Print

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

[Fenrir]

I firmly believe there's something more than what we can figure out, and it's alive, not inanimate chaos'.

In your posts, you have made it fairly clear that you are a theist.

[Shinotsa]

Let me rephrase my point on the discussion of where faithlessness comes from. 10% of the population is atheistic and has no obligation to convert. 90% of the population has some degree of religiousness and is thus told by their beliefs to convert. These preachers are present at least twice a week at my campus, yelling at me and my classmates. Subtract or add the percentage of people who believe a religion that does not require conversion. Disregard developing nations for this discussion, as the sweeping generalizations most of us are making are not taking them into consideration anyhow. Plus I doubt that they are having a sharp decline in religious belief anyhow.

10% not obligated to convert verses some other percent, more than likely higher than 10%, that is obligated to convert kind of disproves the social pressure theory. Perhaps people are just being given an alternative that they are exploring and that resonates with them.

Perhaps your generalization applies to those who are agnostic. Agnostics believe that there may be a god, and are thus not atheists. Atheists believe that there is no god. There is no confusion or denial for myself, as much as there is confusion or denial that there is not an elephant in my back yard. While I cannot draw any conclusions from the way I personally feel about my lack of belief, I do think that the thoughts of a true atheist are much different than those of an agnostic. The two should not be grouped together as much as agnostics and those who are religious should not be grouped together.


Also, I am wondering what context you mean to say righteous in bitesh. Are you talking about smug righteousness, or morality? Most religious persons doubt the morality of atheists due to the fact that they were not taught religious morals. Perhaps that was what you were trying to touch on, as the term righteous may adopt several different meanings based on the connotation.

May I point out as well the number of smug religious people? I think there are just assholes everywhere, regardless of country, color, or creed.

[Lord Dullard]

I firmly believe there's something more than what we can figure out, and it's alive, not inanimate chaos'.

In your posts, you have made it fairly clear that you are a theist.

In the first post I made in this topic, I started out with that admission in the first paragraph. Again, not quite sure what assertion we're talking about, here.

Shinotsa: I agree with you that agnostics and atheists are very different. OTOH they both still have a professed lack of faith, so it's not unfair to call them both faithless.

[Leafsnail]

people accepting the validity of other people's beliefs wouldn't cause them to stop discriminating.

That does not make sense to me.

Why not?  I don't see why someone who accepts that they might not be right about discriminating against gays would stop discrimating against gays.  To do that they'd have to think it's wrong to discriminate against gays.

But he is contradictory in that he goes on to say he does have an idea what's going on.

Ok, I have an idea, it's just my idea, and it's probably not right. "Having an/no idea" might not be a very pertinent expression to use when speaking of such delicate matters.

I wasn't talking about you.

Perhaps your generalization applies to those who are agnostic. Agnostics believe that there may be a god, and are thus not atheists. Atheists believe that there is no god.

No.

An atheist does not believe in a god (some dictionaries also mention that they can "believe there is no god", but this feels unnecessary since that's clearly a subset of not believing in a god).

An agnostic thinks the existence or nature of god is unknowable.

The two positions are not incompatible - you can have no belief that there is a god and think we can never know to be an atheist agnostic.  You can also believe there is a god but think you can't actually know in which case you'd be a theist agnostic.

[Bauglir]

0 to arguing about competing definitions of agnosticism and atheism, in just 6 pages. I bet I know where this thread is going.

[Fenrir]

I firmly believe there's something more than what we can figure out, and it's alive, not inanimate chaos'.

In your posts, you have made it fairly clear that you are a theist.

In the first post I made in this topic, I started out with that admission in the first paragraph. Again, not quite sure what assertion we're talking about, here.

To say that you are a theist is as to assert “God exists.” They are functionally equivalent.

But!—I ask you that I be permitted to reword it that we might avoid discussing the terms being used and return to the point.

You have agreed that we do not know if a god exists, but you strongly believe that a god exists. This is contradictory. To quote you:

'we have no idea what the hell is going on, but I firmly believe there's something more than what we can figure out, and it's alive, not inanimate chaos'.

Now, if you have no idea what the hell is going on, how can you be so sure that something is alive?

[Leafsnail]

0 to arguing about competing definitions of agnosticism and atheism, in just 6 pages. I bet I know where this thread is going.

I don't think it is or needs to be an argument.  Just a point of information that I will pursue no further.

[Bauglir]

You have agreed that we do not know if a god exists, but you strongly believe that a god exists. This is contradictory.

No it isn't. It's a valid distinction between knowledge and belief, or at least assigns those names to a valid distinction between that which is accepted through supporting evidence and logical reasoning, and that which is accepted through faith and intuition. The assertion here is that he has no evidence or logical reasoning to support the existence of a god, and can thus make no conclusion about what he knows in this regard, but faith and intuition suggest that there is a god, and so he believes that it is so.

[bitesh]

90% of the population has some degree of religiousness and is thus told by their beliefs to convert. These preachers are present at least twice a week at my campus, yelling at me and my classmates.

A lot of teachings condemn proselitism. I certainly condemn it. Well, I don't abide, to use a "dudely" term. We can try to convince, but it is not a concern if I actually do or not, nor can I not see value in you and your own views if you do not.

