belongs in either Rants and Stuff (http://www.timewastersguide.com/forum/index.php?board=3.0) or Books (http://www.timewastersguide.com/forum/index.php?board=11.0)
-
I saw that South Park episode about Joseph Smith. Are you saying they are wrong?
-
I'm not saying anyone is wrong. I am just saying that the topic should have been better thought out before posted, because as it stands, it breaks three rules as well as one unofficial rule.
-
Quit poking the troll, you'll just encourage it.
-
Lan made a carreer out of troll poking. But yeah. This thread can't serve any purpose but to stir hard feelings between people. Personally I'd like to see it locked. I don't value the Book of Mormon so it's not as if I'm defending my own beliefs when I suggest we deep six this toxic thread. I just think it's going to offend people needlessly.
-
He deserves the same chance anyone else does. It could simply be his first forum. ;)
Besides, reply in kind also allows other's to see the rules too. These types of threads can be useful for users that join near the same time they are posted.
-
Moving to rants. Not going to lock yet, but I'll keep a wary eye out. The first hint of flaming will end up in a lock-down.
-
any argument which calls one religion wrong, especially when opposed to another, can easily be applied in the reverse. There is no evidence that Mormonism is any less valid than, say, Judaism. It just happens to be a "newer" religion.. or really, branch of Christianity... as opposed to other religions. you could easily argue, even more poingiantly, than Islam, Hinduism or Christianity itself is a scam by virtue of their age and lack of direct translation.
For the record, I am an athiest and have no allegiance to or for any religion.
-
The same argument also applies to Atheism, Naturalism, and similar ideologies.
-
And also if you were truly Atheist you would be against all of these religions because Atheism revolves around the though of there CAN'T be any supreme being, so claiming no allegiance for them as some sort of support in your arguments just makes you look bad.
-
And also if you were truly Atheist you would be against all of these religions because Atheism revolves around the though of there CAN'T be any supreme being, so claiming no allegiance for them as some sort of support in your arguments just makes you look bad.
I disagree. Just like followers of any other belief, atheists can't all be lumped under the same umbrella. There are personal atheists who just don't have personal religious beliefs and there are militant atheists that wish to destroy religion in all forms. And there is every shade in between.
Anyways, to answer the original question, I'm going to quote a professor of mine that sounds a whole lot like Sazed. Every religion has value. What they believe may not be 'True' (capital T for an absolute Truth), but they are true for that culture and help shape it. It's a Freudian concept, actually.
Also, I'd like to point out that the Book of Mormon (as I'm told, I haven't read it, yet, because I'm not Mormon) teaches values and morals very similar to the New Testament. So if you're coming from a Judeo-Christian background, I'd have to argue that you should have nothing against what the Book of Mormon preaches, you just might disagree with the details.
-
Atheism -
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
All major dictionaries have the same definition. They completely deny the existence of supreme beings. That is the definition of Atheism. What you are trying to say is basically the same as saying you can be Christian and not believe in Jesus at the same time.
-
Atheism -
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
All major dictionaries have the same definition. They completely deny the existence of supreme beings. That is the definition of Atheism. What you are trying to say is basically the same as saying you can be Christian and not believe in Jesus at the same time.
People are living oxymorons :D There are people who would call themselves Christians and yet not trust in Jesus Christ for their salvation living everywhere. Of course, just because someone calls themselves something does not mean that they are that thing...
-
As an athiest, I do not believe in the existence of a "god" if you will. I do not "deny" the existence, since the extent of denial belies the existence.
I, as a person of morals, believe that it is each persons right to choose to believe in God, or god, or Mother Earth, or Moon Pies, whatever does it for you, it is your right as a free person. Being an athiest does not make me "against" anyone else, no more than someone being a Christian makes them against Islam, or someone who is Mormon being against Catholics. The act of being "against" someone of another faith is an act of arrogance and superiority, which breeds contempt, which breeds violence. And again, the belief of the person matters not, it happens to all, regardless of faith.
Being of a specific set of religious beliefs only implies that you believe that you are correct and all others are wrong. Whether you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or athiest does not matter. I believe I am right and you are all wrong, and thats that. You are free to believe that I am wrong, as I am sure ALL of you do. How can you not? That is part of the belief. But you have absolutely NO RIGHT to attempt to define my belief, as I have no right to define yours. And really, that is the crux of this entire post. One person who does not believe in Mormonism trying to define it.
