Print

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

[Oakenshield]

To G-flex.

I long ago gave up on trying to figure out what in the hell he's trying to communicate and have reached a point at which I don't honestly care.

I say forward with the debate rather than spending any more time trying to clarify for someone who has a preconception regarding the meaning of the terms under discussion.

To crown of fire.

I was simply elucidating regarding what heretic and infidel actually meant.

[fqllve]

This is a little debatable. That is to say, it's debatable whether "religion" means what you say, or whether or not you simply have "religious beliefs", and whether or not "religious beliefs" include theistic beliefs by default.

It's debatable, but there are religions that are considered nontheistic (Buddhism mainly) and theistic beliefs that are considered nonreligious (Deism mainly). Personally I'd say that religious beliefs generally include theistic ones, but not the other way around.

[Farmerbob]

Lack of religion, not a lack of belief in deities. Belief in a deity does not imply religion. Religion implies worship and devotion. If you believe in a deity, but don't worship, go to church, follow the rules, or generally devote yourself to that deity you are not religious, therefore irreligious but not nontheistic. You neglect the religion, not the deity.

This is a little debatable. That is to say, it's debatable whether "religion" means what you say, or whether or not you simply have "religious beliefs", and whether or not "religious beliefs" include theistic beliefs by default.



I have no idea why Farmerbob is even bringing the term "heretic" into the equation. Then again, I don't know why he's doing a lot of the things he's doing. Judging by what he's said, and by his chart, he subscribes to his own definitions that are 1) not actually in line with any accepted academic definitions of the words, and 2) far less useful, as they actually make it harder to explain one's position. I'm not even going to try to interpret what his definition of "Non Theists" means on that chart, as it is completely nonsensical.

I understand that lots of people are in love with Wiki, but when it comes to information about religion, Wiki is about as accurate as a Google search with "I feel lucky" chosen.

There are lots of crackpot theorists out there on any number of different religious topics that you might want to name, and all of them want to create their own words and definitions to make things fit their own worldview.

Thats why I prefer a dictionary definition, because dictionaries normally provide rational word descriptions as defined by common usage, rather than some random definition provided by Professor Z's Wacky trans-universal theory on religion.

[Farmerbob]

To G-flex.

I long ago gave up on trying to figure out what in the hell he's trying to communicate and have reached a point at which I don't honestly care.

I say forward with the debate rather than spending any more time trying to clarify for someone who has a preconception regarding the meaning of the terms under discussion.

To crown of fire.

I was simply elucidating regarding what heretic and infidel actually meant.

At this point, I'm trying to communicate that Agnosticism shares one thing and one thing only with Atheism.  Both groups are non-theists.  Other than that there is nothing meaningful in common between Agnosticism and Atheism.  One is based on a logical requirement for proof, the other is based on a belief held with no justification.

[fqllve]

Thats why I prefer a dictionary definition, because dictionaries normally provide rational word descriptions as defined by common usage, rather than some random definition provided by Professor Z's Wacky trans-universal theory on religion.

Except that by using irreligious as a theistic position you are straying from the dictionary definition which says nothing about a person's theistic beliefs. Whether you think irreligious theists are idiotic or not they exist and your definition basically negates them.

[Max White]

I was trying to remember if I had ever heard a word to describe someone that believed in a deity but did not worship it.  Other than Heretic, the best thing I could come up with was idiot.

I think the problem is that your not thinking past Christan. If the patheon of a religen has many gods, then it is easyer to identify some as being 'evil' and therefor choose to shun them, and not worship them. Nobody cares for poor Loki, god of awesomeness.

[Shambling Zombie]

The strawman I was refering to was mainly the three positions being "Disbelief in gods, with no proof", "don't care at all", and "No decision without proof".

The "I don't care about evidence, gods don't exist" -is- a strawman picture of an Aetheist. Even Richard Dawkins is basically just asking for good evidence or proof before accepting there is a deity.

[Farmerbob]

Thats why I prefer a dictionary definition, because dictionaries normally provide rational word descriptions as defined by common usage, rather than some random definition provided by Professor Z's Wacky trans-universal theory on religion.

Except that by using irreligious as a theistic position you are straying from the dictionary definition which says nothing about a person's theistic beliefs. Whether you think irreligious theists are idiotic or not they exist and your definition basically negates them.

I suppose one would have to split the definition of irreligious then.  There is the irreligion that indicates complete lack of religion, and the irreligion that indicates a lack of doctrine and proper practices.

I prefer the definition that matches the root meanings of the component parts, however I'll recognize that the other side exists.

The problem is that these two definitions between them encompass every single person in the entire world.  Nobody follows each and every single doctrinal requirement of their religion perfectly, and anyone who isn't religious is also irreligious.

