Religion rant on my blog

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Garth
I don't know who you're arguing against, because it certainly isn't me.

The problem we're running into, is that the vast majority of people do not consider being agnostic, but favoring a side, to be part of theism or atheism at all. They consider it different versions of agnosticism.

You, however, do consider it to be part of theism/atheism.

I'm sorry, but you're really going to have to reiterate this post with an empahsis on coherency.

What's so incoherent about it? Literacy not your strong point?

People typically consider theists/atheists to be postive that there is/isn't God(s).

People typically consider agnostics to be uncertain to the existence of God(s), and separate from theism/atheism. If you believe that there is/isn't a God, but accept that the possibility of the other occuring does exist, then you are considered to be agnostic. Agnosticism has varying levels, where people are completey uncertain, to whether they favor the belief there is or isn't a god, but still remain partially uncertain.

People do not consider agnostic theism and agnostic atheism to be parts of theism and atheism.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Garth

The fact of the matter is that you either believe a god exists or you don't, and you can either believe that position to be rationally justified or not. Atheism proper is merely "not-theism," meaning anyone that does not believe in a god is an atheist whether they describe themselves thus or not. I, myself, am an agnostic atheist. I do not beleive a god exists, but I do not purport to know that no gods exist.

You don't think that a god exists, but you claim no knowledge of any god's nonexistence, right? What you are is an atheist who recognizes no proof of his beliefs. So you have designated a cozy little place from which you can attack all other belief-systems.

Do you realize that by your very claim and definition of agnostic-atheism you have discredited your previous argument? Do you not recognize the fact that the ideas of not believing in a god and , at the same time, recognizing the opposite possibility are mutually exclusive?

 

[Vinny N]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Garth
I don't know who you're arguing against, because it certainly isn't me.

The problem we're running into, is that the vast majority of people do not consider being agnostic, but favoring a side, to be part of theism or atheism at all. They consider it different versions of agnosticism.

You, however, do consider it to be part of theism/atheism.

I'm sorry, but you're really going to have to reiterate this post with an empahsis on coherency.

Garth,

I think there's some confusion here.

You said yourself that: "There are agnostic theists, as well as there are agnostic atheists. There are yet gnostic theists, and even still gnostic atheists."

Do you acknowledge that there are some people who are just theists or just atheists and there are some people who are just gnostics or agnostics?

Because there is such a thing as being undecided. You could be a gnostic or agnostic and not have decided whether to have a belief that "God exists".

Or are you claiming that if you are undecided then you still lack the belief and are an Atheist by default? If so, that's a mere technicality if I ever saw one and I'm sure there are gnostics/agnostics that don't want to be lumped in with the atheists by technicality. (I would argue that atheism needs to be redefined at that point.)

Let P stand for the proposition "God exists."

Theist - I believe that P.

Someone who is JUST a theist doesn't necessarily ponder whether or not P can be known.

Atheist - I do not have the belief that P.

Someone who is JUST an atheist doesn't necessarily ponder whether or not P can be known.

Agnostic - P v ~P, but believes that it is unknowable.

Someone who is JUST an Agnostic is an expressing a belief about the possibility of knowledge of P.

Gnostic - P v ~P, but believes that it is knowable.

Someone who is JUST a Gnostic is an expressing a belief about the possibility of knowledge of P.

 

[Doboji]

an Atheist is one who believes there is no higher being, a theist is one who believes in a higher being. If you're undecided then you're agnostic.

I get so sick of explaining this. Oh well... once more, into the breech...

The dichotomies between theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism are orthogonal, but they are dichotomies. Agnosticism isn't some kind of "middle ground" "between" theism and atheism. The theism/atheism dichotomy describes a person's position of belief with resepect to the proposition "God exists." The gnosticism/agnosticism describes a person's confidence or beliefs about his justification for his partiuclar stance within the theism/atheism dichotomy. There are agnostic theists, as well as there are agnostic atheists. There are yet gnostic theists, and even still gnostic atheists.

The problem here is that you, like many armchair philosophers, have fallen under the misconception that theism = belief in god, atheism = belief in no-god, and agnosticism = not sure either way. Such an arrangement is nice and tidy, it would seem, but it simply isn't consistent with the meanings of the terms involved, nor is it as descriptive.

