Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 235
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.Page 10 of 12    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)

It's actually closer to an atheist perspective...


Closer to? What the hell does that mean? The devil is in the details, to use a perhaps ironic euphemisms, so lets get specific. What EXACTLY are the claims that atheists are making:


dis·be·lief
?disb?'lef/
noun
inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
"Laura shook her head in disbelief"
synonyms: incredulity, astonishment, amazement, surprise, incredulousness; More
lack of faith in something.
"I'll burn in hell for disbelief"
synonyms: atheism, nonbelief, unbelief, godlessness, irreligion, agnosticism, nihilism More


Well, we know that the above definition is at least partly wrong, because it has agnosticism listed as a synonyms, when Thomas Huxley very clearly denounced disbelief as being as "immoral" as belief. However this statement seems to be accurate (literal interpretation): "inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real"; while the second definition seems to be more of a vernacular interpretation "lack of faith in something".

So lets take the literal interpretation and attach it to the god concept: inability or refusal to accept the existence of a god(s).

Is this covered in the statement "there is no god"? Yes. Is this statement/position a belief? Yes.

So, disbelief is belief in a negative.

As Thomas Huxley said "it is immoral to expect that there are certain position that men should believe, without proper evidence, and this should go for disbelief as well" (paraphrased because I don't want to spend forever trying to find that specific quote).


No, the conversation isn't about me as a person. It's about beliefs.


No, you are insisting that this conversation exclude your personal perspective. The conversation is about people's perspectives - last time I checked "people's perspectives" did indeed include your personal perspective. Besides, I think the the old saying "lead by example" applies here, instead, what you are doing is more like "do as I say not as I do". Why should anybody be bothered to consider your opinions if you don't even have the respect to grace us with your personal perspective? What are you hiding from?


You might as well ask what I had for breakfast.


Lolwut?

"No one can know if God exists or not" is an agnostic perspective.

That is not a rational statement, as it excludes the possibility that at some time in the future it may be possible to"know if God exists or not". Now if you had said ""No one can know if God exists or not, at this point in time" then this would be slightly more rational, but it would still not be agnostic (as defined by Huxley), as it assumes knowledge that no "known" human being could possibly know (i.e. where is the human who has interviewed ALL other humans - this statement is rational, because I know that I have not been interviewed). The agnostic statement would be "I don't know whether or not a god(s) exist.


agnostism takes a neutral stance where a person neither believes or disbelieves.


It is not a neutral stance. It is the position that both beliefs/perspectives are immoral.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 236
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 7/3/2014 2:16:19 PM
Then these many people you know are not really Atheists - or you did not understand what they claim - or you are misrepresenting their claim.


Or perhaps it is a fault on your part and you are not properly comprehending (actually I think that one is probably true). Here let me give you an example of what I mean in your own words:


An Agnostic is just a wimp that will not commit and so claims "Gee, I'm not really sure what I think."


If you are commuting to a claim here, in the absence of proper proof, either in support or against, then YOU HAVE COMMITTED YOURSELF TO A BELIEF!


An Atheist will simply claim "There is no evidence for any god".


And what does this statement have to do with any thing? God is not a scientific concept at the moment. It is a philosophical concept as of right now, this statement only goes to show your ignorance concerning how philosophy and science work together (it's philosophy, I don't have to prove sh!t). For instance, there is no proof for the multiverse either yet you still have many hypotheses being considered by science that include such things:

"For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith."

(Paul Davies Phd theoretical physicist)

"As skeptical as I am, I think the contemplation of the multiverse is an excellent opportunity to reflect on the nature of science and on the ultimate nature of existence: why we are here… In looking at this concept, we need an open mind, though not too open. It is a delicate path to tread. Parallel universes may or may not exist; the case is unproved. We are going to have to live with that uncertainty. Nothing is wrong with scientifically based philosophical speculation, which is what multiverse proposals are. But we should name it for what it is."

(George Ellis, Phd, theoretical physicist - one of the world's preeminent by the way)

So... You guys go around making these crazy statements about things like "there is no proof for god" or "can't prove a negative" but you actually have no clue about what you are talking about. I mean where do you guys learn this stuff? Are you just parroting it from somewhere?

