Print

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

[Farmerbob]

Another person who doesn't understand the symantics.

Yes, you.

Even the definitions you filched from disagree with your inane conclusion born out of Western ethnocentrism. Did it even cross your mind that religions can be formed around concepts besides a deity? Did you ever stop to think whether these labels are exclusionary to one another, or did you simply run for the unsophisticated nonsense regurgitated by people who have no understanding of the matters being discussed? Atheism deals strictly with the concept of deities and had you any comprehension of the subject you'd never have wandered into this thread armed with asinine gibberish disguised as language.

Don't be proud of your ignorance. Read the actual literature surrounding the terms you use or even their Wikipedia pages.

Atheism is based on the root word theism.  Atheists have nothing at all to do with religions that are not based on gods, unless they are afflicted with some other -ism that required them to disbelieve in <x>  An agnostic might actually follow a religion based in something tangible.  An irreligious person wouldn't care.

I couldn't care less about religions with no deities (other than Atheism, of course) for the purposes of this thread, because they are not being discussed in any way, or weren't before you assumed that they might somehow be relevant.

[ECrownofFire]

I couldn't care less about religions with no deities (other than Atheism, of course) for the purposes of this thread, because they are not being discussed in any way, or weren't before you assumed that they might somehow be relevant.

Funny, because I thought the title of the thread was "Atheism", not "People with no religion".

[Glowcat]

Atheism is based on the root word theism. Atheists have nothing at all to do with religions that are not based on gods, unless they are afflicted with some other -ism that required them to disbelieve in <x>  An agnostic might actually follow a religion based in something tangible.  An irreligious person wouldn't care.

I couldn't care less about religions with no deities (other than Atheism, of course) for the purposes of this thread, because they are not being discussed in any way, or weren't before you assumed that they might somehow be relevant.

You don't care about other religions besides how you've attempted to introduce the 'irreligious' position alongside Agnosticism and Atheism as if each of them were all an entire category on their own? Agnosticism is purely a stance on the ability to know whether or not a deity exists in terms of falsifiability and the logical conclusions of Agnosticism make one ignore the possibility of any deity much like they'd ignore any supernatural claim such as an invisible dragon in your garage that couldn't be interacted with by any means. If you don't give any credence to the existence of deities then you are not a theist because you don't believe one or more deities exist.

As you pointed out: Atheism is based on Theism, a position which requires the acceptance of at least one deity. One doesn't have to actively disbelieve in an infinite number of supernatural possibilities to not believe in any of them. So far you've been attempting to extrapolate centuries of philosophical thought from a dictionary and it's painful to watch.

[G-Flex]

I couldn't care less about religions with no deities (other than Atheism, of course)

Wait, hold your horses. Are you claiming that atheism is a religion?

[Glowcat]

I couldn't care less about religions with no deities (other than Atheism, of course)

Wait, hold your horses. Are you claiming that atheism is a religion?

Just look at page 147 where he tried using this definition to prove his point:

Definition of RELIGION
1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

[Farmerbob]

Atheism is based on the root word theism. Atheists have nothing at all to do with religions that are not based on gods, unless they are afflicted with some other -ism that required them to disbelieve in <x>  An agnostic might actually follow a religion based in something tangible.  An irreligious person wouldn't care.

I couldn't care less about religions with no deities (other than Atheism, of course) for the purposes of this thread, because they are not being discussed in any way, or weren't before you assumed that they might somehow be relevant.

You don't care about other religions besides how you've attempted to introduce the 'irreligious' position alongside Agnosticism and Atheism as if each of them were all an entire category on their own? Agnosticism is purely a stance on the ability to know whether or not a deity exists in terms of falsifiability and the logical conclusions of Agnosticism make one ignore the possibility of any deity much like they'd ignore any supernatural claim such as an invisible dragon in your garage that couldn't be interacted with by any means. If you don't give any credence to the existence of deities then you are not a theist because you don't believe one or more deities exist.

As you pointed out: Atheism is based on Theism, a position which requires the acceptance of at least one deity. One doesn't have to actively disbelieve in an infinite number of supernatural possibilities to not believe in any of them. So far you've been attempting to extrapolate centuries of philosophical thought from a dictionary and it's painful to watch.

You keep meandering around the point here, or just don't understand it.

Atheists actively disbelieve in deities, while having no proof.

Agnostics refuse to either believe or disbelieve unless there is proof.

Irreligious people don't care about religion at all.

These are mutually exclusive categories.  There is no overlap between these three, period.  Overlap of these three groups is created only in the minds of those who don't know what they actually are.

In your statement: "Agnosticism is purely a stance on the ability to know whether or not a deity exists in terms of falsifiability and the logical conclusions of Agnosticism make one ignore the possibility of any deity much like they'd ignore any supernatural claim such as an invisible dragon in your garage that couldn't be interacted with by any means." you make it clear that you are confusing Ignosticism and Agnosticism.  An agnostic believes that a deity may or may not esist, they don't know either way.  An ignostic simply refuses to even consider the question of whether or not a deity exists because they don't have any way to prove it.  Ignostics are more akin to the irreligious than the agnostics.