The fact of the matter is that you either believe a god exists or you don't, and you can either believe that position to be rationally justified or not. Atheism proper is merely "not-theism," meaning anyone that does not believe in a god is an atheist whether they describe themselves thus or not. I, myself, am an agnostic atheist. I do not beleive a god exists, but I do not purport to know that no gods exist.

[/quote]

1) Your post comes off as you being an arrogant ass... are you a philosopher yourself? if not than you are nothing more than an armchair philosopher yourself... as are 99% of the people in this thread. So why don't we start by dropping the stupid BS arrogance it just makes you look stupid. I took a few philosophy classes in college too, as did most people so stop acting like you're unique in some way.

2) I don't give a rats ass how smart you think you are... here are the definitions of an atheist, a theist and an agnostic.

If you are an atheist then you believe there is no god... you cannot simultaneously be an agnostic, and an atheist. It's just not possible. If you are an atheist than you believe there is no god. Not a whole lot of unknowns or indecision in the concept of "no god". Being an agnostic isn't about how confident you are in your beliefs in god, it's the state of not knowing one way or the other. You are in actuality an Atheist who has no proof... which is exactly the same as everyone else... EVERYONE is either a theist with no proof or an atheist with no proof. By your definition, EVERYONE is an agnostic.

Webster says

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
- ag·nos·ti·cism /-t&-"si-z&m/ noun

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective
- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Main Entry: the·ism
Pronunciation: 'thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; - the·ist /-ist/ noun or adjective
- the·is·tic /thE-'is-tik/ also the·is·ti·cal /-ti-k&l/ adjective
- the·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

 

[torpid]

The idea has inspired me. Stay tuned, next week I will post in my blog about how friendship is the bane of mankind, mathematics are killing our children, and breathing violates basic moral principles.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: JS80
Actually now that I think about it, atheism has killed more people than religion. Let's see, communist Russia, communist China, communist North Korea, communist Cuba...

Don't blame a religion for the faults of man.

Umm, atheism hasn't killed more than religion : )... Please read some history books... Although communist China and communist Cuba HAVE killed tons and tons of people .

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: classy
You know an atheist and a religous person are one in the same. The religous person's religion is founded in some book or belief. The atheist has a religion too. Its called anti-relgion. As a matter of fact an atheist is even more dogmatic than even the most religous zealout. Both push their religion to the fullest extent. One pushes his belief of a greater being and the atheist pushes his belief of no greater being. Each has their own god too. The religous person has Jesus, Allah, or Buddha. The atheist has his god too, himself. The religous zealot talks about the works of his god and atheist pushes his great works about what he has accomplished. So it would seem to me for an atheist to throw stones at religion, maybe they should put their own glass house up for sale first. Just a thought..........

"As a matter of fact an atheist is even more dogmatic than even the most religous zealout. "

I love facts like these!

 

[HBalzer]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: SampSon
Not to nit pick, but it reads like a 15 year old wrote that. Less drugs and more complete thoughts will do well! Fundies? Why don't you be more specific and say your rant is about christian fundamentalists?

Anyway I think you discount the the amazing power that belief in something brings out in people. Religion is one of the main driving reasons half of the planet wake up everyday and live.
I understand that in your idealistic utopia religion does not exist and everyone is a scientist, but comon' that's just not realistic, or any fun.

Its not written to be published or anything, i spent about 35 minutes on it.

I agree that religion does some good in the world, but it also does a tremendous amount of bad. From impeding science, to causing endless conflict, to giving false hope.

And when i said fundies i mean any religious fundie. Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Jewish, Islamic, whatever.

What is wrong with offering hope? With hope you have a reason to live, to fight, to do anything really without it what do you got? I would chalk hope to the side of good.

 

[Vinny N]

Originally posted by: Doboji
If you are an atheist then you believe there is no god... you cannot simultaneously be an agnostic, and an atheist. It's just not possible.

I know Garth comes across sounding like a tool, and you can quote all the dictionaries you want, but we don't even have to talk philosophy for it to be possible.

You can believe that god doesn't exist right?

You can believe that the truth (about whether or not god exists) is unknowable right?

Well those two things are not completely contradictory so it's possible to believe both of them, wouldn't you say so?

You can believe that god doesn't exist and that whether or not your belief is correct is unknowable.