And this I ask:
Why do you have to be against someone for their belief or lack thereof? Why does it alsways have to be "If you are not with me, you are against me"? I am not agaisnt anyoen simply because of their beliefs. That is a personal thing for them. It harms me not that they might be Christian, or Wiccan, or whatever they might be. It would seem to me that those who constantly have to batter others based of their looks, their faith, or their orientation, are really not quite comfortable with themselves and seek to put down others in an attempt to lift themselves up.
And I feel sorry for anyone who feels that need. I am confortable with me. Why can't you be comfortable with you?
-
The issue is the sesame-street song, "One of these things is not like the others." A rational mind categorizes rationally. We know chimps are not human for a number of discriminating factors. We know early on that wood is not metal, though we can't explain the difference between a rarefied alloy and a complex organic polymer.
Similarly, there are distinctives that limit inclusion in a religious classification. An essential element in Christianity is the Christ. The essential elements that are the minimum standard for inclusion in the set called Christian are called Essential Christianity. Without these basic elements your religious perspective, however dear to you cannot be Christian. Instead you have what we call Sheilaism, in the sociology of religion. One of these distinctives is belief in Jesus as the only birthed son of the God of the Tanankh (El Shaddai, Hashem, Elohim, etc). If you fail to believe in the Father God that engendered Jesus, or fail to believe in Jesus' divinity, you may have a faith that is organized, deeply personal and provides you with satisfying answers, but it isn't Christian, it has no Christ.
I could call myself an Afro-American, but I would be foolish. I lack the credentials. None of my wildly mixed heritage happens to include people who have ancestry in among the peoples of Western, Central, East or south Africa. Granted some were from Egypt, but no matter how you slice it Egyptians have an Asiatic origin. My grey eyes and mouse brown hair would tend to disuade belief, and my pale complexion wit ha yellowish cast would be the clincher. No one would accept that I was afro-american, because I lack the essential characteristics. My claim would be foolish.
Similarly you cannot be an A-theist and an authentic member of a Theistic religion.
-
Your break down of the word is incorrect. It's anit-theist is what it means. ('A' being a negative such as abiotic.)
That means they are NOT theistic.
-
miyabi, that's what Renoard is saying.
-
Ironically I was supporting you miyabi. ;D
Atheism -
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
All major dictionaries have the same definition. They completely deny the existence of supreme beings. That is the definition of Atheism. What you are trying to say is basically the same as saying you can be Christian and not believe in Jesus at the same time.
-
Wow, I somehow totally misread that last line. My bad. I apologize. ha ha. D'oh. I'm retarded.
-
no prob. I'm dyslexic and would just as likely have typed "can" instead of "cannot" if I wasn't paying attention. :P
-
Um…miyabi? Why are the numbers in your first post all…random-like?? ???
-
What are you talking about? The definitions? They are two alternative definitions of the word.
-
I think he might have been talking about your first post when you were all:
" 2. blah blah rule
4. blah blah rule
10. blah blah blah blah more rule"
but you were just ordering the rules by the way they were ordered in the set of rules in the rule thingy... which I totally read.
-
Oh yeah. ha ha. Yeah, they were the numbers that the rules were related to. xD
-
now I am confused.
Nowhere in any of my posts did I say I was a member of a religion, only that I do not dislike you, nor am I against you or your religion, simply because you believe different than I do. Being an athiest does not make a person an "anti-theist". the "a" meaning "lack of" and the "anti" meaning "against".
Maybe I missed something though. But I am rather desensitized to these things, being an athiest seems to bring out some real hate in people. For some reason, that hate translates into people saying that athiests hate religious people, which couldn't be further from the truth.
-
mtlhddoc2 I think there's a difference between strong (active) atheism and weak (passive) atheism—or at least typical strong atheism and personal atheism accompanied by respect to the beliefs of others. I think your statements have been respectful so I've got no problems with them.
-
Atheism does seems to have brought out real hate in Richard Dawkins for instance. :)
I think Miyabi was cross-eyed yesterday. Mostly though I think it was other threads bleeding in here. So he thought mtlhddoc2 was making a case for being atheist and religious at the same time. Myself, I wasn't particularly responding to you, doc, I was just expanding Miyabi's point about the incompatibility of atheism and religion.