I'm not using irreligious to describe theists, because in that context, it's meaningless.  To be a theist, you are also invariably irreligious at least part of the time.  To follow up, because it is possible to be irreligious and a theist, and irreligious and completely without interest in religion, it's best to separate the terms.

I would call an irreligious theist a sinner, and leave the term irreligious to indicate the meaning of it's root words.

[Max White]

The strawman I was refering to was mainly the three positions being "Disbelief in gods, with no proof", "don't care at all", and "No decision without proof".

The "I don't care about evidence, gods don't exist" -is- a strawman picture of an Aetheist. Even Richard Dawkins is basically just asking for good evidence or proof before accepting there is a deity.

Ok, so that just about justifys athiest. One out of three aint bad.

[Farmerbob]

I was trying to remember if I had ever heard a word to describe someone that believed in a deity but did not worship it.  Other than Heretic, the best thing I could come up with was idiot.

I think the problem is that your not thinking past Christan. If the patheon of a religen has many gods, then it is easyer to identify some as being 'evil' and therefor choose to shun them, and not worship them. Nobody cares for poor Loki, god of awesomeness.

Loki was certainly worshipped by those that believed in him, even if they didn't generally want a whole lot of his attention.  Pantheistic societies tended to pray to whatever gods were appropriate at the moment.  A badly injured man trying to stay hidden from a searching enemy might pray to Loki to help him stay hidden, a wife might pray to him to not let her husband find out about the other man.  A thief might pray to Loki quite regularly.  Basically anyone who would see benefits from deception would likely offer up a prayer to Loki.  They might not care for him, and they would know that his gift frequently was not really a gift in the end, but they would prat to him just the same.

[Max White]

Loki was certainly worshipped by those that believed in him, even if they didn't generally want a whole lot of his attention.  Pantheistic societies tended to pray to whatever gods were appropriate at the moment.  A badly injured man trying to stay hidden from a searching enemy might pray to Loki to help him stay hidden, a wife might pray to him to not let her husband find out about the other man.  A thief might pray to Loki quite regularly.  Basically anyone who would be benefitted by deception would likely offer up a prayer to Loki.  They might not care for him, and they would know that his gift frequently was not really a gift in the end, but they would prat to him just the same.

Sorry to be misleading (Pun fully intended), I didn't realy make referance to loki because nobody cared, I'm sure if you look hard enough you will find somebody who worships any god, although not everybody will worship them all.
Loki was my twisted idea of a joke, nobody ever gets my sence of humer.

[Shambling Zombie]

Well, the whole "doesn't care" irreligious thing also forgets to cover some of the stranger people who don't consider gods per se, like animist religions and some forms of spirituality.

As for Agnostic "nothing without proof", it's not really a strawman as such, but it is a over simplification of a position that covers such beliefs as "maybe god is hiding or fudging any proof for or against, so we can't know", "any being like a god is beyond knowing", "need more proof" and "uh... dunno".

[Farmerbob]

The strawman I was refering to was mainly the three positions being "Disbelief in gods, with no proof", "don't care at all", and "No decision without proof".

The "I don't care about evidence, gods don't exist" -is- a strawman picture of an Aetheist. Even Richard Dawkins is basically just asking for good evidence or proof before accepting there is a deity.

Richard Dawkins is requiring proof of the existence of a deity before even considering the concept.

If were rational, he would refuse to draw a conclusion either way because there is no way to know.  You might lean one way or another, but still be uncommitted, awaiting further data.

[Max White]

Of corse there is one interpritation of 'god' that is basicaly undenyable. That is, god is the collective will of it's followers.

So for example, we could say 'god feeds and clothes the poor'. That dosn't mean that is a amazing display of super natural weather patterns fish and stocks fall from the sky, it means that those follow god are compelled to start charitys and donate clothing and spam to those in need. On the other hand, god could 'smite he's rivals from above' and we get guys riding planes into towers.

It's a cheesy way to see god, but it is hard to deny that, real or not, as a factor that affects human behavior, for better or worse, it it worth acknowledging.

[Farmerbob]

Well, the whole "doesn't care" irreligious thing also forgets to cover some of the stranger people who don't consider gods per se, like animist religions and some forms of spirituality.

As for Agnostic "nothing without proof", it's not really a strawman as such, but it is a over simplification of a position that covers such beliefs as "maybe god is hiding or fudging any proof for or against, so we can't know", "any being like a god is beyond knowing", "need more proof" and "uh... dunno".

Well, yes, but is asking if "4 + 4 = 8" really different from asking if "2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 8"?  I submit that it is not.

Agnosticism is basically a position that holds together logically, the others don't - at least for now.