Learn more about the principles behind science and philosophy, before you claim to speak on their behalf.


The people you are citing are more accurately called Anti-theist.


No, they are not. I already explained the meaning of anti-theism earlier in this thread. Just because you believe that there is no god, does not necessarily mean that you are opposed to the practice if theism. In fact you might even be a practicing theist, who is using theism to take advantage of people, while maintaining a disbelief in god. Why would one be opposed to the practice of theism, if it is "paying the bills" so to speak.

Details people, details.
 Coma_White
Joined: 9/15/2013
Msg: 237
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 7/3/2014 3:02:29 PM

No, you are insisting that this conversation exclude your personal perspective. The conversation is about people's perspectives - last time I checked "people's perspectives" did indeed include your personal perspective. Besides, I think the the old saying "lead by example" applies here, instead, what you are doing is more like "do as I say not as I do". Why should anybody be bothered to consider your opinions if you don't even have the respect to grace us with your personal perspective? What are you hiding from?


The conversation is about atheism and theism. The personal beliefs of the people engaging on the conversation are irrelvant. You're mixing apples an oranges. There is no need to "lead by example", only produce facts and construct a convincing argument. No one has to consider my opinions if they don't want to. However, it's pointless to engage in a conversation or debate if you're not listening to what the other person is saying.


Well, we know that the above definition is at least partly wrong, because it has agnosticism listed as a synonyms, when Thomas Huxley very clearly denounced disbelief as being as "immoral" as belief. However this statement seems to be accurate (literal interpretation): "inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real"; while the second definition seems to be more of a vernacular interpretation "lack of faith in something".


So lets take the literal interpretation and attach it to the god concept: inability or refusal to accept the existence of a god(s).

Is this covered in the statement "there is no god"? Yes. Is this statement/position a belief? Yes.

So, disbelief is belief in a negative.

As Thomas Huxley said "it is immoral to expect that there are certain position that men should believe, without proper evidence, and this should go for disbelief as well" (paraphrased because I don't want to spend forever trying to find that specific quote).


No, it's not a belief. It's a provisional conclusion based on reason and knowledge that there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of God.



Lolwut?

"No one can know if God exists or not" is an agnostic perspective.

That is not a rational statement, as it excludes the possibility that at some time in the future it may be possible to"know if God exists or not". Now if you had said ""No one can know if God exists or not, at this point in time" then this would be slightly more rational, but it would still not be agnostic (as defined by Huxley), as it assumes knowledge that no "known" human being could possibly know (i.e. where is the human who has interviewed ALL other humans - this statement is rational, because I know that I have not been interviewed). The agnostic statement would be "I don't know whether or not a god(s) exist.


It's completely rational. No one can know because there is no evidence to base knowlege on.



It is not a neutral stance. It is the position that both beliefs/perspectives are immoral.


It's a neutral stance because it takes a position in the middle. There is no mention of morality.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 238
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 7/3/2014 3:09:13 PM
It's a neutral stance because it takes a position in the middle. There is no mention of morality.


Yes there is a statement about immorality as it was originally defined by Huxley. But it has become extremely obvious that you are not interested in reason here. I wouldn't expect any less from an atheist, so I will discontinue this conversation with you now.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 239
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 7/3/2014 5:53:17 PM
Again and again, the problem of defining one's terms rears its ugly head. As for the term "agnostic," I found this passage helpful, and it shows just how complex and subdivided the terms in such a discussion can get:

Types of agnosticism

A person calling oneself 'agnostic' is stating that he or she has no opinion on the existence of God, as there is no definitive evidence for or against. Agnosticism has, however, more recently been subdivided into several categories. Variations include:

Agnostic atheism
The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist.[21][22][23]

Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.[21]

Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.[24][25]

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism")
The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."[26][27][28]

Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism")
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."[26][27][28]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism
 Coma_White
Joined: 9/15/2013
Msg: 240
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 7/4/2014 11:27:26 AM

Yes there is a statement about immorality as it was originally defined by Huxley. But it has become extremely obvious that you are not interested in reason here. I wouldn't expect any less from an atheist, so I will discontinue this conversation with you now.


