New religion is old again
Posted on: January 31, 2007 - 12:12pm
Offline
New religion is old again
There does not seem to be anything new under the sun with this website. Creation of your own religion only shows your ability to copy those who came before you. Why not create a truly unique belief system, rather than copying from established religions. By the way, it took 4.34 minutes to get to this point on your website. Your server, or your software lacks the ability to handle any amount of traffic. I would love to debate issues with people, but spending such long wait times is boring (or is boring one of your mantras?)
- Login to post comments
I could say the same of your attitude in responses to my questions/assertions. I tend to believe people are not always comfortable when they think they are being attacked. My intent was not to attack but opine on what I saw and clarify the stance of people.
As a side note, I have been reading some other topics in this website. I do see there are some people who outright say that God does not exist. There is an interesting mix of agnostics and atheists here. I will try and keep up with their debates.
The colloquial definition of 'agnostic" is a doubter of theism.... i.e. a weak atheist.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I was only getting angry after you started twisting my words trying to make me into a theist. Before that I was just being blunt. You weren't attacking, you were making a couple equivalence fallacies and misrepresenting what I, and others, said.
Let me say it again for the last time. You're going to get bothered about your usage of agnostic and atheist over and over again if you don't use their philosophical definitions. In my case, it's not a matter of me thinking being called an atheist is cool, but not an agnostic. It's a matter of being correct with your terms. Anyway, I'd rather be called a "bright" than an atheist, because atheist has strong negative connotations in the U.S..
I guess it all depends on what you mean by colloquial vs philisophical meaning. Where does the literal meaning of the word athiest and agnostic come in then.? I am really trying to grasp your usage of the terms.
The literal meaning of atheist (from what I have checked in multiple dictionaries) one who says God(s) does not exist (as opposed to theism which is the belief God(s) does exist).
The literal meaing of agnostic is one who says God may or may not exist.
I tend to use the words in the literal sense (how that becomes a colloquialism is beyond me).
The two camps are mutually exclusive, unless some people have decided to change the dictionary definitions of the words. Having agnostic type thoughts (not knowing whether God exists or not) and saying one is a weak atheist does not make sense to me. How can one who says God may or may not exist then try to associate themselves(by name) with someone who says God does not exist? Using the literal terms, it does not exist - obviously someone must have changed the meaning of the words to make this mutually exclusive arrangement defunct. Why don't people get off the fence and say they stand on one side or the other?
That being said, using the literal meaning of the words: Can an athiest be an agnostic? If so, please tell me the words to identify this person with.
Can an agnostic be an athiest? Likewise please tell me the words to identify this person with.
Why would people have a problem with me using the literal definitions of the word? By using literal meanings, there can then be no doubt as to what a person is saying. This is how most conversations in life occur. Sure colloquialisms are used, but the basis of human conversation are with literal meanings as defined in dictionaries.
I do find it important to find this out. Debating a person in one camp when they are actually in another would be a frustrating affair. The meaning of words is important for both sides to be able to understand the other.
I appreciate your patience with this and hope you can clear the air for me on this.
I don't know what more to say beyond what todangst and I already wrote. I'd just be repeating myself.
I think your misunderstanding is in thinking that everyone in every discipline of study uses words in the same way. For instance in every day usage the words "sequence" and "series" mean basically the same thing. But when these terms are used in mathematics, they have very precise meanings which makes them have slightly, but important, differences in meaning. Going further, when musicians speak of sequences they mean something different than mathematicians do. I'm sure there's other usages, but I hope you get the idea. I can give you these meaning are if you're interested.
The way you're using the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" is more way people use them informally, not the way philosophers use it. If you go into a philosophical discussion, and still persist in using the informal, colloquial versions, your not going to get very far. Moreover, if you persist in using the informal meaning, you will be suspected of using an equivalence fallacy. You must learn to use the terminology the way it's used in that field in order to communicate.
Am I making sense?
Whether or not you've seen their show is irrelevant; they didn't come up with the idea, they're just on TV so I used them as an example. I could have used the example of that guy I met downtown, but he's not exactly popular enough for my purposes. The fact is simple; I did not contend without reason that you were attempting to suggest belief upon someone, mrrage himself said he felt that you were doing just that.
Want more?
Would you still like to claim that you're not trying to tell anyone they don't believe what they think they believe? I'm really not sure how you expect to be able to engage in an argument here and not have glaring contradictions like this pointed out. In the immutable words of Our Lady Judge Judy "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining."