Doc I think you've misunderstood the motivation of a lot of religious people. Being atheist, it's natural for you to want to lump religions together, but there are core values in one religion that can be as antithetical to another as atheism is to theism in general. Trying to merge them, especially through outside forces, is abusive and generally offensive to both.
The other dynamic that is typically overlooked in religious or non-religious people of faith is compassion. My faith (not religion because we are deeply opposed to ritual as a general rule) compels me to reach out to others and try to convince them of the Truth (yep capital T) for the same reason I would not indifferently pass a toddler who was playing with toys in the middle of an intersection. Indifference is the most rarefied form of hatred.
-
Yeah... I think we're having three different discussions here, because nowhere in my post did I say atheists believed in anything (which makes Miyabi's reference to a Christian without believing in Jesus nonsensical). I was mostly saying what mtlhddoc2 got into; that atheists do not automatically walk around bashing the religion of others for the sake of doing so. In fact, I know more atheists that believe in the right to choose or not choose one's own religion than I do those that are out to disprove the existence of any higher power/god/spiritual world/etc.
Never once did I say that an atheist could be a Christian/Muslim/Shintoist/etc and still be atheist. If I had, that would have merited the textbook definition.
-
Yeah–benvolio3 got it right. Sorry. I just didn't realize.
-
Yay!!! I got something right!!! :D
And I totally agree with what you guys are saying... I may give more insight later when I have more time and less head fuzz :P
-
Lol benvolio3.
I think there are like 4-5 different discussions on the forum that have all been overlapping and a lot of this stuff has already been discussed.…
-
Renoard: Dawkins is not an athiest, he is an anti-theist. He calls himself and athiest, but then again, Obama's pastor whats-his-name calls himself a Christian while calling for violence against white people. Having read the bible, I can say, he is no more Christian than I am, although, I act alot more Christian than he does. It is not "passive" or "agressive" athiesm. Atheism itself is passive. Anyone who acts like Dawkins is not an athiest. He is religious in his hatred of religion. Athiests, by and large, are indifferent to other peoples religious beliefs. That is not hatred. we are not under some misguided order to convert masses to our "religion" as many of your brethen, Christian or not, seem to think. (There is a difference between offering, and bludgeoning... I dont mind the offering, it is... thoughtful, actually).
But, one point I would liek to make here, in response to Renoard: I ahve studied various religions, and by and large, they are all pretty much the same. Oh, sure there are some differences, and many people who follow those religions would call them major, but I do not. i can look at them all objectively. And all teh major religions have more in common than they do otherwise. i am not going to go into a detailed analysis (although I could) but lets suffice to say that Islam and Christianity and Hindi, and all the various sects and septs, are nearly identical at the core.
-
Islam and Christianity and Hindi, and all the various sects and septs, are nearly identical at the core.
I don't know if I sould say that, mtlh.
-
Shags always get to the heart of the matter. We old farts tend to make things more convoluted.
-
Wolfstar: Atheists believe in something: they believe that God does not exist.
An atheist that doesn't believe in anything isn't an atheist. He's agnostic.
Mtlh: Anyone who believes there is no God is an atheist. Anyone who believes there is absolutely nothing spiritual or metaphysical is a naturalist or materialist (and also an atheist).
we are not under some misguided order to convert masses to our "religion" as many of your brethren Christian or not, seem to think.
I'm afraid this hasn't been my experience at all. Almost all of the atheists I know (and I know and am friends with quite a number) are quite convinced of the moral superiority of their position and expect all other reasonable and intelligent individuals to believe likewise. Agnostics are a totally different story, but agnostics are, as I have just said, not atheist. And I certainly think there are at least as many evangelical atheists (as a proportion of the total atheist population) as there are evangelical Christians.
But, one point I would liek to make here, in response to Renoard: I ahve studied various religions, and by and large, they are all pretty much the same.
This is a gross oversimplification, IMO. Simply having an etic perspective does not make you an expert. Your statement here is essentially tantamount to saying "All languages on the earth are, by and large, pretty much the same." Sure, yes, most religions share the same basic core values (as did all human societies, and do many atheists and agnostics), just as almost all languages involve at least 3-4 voiced vowels or more, and some consonants, articulated at the mouth. But beyond that... your oversimplification is just as likely to have arisen from an emic perspective as an atheist (and your integrated "us vs. them" mentality) than it does from any supposed superior etic view.