You're making things up as you go along. You want to discuss me more than the topic. I never once said I was an atheist and it's completely irrelevant. Saying agnosticism is for a person that neither believes or disbelieves has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with evidence.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 241
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 7/4/2014 12:31:01 PM
^^^ The quote I paraphrased (by Huxley)...


"it is immoral to expect that there are certain position that men should believe, without proper evidence, and this should go for disbelief as well"


... Is indeed authentic, including the use and context of the word "immoral", though I can on longer find the passage that contains the quote (and I don't feel like searching for it anymore). The first time I saw this quote was in the "Agnostic" thread, on this forum, before it got deleted. The passage that contained the quote was originally posted by Lying Cheat, and later REPEATEDLY requoted by me. I know that at least one or more of the following regular posters on this forum should be able to verify the authenticity of the quote:

Igor (not sure about him as the quote was never specifically directed at him as topic of conversation)
Ging (I'm sure that Ging could confirm this as I remember discussing the quote with him briefly)
Drink (Drink payed a good deal of attention to that thread so I'm sure he would remember)
LC (because he originally posted the passage containing the quote, and after that I repeatedly through it back in his face)

I did, however, find another quote, that is perhaps not as good as the original quote, but should do for settling this petty squabble (I can't believe you accused me of making stuff up):


I further say that Agnosticism is not properly described as a "negative" creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what agnosticism asserts and, in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.


Also, as I said before, I am no longer interested in discussing this subject with you, for reason any reasonably intelligent person should be able to understand (like having to make a post to defend my honor against being accused of dishonesty, for instance).
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 242
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 7/4/2014 2:44:13 PM

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.


Or at least that is the passage you quoted here... http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts15380261.aspx
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 243
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 7/4/2014 3:48:39 PM
Nah, that's not it. The one I'm talking about was from the "Agnosticism" thread that got deleted several months back. Don't you remember when we were talking about clouds on the horizon an umbrellas and probability? I quoted that specific quote I am referring to in one of those messages to you. Really I must have requoted that quote like ten times in that thread, don't know how you guys could forget it. :)

Haha, I had forgot I even wrote what I did in that thread you linked. It seems so old, but its only been like two years. My writing style has changed a bunch, I've become more aggressive.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 244
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 7/4/2014 7:04:19 PM

Don't you remember when we were talking about clouds on the horizon an umbrellas and probability?

And some people think we're wasting our lives online... the fools.

Agnosticism is not properly described as a "negative" creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to agnosticism. That which agnostics deny and repudiate as immoral is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions. The justification of the agnostic principle lies in the success which follows upon its application, whether in the field of natural or in that of civil history; and in the fact that, so far as these topics are concerned, no sane man thinks of denying its validity.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 245
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 7/4/2014 7:25:51 PM
^^^ thank you. *humble bow*
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 246
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 7/4/2014 9:43:05 PM
It's from page 97 here... https://archive.org/download/agnosticism00variuoft/agnosticism00variuoft.pdf
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 247
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 7/4/2014 10:47:26 PM

I know that at least one or more of the following regular posters on this forum should be able to verify the authenticity of the quote:
LC (because he originally posted the passage containing the quote, and after that I repeatedly through it back in his face)


You are living in a world of your own invention.


The quote I paraphrased (by Huxley)...

"it is immoral to expect that there are certain position that men should believe, without proper evidence, and this should go for disbelief as well"


Here is the actual wording -


Essays upon some Controverted Questions
by Thomas Henry Huxley

Agnosticism and Christianity

The present discussion has arisen out of the use, which has become general in the last few years, of the terms "Agnostic" and "Agnosticism."

The people who call themselves "Agnostics" have been charged with doing so because they have not the courage to declare themselves "Infidels." It has been insinuated that they have adopted a new name in order to escape the unpleasantness which attaches to their proper denomination. To this wholly erroneous imputation, I have replied by showing that the term "Agnostic" did, as a matter of fact, arise in a manner which negatives it; and my statement has not been, and cannot be, refuted. Moreover, speaking for myself, and without impugning the right of any other person to use the term in another sense, I further say that Agnosticism is not properly described as a "negative" creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual.