And social pressure does not mean they actively do anything to "convert" you to atheism, but rather the way in which they refute it makes faith seem utterly moronic, even when one has put a tremendous amount of energy and time into thinking it through, as is my case. Of course, this enters the domain of how one feels others perceive him, and, again, might be wrong. For the record, I don't feel this is happening here.

Also, I am wondering what context you mean to say righteous in bitesh. Are you talking about smug righteousness, or morality? Most religious persons doubt the morality of atheists due to the fact that they were not taught religious morals. Perhaps that was what you were trying to touch on, as the term righteous may adopt several different meanings based on the connotation.

I knew righteous was tricky. But obviously not smug righteousness since I just condemned it in atheists. I don't really sympathise with the term morals either, because I feel that they are also a set of rules that are transmitted and can be just as flawed as religious dogma.

May I point out as well the number of smug religious people? I think there are just assholes everywhere, regardless of country, color, or creed.

Obviously, absolutely.

The assertion here is that he has no evidence or logical reasoning to support the existence of a god, and can thus make no conclusion about what he knows in this regard, but faith and intuition suggest that there is a god, and so he believes that it is so.

And thus, imo, it will not be such a schock should he conclusively find out He does not exist, for he had that possibility in mind all along.
EDIT: and he might still be wrong.

[Fenrir]

You have agreed that we do not know if a god exists, but you strongly believe that a god exists. This is contradictory.

No it isn't. It's a valid distinction between knowledge and belief, or at least assigns those names to a valid distinction between that which is accepted through supporting evidence and logical reasoning, and that which is accepted through faith and intuition. The assertion here is that he has no evidence or logical reasoning to support the existence of a god, and can thus make no conclusion about what he knows in this regard, but faith and intuition suggest that there is a god, and so he believes that it is so.

Aaaaaaand once again I appear to be mistaken.

I do so love these debates, but damned if I don’t hate losing.

[Lord Dullard]

I firmly believe there's something more than what we can figure out, and it's alive, not inanimate chaos'.

In your posts, you have made it fairly clear that you are a theist.

In the first post I made in this topic, I started out with that admission in the first paragraph. Again, not quite sure what assertion we're talking about, here.

To say that you are a theist is as to assert “God exists.” They are functionally equivalent.

Okay, here's where we're disagreeing. To say that you are a theist is to assert that you BELIEVE God exists. Not that you KNOW He exists or have scientific proof of such. Knowledge is different than belief, and an assertion is a positive statement, i.e., a claim. I am not claiming that God exists, I am claiming that I believe He exists.

I think we can settle on some definitions. An agnostic is somebody who believes that there may or may not be a (G/g)od(s). An atheist is somebody who believes there is no (G/g)od(s). And a theist is somebody who believes there is.

Now, anybody who makes an assertion that their viewpoint of any of these things is right can be assumed to be wrong, barring any evidence they present to the contrary. Otherwise they are categorically differentiated by their BELIEFS, i.e. their opinions, not by any knowledge they claim or assert.

But!—I ask you that I be permitted to reword it that we might avoid discussing the terms being used and return to the point.

You have agreed that we do not know if a god exists, but you strongly believe that a god exists. This is contradictory. To quote you:

'we have no idea what the hell is going on, but I firmly believe there's something more than what we can figure out, and it's alive, not inanimate chaos'.

Now, if you have no idea what the hell is going on, how can you be so sure that something is alive?

I'm not sure, but I do believe it. I--

Crap, Bauglir ninja'd me.

[bitesh]

people accepting the validity of other people's beliefs wouldn't cause them to stop discriminating.

That does not make sense to me.

Why not?  I don't see why someone who accepts that they might not be right about discriminating against gays would stop discrimating against gays.  To do that they'd have to think it's wrong to discriminate against gays.

I see your point, now. But I still think that if they should refrain from doing something they realise might be wrong, if they're honest with themselves.

But he is contradictory in that he goes on to say he does have an idea what's going on.

Ok, I have an idea, it's just my idea, and it's probably not right. "Having an/no idea" might not be a very pertinent expression to use when speaking of such delicate matters.

I wasn't talking about you.
[/quote]
I still felt it needed to be said, and is valid to whomever "has an idea".

This quoteception is getting really out of hand.

[Shinotsa]

I actually wasn't going to argue the definition at all. That was a good clarification, as I was not aware the definition was that broad. It seems kind of pointless now that I think about it, as by that definition any rational person is an agnostic. If you have to have faith you're agnostic, as faith is belief without proof. Without proof, you cannot be entirely sure. Disbelief is being sure that nothing is there, and since we don't know where to look, it is impossible to be completely sure whether or not something is there. This is probably why I was confused, as agnostics are rarely portrayed according to the actual definition, if your definition is accurate.

Perhaps we should define being agnostic as having the belief that there is a 50/50 shot of either. Or perhaps having the belief that there is between a 30-70% chance of a god existing. (I kid)

As for the topic of social pressure, I am not saying that there is NO social pressure from the atheists, but rather that it could not be the cause of a significant change in belief because there is an equal or greater force pushing for the alternate change.

[bitesh]

I do so love these debates, but damned if I don’t hate losing.

You don't, nor do you win. Why do you put it in such terms?

[bitesh]

and since we don't know where to look, it is impossible to be completely sure whether or not something is there.

This.

Perhaps we should define being agnostic as having the belief that there is a 50/50 shot of either.

There's a South Park episode just like that.