Think about it: You are saying (in essence) that "Our beliefs are different or special, but everyone else's are the same old thing." Just how is this objective?
And finally, why in the world would you suggest that clans/tribes/families/septs would be the same as religions, in any regard? The only similarity I can see (at all) is that they are all social groups. But so are sports teams, political organizations, and just about any situation where people regularly gather together.
-
Jade: an agnostic is someone who believes in a higher power but does not care, basically. All religions, as i have said, are the same at their core. That may be an "oversimplification" but what is wrong with that? All major religions have a desire and a mandate to spread their religion far and wide and, with Mormonism being the lone exception among the worlds major religious sects, are the only ones who have not gone to war to force others to comply with their belief. Also, I never mentioned anything about clans or families or tribes. I said sects/septs: which are various diversions of the main religion. Christianity is the religion, Catholicism is a sept, Mormonism would be a sect. then you have Islam, with 2 or three main septs such as Shiite and Sunni, plus dozens, hundreds, thousands of sects.
You are right though Jade: Atheism IS a belief. And with any belief, you feel you position is the superior one. If you are a Catholic, you feel that every other version of religion is incorrect. The Seventh's even go as far to say that their version is not only the correct one, but all others are doomed, regardless of whether they are Christian or not. To me, belief in a higher power is completely illogical and puzzling. Oh, I understand the fundementals of belief, and the psychological aspect and all that, but can never understand how someone could REALLY beleive. Maybe I am a Vulcan.. who knows? There are those who would push others to believe as they do among the athiest circuit (or push to disbelieve?) but they are not in the majority. Many of us fall under libertarian value systems: Live and let live. But as with any group of people, organized or not, there will be some who will use their belief/politics/power or whatnot to supress others or make fun of others or treat others in a hateful or violent manner. But that has more to do with that persons core values and makeup than it does with whatever belief, religious or political or whatever, that they follow.
the biggest difference between the "religion" of atheism from other religions is two-fold: the majority of us do not feel the need to "spread the word" or "encourage" others to feel the same way. and we are not organized.
One last fact:
Roughly 18% of the citizens of the United State of America identify themselves as atheist. If we ever did organize (which we never really could) we would be a significant power in this country, since atheism is now the 2nd largest "religion" in the country.
Fun fact:
7% of people in the United Kingdom identify themselves as Jedi.
-
Well you're facts are certainly not correct. There are plenty of Christian sects that have never engaged in a war to impose their beliefs(e.g. Anabaptists, Quakers, Pentecostals, Irvingites, Copts). You'd have a hard time proving Jains have engaged in Holy War either. If your premise is that all Christian sects are one religion but Mormons are a different one then you run into the fact that Mormons self identify as Christian. It's a non-stater. The whole premise was invented to create a paper tiger attack against people of faith.
As for Agnostics, agnostic mean "not knowledgeable" and was adopted to identify the fact that people who self identify this way, don't believe or disbelieve in a higher power but are undecided. Typically agnostics are suspicious of those who are sure on the subject, including atheists.
This is one reason why Atheisim is a belief system as much as any religion or faith. The surety. That is faith or belief in the unprovable. But those who follow the Richard Dawkins trend in atheism are evangelistic about it. They are not content to allow believers to believe. Oppression of this sort is exactly why the first amendment was written, to defend people with a certain faith from being abused by those of a differing view, even atheists, who would use legislation or force to oppress those of a given faith.
-
Jade: an agnostic is someone who believes in a higher power but does not care, basically
No, an Agnostic is someone that does not know whether or not there is a higher power. Someone who believes in a higher power, but is not attatched to any particuler creed, is a Theist.
That may be an "oversimplification" but what is wrong with that?
The problem with it is that it's so grossly oversimplified as to be misleading and generally unhelpful in discussion, particularly of the sort we're having now.
Also, I never mentioned anything about clans or families or tribes. I said sects/septs: which are various diversions of the main religion.
Please go educate yourself on what a "sept" is. Wikipedia's a great resource. (While you're there, you may wish to check out the closely-related "Sippe" article—I wrote much of that one.)
Oh, I understand the fundementals of belief, and the psychological aspect and all that, but can never understand how someone could REALLY beleive.