This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism.
That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions.

The justification of the Agnostic principle lies in the success which follows upon its application, whether in the field of natural, or in that of civil, history; and in the fact that, so far as these topics are concerned, no sane man thinks of denying its validity.

Still speaking for myself, I add, that though Agnosticism is not, and cannot be, a creed, except in so far as its general principle is concerned; yet that the application of that principle results in the denial of, or the suspension of judgment concerning, a number of propositions respecting which our contemporary ecclesiastical "gnostics" profess entire certainty.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Essays_upon_some_Controverted_Questions/XII



The concept that Huxley asserts is "immoral" is the requirement, or expectation, that one "ought to believe" certain propositions "without logically satisfactory evidence".
He also suggests it is "immoral" to criticise (attach reprobation to) anyone who chooses to disbelieve "inadequately supported propositions".

Which is all very well, and hardly controversial. But care must be taken. Huxley was a learned man, and these comments were made in a particular context. He is using very carefully chosen words in ways that we don't quite use them today - due both to variation in context and a degree of lost subtlety.


What it boils down to though, is that without logic and/or evidence it is improper to claim that one knows the "objective truth" of a. or any. proposition.

This is not the same as saying that nothing can be known, and/or that no position can be taken, about anything at all unless 'all' the facts are known.
Huxley himself, prototypical agnostic that he was, endorsed Darwins theory of evolution almost immediately upon reading 'Origin of the Species' for the first time. He also openly professed disbelief - which is to say, he 'took a position' - on many biblical claims as well.

Note that 'disbelief' implies contradiction of an expressed belief, or at least the support on which it rests.

Using only the 'agnostic principle' it is perfectly valid, contrary to what some have asserted in this thread, to dismiss a claim, or any claims, about particular deities.
It's not even particularly controversial.
To demonstrate that last claim I invite readers to peruse these lists and reply, with suitable annotations, an itemised response indicating either an atheist, agnostic, or faith/belief position in regard to each of these 15,000 or so deities - who/which all have exactly the same level of 'logic' and 'objective evidence' supporting them.
Please indicate, or at least think about, the 'reasoning', 'logic' and 'evidence' that supports your categorisation of each deity as either - plausible but unproven/unknown (agnostic), not plausible therefore dismissed (atheist), or overwhelmingly plausible and certainly real (theist).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_myth_gods_index.htm
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/godsmyth/a/070809godsandgoddesses.htm
http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_big_list_of_gods_but_nowhere_near_all_of_them
http://www.empathys.co.uk/53.html
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/celtsmyth/tp/010209celticgods.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Forgotten_Realms_deities


More reading for those who are interested -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._H._Huxley
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/agnostic.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-huxley.html

THE HUXLEY FILE
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/index.html
Possibilities and Impossibilities
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/P-Im+.html
Agnosticism
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/guide13.html
Agnosticism
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn.html
Agnosticism and Christianity
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
Agnosticism: A Rejoinder
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-R.html

Verbal Delusions: The Bible
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/guide15.html

Essays upon some Controverted Questions
Thomas Henry Huxley
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Essays_upon_some_Controverted_Questions



Undeservedly, agnosticism is frequently viewed as a “safe” or even unassailable philosophical position. It appears to be a reasonable, half-way compromise between the outrageous claim of the theist (who proposes the existence of fantastic being that is everywhere, yet surprisingly undetectable), and the seemingly equally preposterous claim of the atheist (who, in purporting to “prove a negative,” implies that he or she knows, or has examined, everything in the universe). But the agnostic, having said “I do not know,” can calmly sit back and reserve judgment until proof, one way or the other, comes along.

Agnosticism is, in fact, the least tenable theological position, completely inferior to atheism and in some instances less defensible than theism.
http://www.ravingatheist.com/2005/08/sweeney-unambiguous




It should be noted in all of the above that for Huxley, agnosticism was not a creed or a doctrine or even simply a position on the issue of gods; instead, it was a methodology with respect to how one approaches metaphysical questions generally. It is curious that Huxley felt the need for a word to describe his methodology, for the term rationalism was already being used to describe pretty much the same thing. It is important to keep in mind that while Huxley introduced a new name, he certainly did not introduce the perspective or method which that name described.