As far as I am concerned, there is no proof as to whether or not any deity exists.  I am an agnostic.  I am not an atheist.  I am not any sort of theist.  I am not irreligious.  I find it mildly offensive when someone thinks they can lump me in with these groups, and I find it sad when people who believe as I do think they are actually atheist or irreligious because theists and atheists have been trying to lump everyone into as few piles as possible.  A religion based completely on something tangible would be fine.  Worship based on internal peace or physical activities is fine.  When you start linking unprovable things in, and starting to create something that is like a deity, that's when I'd start questioning.

I wouldn't call myself a militant agnostic, but that doesn't mean I can't get upset when people try to tell me I'm really something that I most certainly am not.

[Farmerbob]

I couldn't care less about religions with no deities (other than Atheism, of course)

Wait, hold your horses. Are you claiming that atheism is a religion?

Of course I am, because it is.

[Il Palazzo]

I guess not believing in astrology is also a religion.

Actually, I never quite appreciated how religious a person I am. There are so many things I don't belive in!

[Farmerbob]

I guess not believing in astrology is also a religion.

Astrology has been debunked so thoroughly that anyone who doesn't believe in it isn't religious at all, just intelligent.

[Farmerbob]

I guess not believing in astrology is also a religion.

Actually, I never quite appreciated how religious a person I am. There are so many things I don't belive in!

Hah, added a bit in I see.

Not believing in something doesn't necessarily make you religious.  Irreligious people are not religious.

Atheists are religious because they _actively_ disbelieve.  They don't simply not care, they are certain that there is no deity, despite having no way to test for that condition.

In essence, atheists believe in something which there is absolutely no proof for, and there never can be.  You cannot prove a negative.  Trying to insist that a deity doesn't exist is just as faith-based as insisting that one does.

[Il Palazzo]

And how do you debunk astrology? You take it's dogma, and look for relevance to the world around you. If whatever it states fails to produce measurable results that would fit it's own predictions, then you just dismiss it.
If the dogma is not relevant to the world around you(the invisible unicorn argument), then you dismiss it just as well.
You're telling me that dismissing religious dogma because it either fails to produce measurable predictions, or is irrelevant to the world around us, is suddenly a religion itself.
Wherein lies the difference?

I guess not believing in astrology is also a religion.

Actually, I never quite appreciated how religious a person I am. There are so many things I don't belive in!

Atheists are religious because they _actively_ disbelieve.  They don't simply not care, they are certain that there is no deity, despite having no way to test for that condition.

I actively disbelieve in everything that hasn't been proven or has been disproven. I'm an apinkunicornist, an ayoungearthcreationist, an astingtheorist, asantaclausist and so on.

[Glowcat]

Atheism is based on the root word theism. Atheists have nothing at all to do with religions that are not based on gods, unless they are afflicted with some other -ism that required them to disbelieve in <x>  An agnostic might actually follow a religion based in something tangible.  An irreligious person wouldn't care.

I couldn't care less about religions with no deities (other than Atheism, of course) for the purposes of this thread, because they are not being discussed in any way, or weren't before you assumed that they might somehow be relevant.

You don't care about other religions besides how you've attempted to introduce the 'irreligious' position alongside Agnosticism and Atheism as if each of them were all an entire category on their own? Agnosticism is purely a stance on the ability to know whether or not a deity exists in terms of falsifiability and the logical conclusions of Agnosticism make one ignore the possibility of any deity much like they'd ignore any supernatural claim such as an invisible dragon in your garage that couldn't be interacted with by any means. If you don't give any credence to the existence of deities then you are not a theist because you don't believe one or more deities exist.

As you pointed out: Atheism is based on Theism, a position which requires the acceptance of at least one deity. One doesn't have to actively disbelieve in an infinite number of supernatural possibilities to not believe in any of them. So far you've been attempting to extrapolate centuries of philosophical thought from a dictionary and it's painful to watch.

You keep meandering around the point here, or just don't understand it.

I'm not meandering. You're just wrong and all your definitions aren't even related.

you make it clear that you are confusing Ignosticism and Agnosticism.  An agnostic believes that a deity may or may not esist, they don't know either way.  An ignostic simply refuses to even consider the question of whether or not a deity exists because they don't have any way to prove it.  Ignostics are more akin to the irreligious than the agnostics.

What I described isn't what Ignosticism is, what I described is how Thomas Henry Huxley defined the term he created and how the term Agnosticism has been discussed in philosophy. Ignosticism doesn't just say that you cannot know the unfalsifiable, it goes one further and says the entire argument is meaningless. My own view point falls somewhere in the sphere of Ignosticism so I'm more than a little bemused that you've tried lecturing me about its meaning.