Well, I can't speak for others, but in my case, two simple words were enough: "Divine intervention".
But as with any group of people, organized or not, there will be some who will use their belief/politics/power or whatnot to supress others or make fun of others or treat others in a hateful or violent manner. But that has more to do with that persons core values and makeup than it does with whatever belief, religious or political or whatever, that they follow.
This I completely agree with, with one caveat: Beliefs, religious, political, or philosophical (we can sum these up as "relosophical") affect a person's core values and makeup.
the biggest difference between the "religion" of atheism from other religions is two-fold: the majority of us do not feel the need to "spread the word" or "encourage" others to feel the same way. and we are not organized.
Once again, I disagree. Most of the atheists I know (far more than the Buddhists, Jews, and Muslims I know, especially, and even more than the Christians I know) do indeed feel the need to "spread the word". However, I do agree that atheists are not "organized". On the other hand, there are many religious adherents that are also unorganized.
Roughly 18% of the citizens of the United State of America identify themselves as atheist.
I'm very curious where you got this figure, as an ARIS study in 2001 showed that 0.4% of Americans self-identified as Atheist, and a Pew Research Council (slightly less reliable) study in 2002 found that 2% of Americans were Atheist. I'd sure be interested in seeing the details for any study which claims that Atheism has mushromed over 800% in the last 6 years.
Oh, and you've got your Jedi facts wrong. In one British census, a little under 0.8% of Britain claimed "Jedi" as their religion, mostly by way of a wide-spread, organized practical joke (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon for lots more info). And remember that this was in the UK, where the "Official Monster Raving Loony Party" has been elected to political office…
Oppression of this sort is exactly why the first amendment was written, to defend people with a certain faith from being abused by those of a differing view, even atheists, who would use legislation or force to oppress those of a given faith.
Actually, as best I can tell, the first amendment was written for the purpose of keeping government from corrupting religion. Religious bigotry was still exceedingly widespread back in the day...
-
my apologies, I was slightly off in the number: it is 15% as reported by Lauren Green, Religious Correspondent from FoxNews, concerning a Trinity College Poll
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/03/11/green_trinity_religion/
The Jedi thing may have been .7, but I just threw that in there for levity. You are right though, a hefty percentage of people in the UK are 100% bonkers.
My derivative on Sept doesnt match yours, doesnt matter, you get my point, aside from terminology.
From Dictionary.com:
ag·nos·tic (āg-nŏs'tĭk)
n.
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
adj.
Relating to or being an agnostic.
Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).
I should have prefaced my agnostic remark this way (was intended, even if not implied): "an agnostic is someone who believes there could be a higher power but does not care, basically."
Renoard: I said "major" sect, which would leave out the Quakers etc. Pentacostal is an offshoot of Protestantism, as is Baptist etc. They would mostly fall under the same "sect" heading, I would believe since they are loosely bound to each other for the most part, just as Lutheran, while a product of the Martin Luther protestant movement is more closely aligned with Catholicism and would fall under that heading. Mormonism, is a unique branch all it's own, and while derived from Christianity, it would not be, what most consider, true Christianity, since they annointed a new prophet in Joseph Smith (not sure if that is exactly correct, I am not as up on the Mormon faith as I am most of the others). I would even offer that, while it is Christian in name (for the belief in Jesus as Savior) that is where the similarities of faith end (as opposed to core system, which all religions share, as I explained above). I consider Mormonism a religion all it's own, rather than a "branch" like Catholicism, Protestanism, Methodism etc would be.
-
From Dictionary.com:
ag·nos·tic (āg-nŏs'tĭk)
n.
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
adj.
Relating to or being an agnostic.
Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).
I should have prefaced my agnostic remark this way (was intended, even if not implied): "an agnostic is someone who believes there could be a higher power but does not care, basically."
That doesn't match, even in paraphrase, the dictionary definition you just quoted.
-
Mtlhddoc2: You need to pay attention to method. What you are referring to is an informal college poll, which is likely to be heavily biased in addition to being unreliable. Additionally, it simply is a number of people who said they had "no religion". This number includes atheists, agnostics, theists, and other individuals which have no religion but believe in God/spirits/other metaphysical things. The vast majority of these are not atheists. The ARIS study is much, much more reliable in determining % of atheists for a number of reasons, including random sampling, self-identification specifically as "atheist", and a HUGE sample base.