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/huxley.htm
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 248
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 7/4/2014 11:53:21 PM
Astute observations LC... Except this part of course:


You are living in a world of your own invention.


...


Using only the 'agnostic principle' it is perfectly valid, contrary to what some have asserted in this thread, to dismiss a claim, or any claims, about particular deities.


Which is why I have no problem with the condemnation of theism, however, the concept of "god", general speaking, should be protected under the banner of philosophy, until such a time as proper evidence comes to light, to settle the matter. It is far to often that I have seen atheists condemn "god" rather than "theism" as false, now that the word "theism" and the concept "god" seem to have somewhat melded together, to become one term in the common language. I think that it is important that the learned make an effort to remind people that this is not so.


Undeservedly, agnosticism is frequently viewed as a “safe” or even unassailable philosophical position. It appears to be a reasonable, half-way compromise between the outrageous claim of the theist (who proposes the existence of fantastic being that is everywhere, yet surprisingly undetectable), and the seemingly equally preposterous claim of the atheist (who, in purporting to “prove a negative,” implies that he or she knows, or has examined, everything in the universe). But the agnostic, having said “I do not know,” can calmly sit back and reserve judgment until proof, one way or the other, comes along.

Agnosticism is, in fact, the least tenable theological position, completely inferior to atheism and in some instances less defensible than theism.
http://www.ravingatheist.com/2005/08/sweeney-unambiguous


An opinion from an atheist? I am not surprised. 0.O


It should be noted in all of the above that for Huxley, agnosticism was not a creed or a doctrine or even simply a position on the issue of gods; instead, it was a methodology with respect to how one approaches metaphysical questions generally. It is curious that Huxley felt the need for a word to describe his methodology, for the term rationalism was already being used to describe pretty much the same thing. It is important to keep in mind that while Huxley introduced a new name, he certainly did not introduce the perspective or method which that name described.

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/huxley.htm


Rationalism does not specifically make the statement about immorality, nor is it etymologically rooted in anyway to religious concepts. Part of the reason huxley coined the term was because he was getting tired of having "accusations" of atheism leveled at him.
 Bentheredunthat
Joined: 1/9/2014
Msg: 249
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 7/5/2014 6:58:41 AM
As this site appears to feel free to stifle debate by deleting posts they personally disagree with, or are intellectually incompetent to deal with, I find I can no longer support this site. I prefer to interact with adults who respect free expression, not 3rd grade hall monitors who allow their religious ignorance to justify their fascism.

Good luck to all. Don't write anything that frightens the uneducated mods......
;-)
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 250
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 7/5/2014 1:55:30 PM
Let's face it - One of the most damaging results of the religious mindset is the perpetuated lie that non-belief or atheism involves a dogmatic doctrine or belief system.

And also...the perpetuated disagreement on what exactly Gnosticism and Agnosticism really is doesn't help things either. I eventually provided what I think is an important elucidation in that area in Cress's now deleted thread. So I too wish it was still available and viewable.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 251
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 7/5/2014 2:26:00 PM
MMm, I don't really think that's quite right. I think that the claim by many theists that Atheism is as doctrinaire as they are, is just an argumentative ploy, sometimes to pretend that all atheists are hypocrites, and sometimes as a way to "take a trip " on the idea that everyone is secretly a believer after all.

I personally think that a much greater damaging idea, is that any group should be in charge over everyone else. The big danger signs I look for, are when someone insists on claiming direct linkages between positive or negative things that people do, and the idea of belief systems or of non-belief concepts.

Step one to enacting persecutions, is to promote the idea that BEING something, causes a person to be inherently dangerous or defective.

That's why I argue both against people declaring that all theists are bad, and that all atheists and agnostics are bad.

Lots of people who DO indulge in self-blinded attacks against groups, do so out of fear that they ARE actually being threatened, and there are lots of people in the world who are eager to take advantage of the fearful, in order to enrich themselves by getting the fearful to go off and fight people who were never a threat to begin with.