(It's not horribly different from say, a scientist believing a certain theory and operating from it even if he/she also believes that whether or not the theory is correct is truly unknowable.)

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

You don't think that a god exists, but you claim no knowledge of any god's nonexistence, right? What you are is an atheist who recognizes no proof of his beliefs.

I don't have a belief wrt the existence of God. Why would I need proof of a belief I do not hold?

So you have designated a cozy little place from which you can attack all other belief-systems.

No, I have a cozy little place that is consistent with my experience and my understanding of epistemic limitations. Where have I attacked a belief system at all in this thread? And why would attacks on a belief system depend at all on my own position?

Do you realize that by your very claim and definition of agnostic-atheism you have discredited your previous argument?

No, I don't, because I haven't.

Do you not recognize the fact that the ideas of not believing in a god and , at the same time, recognizing the opposite possibility are mutually exclusive?

What is inconsisent about lacking belief in a proposition but realizing it's coherency and that it could conceiveably be instantiated in reality? Here's an example:

"George Bush spies on domestic civilians for purely political gain."

Now, I do not believe this proposition, but I cannot prove it false, and I recognize that it is conceiveably a fact.

Where is the inconsistency?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Garth
I don't know who you're arguing against, because it certainly isn't me.

The problem we're running into, is that the vast majority of people do not consider being agnostic, but favoring a side, to be part of theism or atheism at all. They consider it different versions of agnosticism.

You, however, do consider it to be part of theism/atheism.

I'm sorry, but you're really going to have to reiterate this post with an empahsis on coherency.

What's so incoherent about it? Literacy not your strong point?

I am not good at reading poorly constructed sentences, no.

People typically consider theists/atheists to be postive that there is/isn't God(s).

I don't give a rat's ass about what people "typically consider." Most people are idiots when it comes to this type of discussion.

{snip}

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vinny N

Garth,

I think there's some confusion here.

You said yourself that: "There are agnostic theists, as well as there are agnostic atheists. There are yet gnostic theists, and even still gnostic atheists."

Do you acknowledge that there are some people who are just theists or just atheists and there are some people who are just gnostics or agnostics?

No. You're question is like asking "Do you acknowledge that there are some people that are *JUST* taller than 5 feet or shorter than 5 feet, and that there are some people who *JUST* weigh more than 100lbs or less than 100lbs?" You're talking about two different things.

EVERYBODY either believes in God or they do not. EVERYBODY believes their position to be justifiably known, or they do not.

Because there is such a thing as being undecided.

You do not have to decide that God does not exist to not believe that the proposition "God exists" is true.

You could be a gnostic or agnostic and not have decided whether to have a belief that "God exists".

You cannot be a "gnostic" without purporting to have knowledge to justify your position. That's what it means to be gnostic.

Or are you claiming that if you are undecided then you still lack the belief and are an Atheist by default?

And the light bulb has come on!!!!

If so, that's a mere technicality if I ever saw one and I'm sure there are gnostics/agnostics that don't want to be lumped in with the atheists by technicality.

Why wouldn't they? Is it maybe because the so many people think that atheism is something that it isn't?

(I would argue that atheism needs to be redefined at that point.)

But it is laymen that have redefined atheism in the first place!

Let P stand for the proposition "God exists."

Theist - I believe that P.

Someone who is JUST a theist doesn't necessarily ponder whether or not P can be known.

Atheist - I do not have the belief that P.

Someone who is JUST an atheist doesn't necessarily ponder whether or not P can be known.

Agnostic - P v ~P, but believes that it is unknowable.

Someone who is JUST an Agnostic is an expressing a belief about the possibility of knowledge of P.

Gnostic - P v ~P, but believes that it is knowable.

Someone who is JUST a Gnostic is an expressing a belief about the possibility of knowledge of P.

Again, your assertions are about as sensible as saying that a person can be JUST shorter than 5 feet without weighing more or less than 100lbs. A person is either taller than 5 feet, or they are not. A person either weighs more than 100lbs or they do not.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Banzai042

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Vinny N
Well. It certainly is a "rant".

Religions have two components. Outer tradition which is constructed and developed by communities. And inner faith which is personal and tempered by one's thoughts and experiences.