I seriously doubt that the US is more than 3% atheist, and I doubt it's more than 2% atheist.
Mtlhddoc2: Try looking up "sept" at Wiktionary, Mirriam-Webster, or Wikipedia. Your "derivative" (I think you meant definition?) is not standard usage, and does not reflect the established meaning of the word sept. Once again, I recommend you educate yourself on the matter.
Please understand that the third definition you quote for "Agnostic" is a metaphorical one, being used through extension. That definition is virtually never used when discussing religion. Agnostics may or may not care whether or not a higher power is knowable (as agnosticism does not determine this); the one unifying thing for all agnostics is that they do not know whether or not there is a higher power. (The first two definitions given from the dictionary.com definition you provide are that of Strong Agnostic and Weak Agnostic, respectively).
FYI: In the future I'd use m-w.com or wiktionary.org to look up words. They're both better (in their own ways) than dictionary.com. Not that any of them are academic sources (the OED is, but it's not free to the public).
Another FYI: Mormonism is a "Restorationist" Christian sect. As Father Jordan Vajda (a Catholic at the time) illustrated quite clearly in his Master's thesis ("'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization"), Mormonism is quite close to ancient Christianity, making any claims that it is somehow historically "unChristian" spurious.
Edit: Now that's just funny, Ookla. Upon further examination, you'll notice that dictionary lists 6 different entries for agnostic (presumably overlapping). He ignored the first one (which made no mention of the extended, metaphorical use of the term) and went straight for the second. Presumably, you only noticed the first.
-
I only see 5 definitions he quoted and I'm not sure how "doubtful or noncommittal" could be matched to his paraphrase. Being noncommittal is not the same as not caring. Also, "skeptical about the existence of God" means "doubts God exists" but he spun it into a positive.
Dictionary.com is a fine resource if you ignore the first listing and only look at the American Heritage 4th edition listing. AHD4 is a good, scholarly reference that I prefer over m-w for some words, like goodbye. It also includes the dictionary of Indo-European roots, which is very useful for linguists.
-
I'm afraid this hasn't been my experience at all. Almost all of the atheists I know (and I know and am friends with quite a number) are quite convinced of the moral superiority of their position and expect all other reasonable and intelligent individuals to believe likewise. Agnostics are a totally different story, but agnostics are, as I have just said, not atheist. And I certainly think there are at least as many evangelical atheists (as a proportion of the total atheist population) as there are evangelical Christians.
One thing that bothers me whenever it's in any belief system is intolerance. Many religions teach that only members of their particular religion will be saved and return to God. I'm Mormon, and my religion does teach that, but it also teaches that everyone will have abundant opportunity to hear the full gospel and accept it, whether in this life or the next. It also teaches that good people who reject the gospel will have a lesser degree of salvation. It's kind of complicated, but it ends up logically leading to tolerance. (Of course, there are intolerant Mormons just like there are intolerant people in every religion. But that's the conclusion I've come to.)
One reason some athiests are intolerant is that they come to their conclusion through logic. Therefore, if anyone comes to a different conclusion, they assume they are either stupid or have an ulterior motive. One reason some religious people are intolerant is that they assume that any good person will have enough spirituality to know the truth.
I like the whole concept of giving others the benefit of a doubt. It makes more sense than assuming that we know everything.
-
[One reason some athiests are intolerant is that they come to their conclusion through logic. Therefore, if anyone comes to a different conclusion, they assume they are either stupid or have an ulterior motive.
Actually, you find it is the opposite. Those that came to their non-belief through logic are more likely to be passive towards your choice of religion instead of opposed. Such as myself. I came to a LOGICAL conclusion that there is no higher power. To me it is just science. But in the same token as religion, I profess zero understanding of many forms of art which others like, especially the surrealist and the like. simply because, in my eye, it is devoid of logic. Some people are religious, some people like surrealism. Some are neither. to each their own.
-
mtlhddoc2, I think Eleaneth is speaking from his own experience, and you can't really tell him he will find something contrary to his own experience.