That's what I think that most modern attacks on non-believers are. The people who are really behind them, usually don't give a damn about belief, they just want contributions and political support from those who they have encouraged to be afraid.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 252
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 7/6/2014 11:50:56 AM

Step one to enacting persecutions, is to promote the idea that BEING something, causes a person to be inherently dangerous or defective.

Think about that a minute - The implied notion that there's nothing that a person could BE which therefore makes them inherently dangerous. That such a dynamic or correlation is nonsensical. Really?

That's why I argue both against people declaring that all theists are bad, and that all atheists and agnostics are bad

This seems like another hidden form of trying to give (false) equal parity to two camps. It obviously depends on what we're talking about...what kind of "bad"? What's the problem trying to be addressed? Why would a negative trait be assigned to all theists? And why is it done to non-theists? Is it the same? What exactly are those traits, and how're they derived? Be careful, Igor, or you'll deceive yourself, and be guilty again of helping to confuse the whole issue and deceive others.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 253
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 7/6/2014 5:30:24 PM

Think about that a minute - The implied notion that there's nothing that a person could BE which therefore makes them inherently dangerous. That such a dynamic or correlation is nonsensical. Really?


There is no such implied notion. You have inserted meaning into what I said that wasn't even REMOTELY there. Since you have imagined your way into some outright nonsense, I will specify for your sake, that I neither implied, nor do I believe that it is NOT POSSIBLE for an individual to BE, inherently dangerous. Sociopaths are a good example. So are racists.


This seems like another hidden form of trying to give (false) equal parity to two camps.


I don't hide anything. I am all about LOGIC, and it's correct use. Again, you are reading things into what I said, making assumptions not supported by my text.

I will point out errors in reasoning that I recognize in ANY argument, and that tends to make the anxious people I criticize, assume that I oppose their point of view, and so they misread what I say. They also often accuse me of playing games, when I am doing the exact reverse: I am attacking logic tricks and games, and trying to get people to argue accurately and forthrightly.


It obviously depends on what we're talking about...what kind of "bad"? What's the problem trying to be addressed? Why would a negative trait be assigned to all theists? And why is it done to non-theists? Is it the same? What exactly are those traits, and how're they derived?


Exactly. We are in complete agreement. The details are always important. That is a part of the very point I am trying to get across.


Be careful, Igor, or you'll deceive yourself, and be guilty again of helping to confuse the whole issue and deceive others.


The only danger is to people who read into what I write, and or who ASSUME they know things that I don't say, but actually believe. If people just read what I ACTUALLY SAY, they wont have any problems.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 254
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 7/7/2014 7:22:18 AM

I think that the claim by many theists that Atheism is as doctrinaire as they are, is just an argumentative ploy, sometimes to pretend that all atheists are hypocrites, and sometimes as a way to "take a trip " on the idea that everyone is secretly a believer after all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(making_excuses)

That's why I argue both against people declaring that all theists are bad, and that all atheists and agnostics are bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)

That's what I think that most modern attacks on non-believers are. The people who are really behind them, usually don't give a damn about belief, they just want contributions and political support from those who they have encouraged to be afraid.

I think that when put to the test most strings don't really lead to the puppeteers, but back to the puppets. The pretend puppeteers love to think they're in control and to take all the applause for being handed a few strings to wiggle by the dancing puppets, who love to think they're bound up in a bigger story with people who know what they're doing in charge, performing in front of an omnipresent audience of one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 255
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 7/7/2014 2:49:03 PM

Practically speaking, what's the difference between concluding that gods don't exist and not concluding that they do, another argument about faulty premises? Zzz
And the answer to your question is: burden of proof.
The very nature of 'faith' means no material proof is necessary for those who choose to believe in invisible, omniscient beings, except for their own inner experiences and how they wish to interpret meaning out of them.

The burden of proof answer was regarding the importance of the rhetorical split hair to atheists. From that response about theists, the deduction we are most likely to make is that you haven't understood. If you need assistance, let us know.
 Coma_White
Joined: 9/15/2013
Msg: 256
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 7/7/2014 5:17:44 PM

^^^That atheists don't believe in deities goes without saying. I really didn't think it required a whole lot of debate, especially since athetists have declared themselves to be in a superior position. If you need assistance with the obvious, let me know.