Your rant is weak as an "argument" because you merely mock rituals from religious tradition and fail to acknowledge the meaning faith gives to people and the philanthropy that results from the meaning they find in their lives.

All of the things you note as being held back by religion are controversial in nature. Even if there were no religions there would still be moral dilemmas, new ideas or technology that people are inherently uncomfortable with. People can be frightened as is of the new possibilities in this world. Taking away religion isn't going to change that.

And you must be joking about the military. Self-preservation, greed, taking from others, keeping what is ours, spreading our ideals about government and economies, etc. I'm sure people could name many such reasons why so much is spent on the military. Those are why armies exist. You must be kidding yourself if you really believe it came down to religion.

Im not arguing against morals, im arguing against furthering humanity because THE CHURCH says so. You can have your own beliefs, but beliefs based on an old and obviously outdated system created by people with motives isn't the way to go.

Explain how the moral values of christianity are "outdated", and how do you know it was created by a group with an agenda?

On top of that, illustrate how ALL the religions you seem to be mocking are outdated, or created by groups with agendas. Have at it Mr. Theologist.

I am looking for viewpoints from other people, im not trying to convince anyone of anything or convert people into the "not knowing" category.

Attacking my charecter doesnt make religion any different.

You have yet to attack any other religion besides Catholicism, and your comment of "the Church" directly relates to an attack on Catholicism.

Catholicism is the religion i know the most about. Islam is an easy target right now, and i dont know enough about Judaism.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: DaiShan
Oh, and that has to be the most poorly supported and inarticulate argument that I've ever heard, well maybe not as bad as "freedom is just the mernaise on the sammich of life" <--- that was an actual rebuttal by my opponent in the double-octo round at the Harvard debate tournament. I try not to feed into stereotypes, but she was from an inner-city school in Detroit. How she made it that far in the tournament I will never know, but suffice it to say she was defeated handily heh. Other than that though yours takes the cake. In fact I'm hesitant to even call it an argument, it's more like a bunch of incoherent sentence fragments tied loosely together by your disdain for religion.

Its not written in such a matter as to be competitive presented, again, i spent about 35 minutes on it conveying my thoughts.

Ya know Einstein wasnt a great writer either?

(no i am not comparing myself to a genius, just an example)

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Doboji

If you are an atheist then you believe there is no god...

Wrong.

you cannot simultaneously be an agnostic, and an atheist. It's just not possible.

I guess I don't exist, then. Funny. It's kinda hard to post to a discussion forum when you don't exist. Maybe there just something flawed in your analysis.

If you are an atheist than you believe there is no god.

No, you simply do not believe that there is one. Recognize the difference between "I do not believe X" and "I believe not-X."

Not a whole lot of unknowns or indecision in the concept of "no god". Being an agnostic isn't about how confident you are in your beliefs in god, it's the state of not knowing one way or the other.

Look, the root of gnostic is gnosis, or knowledge. Gnosticism says that you are "with knowledge" and agnosticism says you are "without knowledge," but neither says anything about what you do or do not know. There's nothing inconsistent about believing a God exists but lacking knowledge to substantiate that position. Such a person would be an agnostic theist. They are a theist because they do believe a god exists, and they are agnostic because they lack justifying knowledge.

You are in actuality an Atheist who has no proof... which is exactly the same as everyone else... EVERYONE is either a theist with no proof or an atheist with no proof. By your definition, EVERYONE is an agnostic.

Wrong again, genius. This has nothing to do with proof. It has to do with knowledge, or more accurately the belief that one has or does not have knowledge.

Webster says

{snip}

Dictionaries do not define words, they record word usage -- even sloppy word usage.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: kmrivers

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Vinny N

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Vinny N
Well. It certainly is a "rant".

Religions have two components. Outer tradition which is constructed and developed by communities. And inner faith which is personal and tempered by one's thoughts and experiences.

Your rant is weak as an "argument" because you merely mock rituals from religious tradition and fail to acknowledge the meaning faith gives to people and the philanthropy that results from the meaning they find in their lives.

All of the things you note as being held back by religion are controversial in nature. Even if there were no religions there would still be moral dilemmas, new ideas or technology that people are inherently uncomfortable with. People can be frightened as is of the new possibilities in this world. Taking away religion isn't going to change that.