Here's an example. Steve Mirsky on the Scientific American podcast often talks about people who believe in Creationism (as defined by what's taught at the Creation Museum) as if he and his guests and his listeners all know beyond any doubt that the Creationists are all a bunch of idiots. And that condescending, smug, self-surety really bugged my wife, Karen. She doesn't believe in Creationism as it's taught by that Museum—she believes God created the Earth but that Genesis is largely symbolic—but the way Mirsky takes that attitude and extends it to anybody who believes any religion, as he does occasionally, got to be too much for her so she stopped listening to the podcast. She doesn't believe that he would define himself as an evangelical atheist, but that's how she would define him because that's how he comes off whenever he mentions religion.
Karen has heard multiple interviews with scientists who self-identify as religious or Christian and the interviewer is surprised by that and asks them how they can justify it. (Scientific American podcast, general NPR podcasts, Science Friday podcasts.) Most of the scientists when asked that question say religion answers different questions than science and where there is overlap there's simply not enough information in the scriptural record to flat-out contradict a scientific explanation. A lot of the questions that people argue religion vs. science about, there's not enough information to make a statement of fact on either side. The problem is that many people take an "expert" opinion, especially an old expert opinion, as fact and feel personally threatened when somebody else offers a different opinion. This is true on both sides, whether the question is something like dinosaur bones or early Christian theology.
-
I think Ookla brings up some good examples.
I also think, mtlh, that logic has little to do with tolerance—a great number of Logicians and logic-obsessed philosophers throughout history have been plenty intolerant. At the same time, a great many individuals who accepted religion via non-logical means (blind trust, divine intervention, etc.) are quite tolerant (take Mother Theresa, for example).
-
Not only that, but your conclusion that there is definitely no Higher Power can not be logical, as it is impossible to provide evidence to support it. The existince of the universe, in which all the immensely complicated rules and laws must all work together perfectly to maintain, is unexplainable. How did these laws come about? Why are the tolerances of living things so narrow? Unless you know something the rest of us don't, you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss any possibility completely. There is evidence out there of beyond life existence which hasn't been refuted. Are you choosing to deny this evidence because you don't believe it? Do you believe black holes exist? If you do, you believe that those who say it exists are right, unless of course you have seen one yourself. How about this nugget? Evolution, by its very definition, is a design of nature. Moreover, it requires the choice of keeping the good genetic mutations and allowing the bad ones to die out. It is not random, it is a process, and a pretty intelligent one, at that.
-
Not only that, but your conclusion that there is definitely no Higher Power can not be logical, as it is impossible to provide evidence to support it.
Not that I disagree with you, but in logic the burden of proof lies with the person who says something exists, not with the one who says something doesn't exist. It's nigh impossible to prove a negative.
The problem with spiritual evidence is that it's an entirely personal thing. You can tell someone else that you have had a spiritual experience, but you cannot share the actual spirit you felt with that person. The only way for them to understand where you're coming from is to have a similar experience themselves. In this way, spiritual evidence does not work the same way that scientific evidence works. Scientific experiments are more or less easily repeatable by others because the starting conditions can be specifically controlled. The starting conditions for a spiritual experiment are your whole life up to this point, and that is something that you just can't recreate for someone else.
I cannot think badly of someone who hasn't had the type of spiritual experience I have had, because I have no idea whether their life has brought them to a point in which they are ready to start the experiment.
-
That's true, but I am not trying to prove God's existence, I am merely pointing out that, unless irrefutable proof is available, he can't throw out Absolutes. If he would have said that it was highly unlikely that God exists, then I could accept the logic of that argument, as the evidence is highly interpretational, empirically speaking (wow, I sound like Poindexter). However, because he is so certain, I would like to see the proof that eliminates entirely the possibility that a higher intelligence is responsible for the incredibly complex, yet perfectly structured, laws of nature and the universe. If he cannot provide this proof then LOGICALLY he must accept the possibility that he is wrong.
-
I do accept the possibility that I am wrong. Logically though, I cannot prove, or disprove the existence of "god". But like has been said, I do not have to prove that there is not a god. I look at things logically, and while I do not have a definitive explanation on how the universe came about, I cannot, using logic, conclude the existence of an invisible, sentient, omnipotent, onmiscient being. Therefore, I come to a conclusion that the hypothesis that this being exists is untrue. but there is always room for the unlikely possibilty, should I discover evidence in that nature. So in conclusion, I can say, with absolute certainly due to complete lack of physical and logical, nay, even anecdotal evidence, that there is no higher power.