The fact that this can be posted under a name such as yours is tantamount to ironic. Compassionate? You've called the Rational Response squad "religious bigots" within your name. That's compassionate? Please, please, try harder. I have no personal issue with you, I only have issue with the things you've said, and I'm not alone.
I guess I would understand better if you would answer my original questions using the literal versions of the two words. Then you could answer the same questions using the philisophical meanings of the words, and then explain exactly what the philisphical meanings of the words are.
This way, there would be no doubt in my mind as to how you expect people to use the words other than literally. Answering the questions in both literal and philisophical terms (separately), then providing your philisophical definitions of both words would then give me the right way to communicate( with something other than the literal meanings of the words).
Thank you.
The problem is that it isn't clear to us what you mean specifically when you say "atheist" or "agnostic", so we give you the definition we find appropriate. If you find it more appropriate to call me an agnostic because I don't believe specifically that there is no god, that's fine. The only issue I take is that when using the word agnostic you, to most people, do a poor job of describing what I actually think.
spewn
Are you having problems understanding the dictionary definitions (that I supplied) of the two words?
Could you please tell me, to also clarify matters, what your definitions of agnostic and atheist are.
Are you? Multiple definitions have been supplied, and you refuse to accept any except your own.
Absolutely. Someone who is agnostic tends to think that the question can't be answered in the same way you would answer the question of "How far is it from here to New York?"; evidence does not apply in the same way, and thus one could never reasonably know one way or the other(at least while alive). Some Agnostics do believe that evidence could apply, but since none in favor or against exists, it isn't possible to form an opinion on the matter at present. That is an Agnostic.
Someone who is an Atheist simply has no belief in a god. Atheist does not mean "Against God" it means "Without God".
http://members.aol.com/porchnus/dict01.htm
spewn
Wonderful, now I am getting a clearer idea of your definitions.
The definition of agnostic is in line what the dictionaries say.
For atheists, does no belief in a God also include no belief that God exists? The reason I ask is because the term 'no belief in a God' could be interpreted as one who does not believe in God but could believe God might exist. This would be the last bit of clarification to help me fully understand your meaning of the words.
I am glad you are answering my questions on this. Thank you.
I'm an agnostic atheist: I haven't seen evidence for the existence of a god and so don't believe in one (atheist) but I can't say that a god doesn't exist (agnostic). If some god-like being started our universe rolling long ago and walked away, how could we know? On the other hand, given the claims of the Bible, I'm quite certain that, based on the evidence, that god does not exist.
-Triften
"no belief in a god" and "no belief that god exists" are synonymous. Any atheist short of a "hard" atheist(one who knows there is no god with the same conviction that a christian knows there is one) is "one who does not believe in God but could believe God might exist." Could I believe god exists? Sure, but in my mind there is no rational reason to do so.
spewn,
Thanks for the clarifications.
Good insight.
People who are indoctrinated have the most trouble rejecting the faith that indoctrinated them. I was never worried about ending up in the Muslim hell, but it took me a long time to flush the poisonous fear of the Christian hell from my system.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Which is ironic considering the many features of Christianity are almost identical to those found in Buddhism.
Look:
Mark 6:48: he went out to them walking on the lake.
Anguttara Nikaya 3:60: He walks upon the water without parting it, as if it were solid ground.
Mark 10:25: it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enterthe kingdom of heaven.
Jatakamala 5:5 & 15: Riches make a man greedy and so are like a caravan lurching down the road to hell
Matthew 6:20: Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven where moth and rust do not destroy and where thieves do not break in and steal.
Khuddakapatha 8:9 Let the wise man do righteousness; a treasure that others cannot share, which no thief can steal, a treasure which does not pass away.
As for the matter of belief.
Theism: the belief that God exists.
Weak atheism: Lack of belief in God.
Strong atheism: the belief that God does not exist.
Agnosticism: I don’t KNOW if God exists. (Nothing to do with belief)
Agnosticism is not a separate position, but rather a ‘qualifier’ to theism and atheism. So one could say: “I don’t know if God exists, but I believe that one does” making them an agnostic theist. Or someone may say: “I don’t know if God exists, therefore I do not believe in one” making them a agnostic atheist.
Anyone who concedes that they do not or cannot know if God exists is agnostic. This applies to both theists and atheists alike. It does not affect their atheism or theism.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
We have a cause: true, we have principles: true, System of beliefs? define belief, but the nail in the head that does not define atheists or this site as a religion is faith. We lack faith. I believe that is the one defining issue here. None of us have faith. Therefore, by definition we are not religious in manner.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.