And you must be joking about the military. Self-preservation, greed, taking from others, keeping what is ours, spreading our ideals about government and economies, etc. I'm sure people could name many such reasons why so much is spent on the military. Those are why armies exist. You must be kidding yourself if you really believe it came down to religion.

Im not arguing against morals, im arguing against furthering humanity because THE CHURCH says so. You can have your own beliefs, but beliefs based on an old and obviously outdated system created by people with motives isn't the way to go.

What "THE CHURCH" says doesn't exactly make things so. If it is so powerful that its dictates can hold back humanity surely they can also make it such that no one has pre-marital sex, abortions, there are no wars, etc.

People ultimately do what they want. Sometimes they justify under a pretense of religious belief and sometimes they do not. Blaming religion or thinking that if religion were gone that we wouldn't have the same problems we do now is absurd.

::sigh::

He has a problem with Catholicism, but doesn't have the balls to outright say he doesn't like Catholicism. So he's masquerading his agenda behind hating all religions.

I have problems with all religions...

I would like to know what you think of Buddhism.

Buddhism i dont know a lot about, but from what ive seen they are closer than anyone else to the "right path" if you are going to worship a god. Their teachings are based in psychology and human behavioral traits rather than idealistic societys.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Banzai042

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Vinny N
Well. It certainly is a "rant".

Religions have two components. Outer tradition which is constructed and developed by communities. And inner faith which is personal and tempered by one's thoughts and experiences.

Your rant is weak as an "argument" because you merely mock rituals from religious tradition and fail to acknowledge the meaning faith gives to people and the philanthropy that results from the meaning they find in their lives.

All of the things you note as being held back by religion are controversial in nature. Even if there were no religions there would still be moral dilemmas, new ideas or technology that people are inherently uncomfortable with. People can be frightened as is of the new possibilities in this world. Taking away religion isn't going to change that.

And you must be joking about the military. Self-preservation, greed, taking from others, keeping what is ours, spreading our ideals about government and economies, etc. I'm sure people could name many such reasons why so much is spent on the military. Those are why armies exist. You must be kidding yourself if you really believe it came down to religion.

Im not arguing against morals, im arguing against furthering humanity because THE CHURCH says so. You can have your own beliefs, but beliefs based on an old and obviously outdated system created by people with motives isn't the way to go.

Explain how the moral values of christianity are "outdated", and how do you know it was created by a group with an agenda?

Agenda: controlling the population, making people believe what they want you to believe.

Outdated crap:
No sex until marriage
No condoms
Anti cloning
Anti gene therapy
High level members must be celibate
Masturbation is wrong

 

[torpid]

Well it's nice to know that you use words differently than most of the english-speaking world, garth. Thanks for clarifying that. Apparently you believe something that runs counter to your own logical analysis. Sort of like people who are afraid of open spaces. It's illogical, but they are still afraid.

 

[JS80]

You have a noose around your brain.

You seem to just be a horny college student who's afraid of going to hell because you masturate and have pre-marital sex.

Why are you bitching out a religion that advocates morality & helping others when there's a religion out there that wants to make nukes and start the apocalypse?

 

[Acanthus]

Your question assumes i believe there will be an apocalypse

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Your question assumes i believe there will be an apocalypse

No it doesn't. It assumes you believe one could be started, though. It could be possible to start it without it ever happening, therefore he's not assuming you believe that there WILL be one, just that there could be.

 

[Acanthus]

Well its pretty much inevitable that the world will end at some point, i think we can all agree to that.

 

[lightweight]

Stop starting religion threads.

And, maybe if it weren't for religion your girlfriend wouldn't be fat. That is all

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Your question assumes i believe there will be an apocalypse

How does it assume that? A certain president of a certain country of a certain religion is creating nuclear weapons while telling people that his job in life is to bring about the apocalypse, but you're ranting about Christians who advocate simple morality into our society.

You're just a typical spoiled ignorant kid who thinks he's a fvcking genius. You're so naive.

Oh, and learn to read and comprehend.

Try Googling: "wipe israel off the map" and "death to america"

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: lightweight
Stop starting religion threads.

And, maybe if it weren't for religion your girlfriend wouldn't be fat. That is all

this thread has been perfectly civil so far, please keep it that way.

If you dont have input, leave. No one is making you read this.