[Farmerbob]

And how do you debunk astrology? You take it's dogma, and look for relevance to the world around you. If whatever it states fails to produce measurable results that would fit it's own predictions, then you just dismiss it.
If the dogma is not relevant to the world around you(the invisible unicorn argument), then you dismiss it just as well.
You're telling me that dismissing religious dogma because it either fails to produce measurable predictions, or is irrelevant to the world around us, is suddenly a religion itself.
Wherein lies the difference?

Astrology tries to tell us that the positions of the stars, planets, and other celestial bodies have some impact on our lives.  With the exception of the Earth, its moon, and its sun, this has been debunked.  Statistically it simply does not hold water in the least.

The invisible unicorn argument is silly.  Always has been, no matter how it is used.  If there's a being out there that is omnipotent and omniscient, it could be doing all sorts of things actively, while making sure to leave no proof that it exists.  Then again, it might not exist at all, which would have the same result for now - but who can say that if such a deity exists that it won't choose to make itself known tomorrow?

Atheists simply don't believe in a deity.  They have no way to prove any reason for their lack of belief, but they hold that position anyway.  This is an irrational belief in something which cannot be proven.

[Farmerbob]

Atheism is based on the root word theism. Atheists have nothing at all to do with religions that are not based on gods, unless they are afflicted with some other -ism that required them to disbelieve in <x>  An agnostic might actually follow a religion based in something tangible.  An irreligious person wouldn't care.

I couldn't care less about religions with no deities (other than Atheism, of course) for the purposes of this thread, because they are not being discussed in any way, or weren't before you assumed that they might somehow be relevant.

You don't care about other religions besides how you've attempted to introduce the 'irreligious' position alongside Agnosticism and Atheism as if each of them were all an entire category on their own? Agnosticism is purely a stance on the ability to know whether or not a deity exists in terms of falsifiability and the logical conclusions of Agnosticism make one ignore the possibility of any deity much like they'd ignore any supernatural claim such as an invisible dragon in your garage that couldn't be interacted with by any means. If you don't give any credence to the existence of deities then you are not a theist because you don't believe one or more deities exist.

As you pointed out: Atheism is based on Theism, a position which requires the acceptance of at least one deity. One doesn't have to actively disbelieve in an infinite number of supernatural possibilities to not believe in any of them. So far you've been attempting to extrapolate centuries of philosophical thought from a dictionary and it's painful to watch.

You keep meandering around the point here, or just don't understand it.

I'm not meandering. You're just wrong and all your definitions aren't even related.

you make it clear that you are confusing Ignosticism and Agnosticism.  An agnostic believes that a deity may or may not esist, they don't know either way.  An ignostic simply refuses to even consider the question of whether or not a deity exists because they don't have any way to prove it.  Ignostics are more akin to the irreligious than the agnostics.

What I described isn't what Ignosticism is, what I described is how Thomas Henry Huxley defined the term he created and how the term Agnosticism has been discussed in philosophy. Ignosticism doesn't just say that you cannot know the unfalsifiable, it goes one further and says the entire argument is meaningless. My own view point falls somewhere in the sphere of Ignosticism so I'm more than a little bemused that you've tried lecturing me about its meaning.

Wow, I wasn't aware that mr Huxley had an invisible dragon in his garage.  When you add invisible dragons to an argument it immediately enters into the meaningless realm for me.  Perhaps you could go back and create a meaningful argument, then we could give it another go?

[Farmerbob]

Atheism is based on the root word theism. Atheists have nothing at all to do with religions that are not based on gods, unless they are afflicted with some other -ism that required them to disbelieve in <x>  An agnostic might actually follow a religion based in something tangible.  An irreligious person wouldn't care.

I couldn't care less about religions with no deities (other than Atheism, of course) for the purposes of this thread, because they are not being discussed in any way, or weren't before you assumed that they might somehow be relevant.

You don't care about other religions besides how you've attempted to introduce the 'irreligious' position alongside Agnosticism and Atheism as if each of them were all an entire category on their own? Agnosticism is purely a stance on the ability to know whether or not a deity exists in terms of falsifiability and the logical conclusions of Agnosticism make one ignore the possibility of any deity much like they'd ignore any supernatural claim such as an invisible dragon in your garage that couldn't be interacted with by any means. If you don't give any credence to the existence of deities then you are not a theist because you don't believe one or more deities exist.

As you pointed out: Atheism is based on Theism, a position which requires the acceptance of at least one deity. One doesn't have to actively disbelieve in an infinite number of supernatural possibilities to not believe in any of them. So far you've been attempting to extrapolate centuries of philosophical thought from a dictionary and it's painful to watch.

You keep meandering around the point here, or just don't understand it.

I'm not meandering. You're just wrong and all your definitions aren't even related.

I'm glad you have finally agreed to the fact that Agnostics, Atheists, and Irreligious persons are not related in any way.