Honestly, I dont buy the theory of relativity either. It is unfounded, and unlikely. It should not even be called a theory, a hypothesis maybe, but not a theory.
Many scientists DO believe in God. Maybe they have had this "spiritual" awakening some of you have mentioned. That is fine for them. But please, do not try and use "logic" or "science" to prove the existence of God. Say what it is, a personal, spiritual thing. I do not deny you, or anyone else that.
-
Complete lack of anecdotal evidence? Have you been living in a bubble all your life? Or perhaps you've misunderstood what "anecdotal evidence" is? (And others may find ample evidence, physical and logical… a matter of differing interpretations, perhaps, of the same phenomena.)
I'd like to remind us all to stay civil, and not be too beligerent about own our varied particular beliefs:
Mtlhddoc2, you have faith in what you've read suggesting there is no God. Many others here have faith in what they've read or experienced suggesting there is a God. Ultimately, objectively, we cannot in this small forum reach a definitive conclusion as to who is right—it's a matter of faith one way or the other.
Oh, and have you read William James? If you have not, I recommend him. He uses logic to discuss God (but not to dispute or prove his existence per se, just to make some assertions about how we should approach the topic).
Oh, and Mtlhddoc2: I'm intensely curious, do you reject Special Relativity, General Relativity, or both? And what makes you think it (or them) are "unfounded and unlikely"
-
OK. So basically you are saying that you have not actually ruled out any possibility? Because some of your earlier posts contradict that. Logic is a funny thing sometimes. Since we are emotional beings, and influenced by those emotions, it is nearly impossible to be purely logical. Besides, it sounds more to me that you have decided God doesn't exist, and only acknowledge evidence to support that belief. At the very least, you haven't tried to hard to research the possibility. That being said, is there one theory of the creation of the universe that is more provable than others? All we can really prove logically is that the universe exists, and that we are in it. Why we even exist, much less achieved sentience, is a mystery. Seeing as we are the most intelligent living thing we know of, and nature is still more complex than we are able to understand or properly imitate, you can form a logical assumption that something smarter than us created it. It is no more or less likely than complete and total randomness.
-
darx: It is actually the opposite. I have read the christian Bible, the torah, the Koran and interned at a Hassidic Rabinnical college for a while.
You can never rule anything out, but in my experiences and what I can logically see, there is no higher power. Belittling me because of it only strengthens my point of view since your arguments against me are based on your emotions and your theology. you cannot be objective about it, even though, if you bothered to read 99% of my posts on the subject, I can.
-
mthlddoc, what exactly in darx's post did you think was belittling you?
Belittling me because of it only strengthens my point of view since your arguments against me are based on your emotions and your theology. you cannot be objective about it, even though, if you bothered to read 99% of my posts on the subject, I can.
I think we already established agnosticism as an acting religion, based on the belief that we cannot know anything about whether there is a higher power(s). Assuming you are human, you also experience emotion. What special quality makes you think you can make the statement that 99% of your posts are completely objective?
-
If you base things off your own experience and what you can see, that is the very definition of subjectivity. :)
Not that I have a problem with it. Of course you must form your own opinions based on your own experiences.
-
mthlddoc, what exactly in darx's post did you think was belittling you?
Belittling me because of it only strengthens my point of view since your arguments against me are based on your emotions and your theology. you cannot be objective about it, even though, if you bothered to read 99% of my posts on the subject, I can.
I think we already established agnosticism as an acting religion, based on the belief that we cannot know anything about whether there is a higher power(s). Assuming you are human, you also experience emotion. What special quality makes you think you can make the statement that 99% of your posts are completely objective?
but i am not agnostic, I am an athiest.
I do experience emotion, of course. But I approach religion in an objective manner, all my arguments I propose from a logic standpoint. I never try and dissuade anyone from being religious. the only times i get "emotional" is when baseless attacks are hurled towards me for my belief. Would the people who have attacked me attack a jewish person based on their belief that Jesus was just another Jew?
-
EDIT: post deleted. I think we've already been over this.
-
Goodness, too bad someone didn't predict the depths this thread would descend to and suggest it should be locked in. Someone posting in the first 5 posts for instance. . .
:D
-
It stayed pretty reasonable for a while.
Anyway, because certain members of this thread are feeling attacked and are getting all emotional, we're going to lock this.