Print

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

[Shambling Zombie]

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.

There's no doubt some people are willing to do extremely good and unspeakably bad things in the name of their religion.

[Siquo]

Farmerbob, can't we just listen to Bauglir (the moderator of this thread, FYI), and take his definitions, so we can argue from there? You've been doing nothing but defending your interpretations of certain sequences of letters for the last few pages. It's kinda pointless.

Within this new framework of atheism definitions, I'd like to restate that any atheist (and this falls outside of implicit/explicit/weak/strong) that adheres to Scientism, is religious. If you believe that scientific experiments reveal the truth of the universe, aren't those experiments in themselves a form of religious ritual? (If you've ever done some hard scientific experiments over the course of months or years, you'd know what I mean. Tedious and repetitive.) Also, scientists (Grand Generalisation and Stereotyping Alert) are like monks: often seclusive, dedicated to their religion, and celibate

[fqllve]

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.

From roots it literally means "not religious." And in the five centuries its been around it has mostly been used to describe those who didn't express proper piety. That is, yes, it mostly has meant sinners.

And an irreligious christian would yes, be a sinner. But christianity is a religion. Irreligious people don't usually believe in a god like that. Deism, again, is the archetypal example of this. They believe in a creator deity, but also that it is apparently unconcerned with us.

The position you're describing, as it relates to theistic belief, is most specifically "unconcerned with whether or not a deity exists."

Which could be considered a type of agnosticism.

[Shambling Zombie]

Science would make a pretty lousy religion. It disapproves of blind faith in anything (even itself), is constantly is challenging and re-challenging itself, seeks to find out new things, admits when it finds mistakes in itself (if the scientists doing the research aren't iffy, anyway) and makes no ethical or moral edicts on behaviour outside the following of usually reliable methods of seeking answers to questions.

Nevertheless, there are some who place a stamp of "It's Science!" on their religion. Usually self-help gurus and such talking about Quantum Physics and focusing your inner String harmonics to increase your inner potential... or whatever.

[TolyK]

^ Lol.

[Max White]

Well, science dosn't realy try to tell is about morals, does it? No realy, anybody got any scientific articals about what is and is not moraly good or bad?

Because short of that, we need other means to say why we shouldn't stone little kids to death. Local culture does alright, and the police do well, but nothing strikes fear into peoples hearts like burning forever...

[Shambling Zombie]

Unfortunately sometimes religion can convince people that stoning someone is the right thing to do, even for something weird like working on the wrong day or something.

[Farmerbob]

Farmerbob, can't we just listen to Bauglir (the moderator of this thread, FYI), and take his definitions, so we can argue from there? You've been doing nothing but defending your interpretations of certain sequences of letters for the last few pages. It's kinda pointless.

Within this new framework of atheism definitions, I'd like to restate that any atheist (and this falls outside of implicit/explicit/weak/strong) that adheres to Scientism, is religious. If you believe that scientific experiments reveal the truth of the universe, aren't those experiments in themselves a form of religious ritual? (If you've ever done some hard scientific experiments over the course of months or years, you'd know what I mean. Tedious and repetitive.) Also, scientists (Grand Generalisation and Stereotyping Alert) are like monks: often seclusive, dedicated to their religion, and celibate

I'm hoping that Bauglir as the "owner" of this thread will recognize that there is absolutely no way that one can possibly justify defining a belief based on a rational decisionmaking process (Agnosticism) as a subgrouping of another belief that is fully dependent on an unprovable concept (Atheism).  If that were the case, then Agnosticism would have to share the illogic of Atheism, and it simply does not.  The only thing that Agnosticism and Atheism share in common is a refusal to believe in a deity.  The path to that refusal is extremely important.

[Farmerbob]

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.

From roots it literally means "not religious." And in the five centuries its been around it has mostly been used to describe those who didn't express proper piety. That is, yes, it mostly has meant sinners.

And an irreligious christian would yes, be a sinner. But christianity is a religion. Irreligious people don't usually believe in a god like that. Deism, again, is the archetypal example of this. They believe in a creator deity, but also that it is apparently unconcerned with us.

The position you're describing, as it relates to theistic belief, is most specifically "unconcerned with whether or not a deity exists."

Which could be considered a type of agnosticism.

An irreligious person who is "unconcerned with whether or not a deity exists." has no interest in the matter, and would not consider whether or not a deity exists because they don't care.

An Agnostic has interest, how else would they have actually seriously considered the matter of whether a deity exists?

It's not just a matter of not being a theist.  These two groups do share that with Atheism, but that's as far as the similarities run.

[Max White]

I think the only word for somebody who dosn't think about a all powerful being that so many people worship and will sometimes fight and kill over would be fool.
Honestly, I can respect if you do or do not have a specific faith. I know I have my strange ways to show it, but all in all I like people who beleive in a god a lot. But disreguard for something people say is the most pwerful force in all existance, especialy if they do not care enough to know about it? That's like not caring wether electricity can kill you or not. Sure, one it more provable then the other, but for somebody who has given the subject no thought at all, they don't know that, and they realy should do there best to find out for themselves.

[ECrownofFire]

I think the only word for somebody who dosn't think about a all powerful being that so many people worship and will sometimes fight and kill over would be fool.
Honestly, I can respect if you do or do not have a specific faith. I know I have my strange ways to show it, but all in all I like people who beleive in a god a lot. But disreguard for something people say is the most pwerful force in all existance, especialy if they do not care enough to know about it? That's like not caring wether electricity can kill you or not. Sure, one it more provable then the other, but for somebody who has given the subject no thought at all, they don't know that, and they realy should do there best to find out for themselves.

Finding out if electricity can kill you or not by yourself is not going to turn out well, no matter how you look at it.

Religion never killed anybody, electricity has

[CoughDrop]

Whether or not you initially show interest in theism, living in many of today's societies will undoubtedly pair you against someone who will show a distinct interest in what your position on the subject would be. Regardless if you care or not, there is a label that will be given to you. Stop trying to determine if someone cares or not just by the label that has been given to them; not everything is black and white.

[Max White]

Religion never killed anybody, electricity has

Well there are other ways to find out that high voltage kills. Well not realy, high amps kill, you can et hit by a ton of voltage and be fine if there are no amps behind it, but you get the idea. But yes, the past has given examples of people being stuck by lightning and not living.

Oh, and the crucades is the common example, although AIDS is becoming popular too! If you want more direct, then aztecs were into that.

In other words I totaly just killed your joke by not taking it as a joke.

[ECrownofFire]

Religion never killed anybody, electricity has

Well there are other ways to find out that high voltage kills. Well not realy, high amps kill, you can et hit by a ton of voltage and be fine if there are no amps behind it, but you get the idea. But yes, the past has given examples of people being stuck by lightning and not living.

Oh, and the crucades is the common example, although AIDS is becoming popular too! If you want more direct, then aztecs were into that.

In other words I totaly just killed your joke by not taking it as a joke.

Ideas and beliefs don't kill people, people kill people, if you want it serious then.

[Max White]

Ideas and beliefs don't kill people, people kill people, if you want it serious then.

Unless the idea or belief is so abstract that it sends you insane and makes you keep up a strange website like 'hypercube' or 'eht namuh' untill you go so fruit lops that you kill your neighbor by beating them into submission with a cactus.