Who declared themselves superior? I'm having trouble finding a post that claims that.


One would think that the rhetorical splitting of hairs about inscrutable deities would be the antithesis of important for people who don't believe in such nonsense. It would be like a bunch of PhDs arguing about whether Santa Claus is real. So I have to wonder why certain atheists are so self-possessed with arguments about what they don't believe. Isn't it enough to know that you're superior? Otherwise, you'd have to explain how you're being personally inconvenienced by anyone who subscribes to lots of silly ideas about "invisible sky wizards".

It's just not happening.


Religion influences everything from terrorist attacks and sectarian violents to federal policies that govern things like abortion and whether businesses can provide birth control pills to employees.
 Coma_White
Joined: 9/15/2013
Msg: 257
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 7/8/2014 12:06:18 PM

You're cherry-picking, since one could just as easily say that religion also influences everything from feeding the poor to providing shelter for the homeless to promoting pacifism to ending slavery to preaching tolerance for others' beliefs. Last I heard, abortions are still legal and easy to get, and just about everyone in this country also has unfettered access to birth control, although they may not like the fact that somebody else isn't chipping in to pay for it. As for terrorist attacks, the Unabomber wasn't a religious nut and neither was Timothy McVeigh.


The Unabombers and Timothy McVeigh are only two terrorists without religious motivation. There have been over 20,000 terrorist attacks carried out by religious radicals since 9/11. Would this not count as an inconvenience to the civilized world? Religion and religious moderates make it hard to criticize these type of actions or other things we find reprehensible about religion. We're told we have to respect religion. Ending slavery wasn't inspired by religious traditions, it was ended because of modern ideals.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 258
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 7/8/2014 1:27:56 PM

That atheists don't believe in deities goes without saying. I really didn't think it required a whole lot of debate, especially since athetists have declared themselves to be in a superior position by default.

You have been debating quite a bit over a position that you claim "goes without saying." So, what exactly IS the point you are trying to convey on this thread?

That people can believe what they want? Hopefully, THAT goes without saying. It would be quite sad if you felt that you lived in a place where that is not true.

Or is it that people's beliefs are beyond criticism? If that is your point, then I am sure that many here would disagree. With the freedom to believe in the supernatural comes the freedom to criticize beliefs in the supernatural.

Whatever your point may be, it should be quite telling to you and anyone reading that you feel the need to contradict logic, reason, and empirical knowledge with rhetorical games and intellectual dishonesty (aka sophistry).
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 259
view profile
History
Life Liberty and the Religious factor.
Posted: 7/8/2014 2:04:09 PM

The Unabombers and Timothy McVeigh are only two terrorists without religious motivation. There have been over 20,000 terrorist attacks carried out by religious radicals since 9/11. Would this not count as an inconvenience to the civilized world? Religion and religious moderates make it hard to criticize these type of actions or other things we find reprehensible about religion. We're told we have to respect religion. Ending slavery wasn't inspired by religious traditions, it was ended because of modern ideals.


You are still debating by statistics, and incomplete statistics at that, while continuing to ignore the rest of the picture, and especially ignoring logic itself.

The fact is, if one studies the history of human behavior thoroughly enough, they will find that the one thing that is central to all human activities, is that we see and use EVERYTHING as though it is a tool.

ESPECIALLY including concepts and ideas and ideals.

Just as a knife can e used to carve wood, or shave whiskers.... and it can also be used to stab people; so too, concepts such as belief systems can be used to build amity, organize and coordinate...and they can be used to get people to commit horrible acts of wanton violence against each other.

The fact that a given tool is used often to commit misdeeds, does not prove that the tool itself is to blame, but that is what you are insisting is the case.

The reason why it is common, for example, for Patriotism to be used as a manipulative tool to get people to attack each other (as certain politicians do every day in this country) is because Patriotism DOES represent something good and positive. That is why it is CHOSEN by the scumbags who want to fool earnest and worried people into doing things that hurt themselves, as much as they hurt those they fear.

In the same way, when the evil people of the world see that religion is something that many people follow and trust, they will choose THAT to cause people to do wrong.

If you want to deduce that we should do away with anything that can be used to do ill, we'll be back in the caves in no time. Actually, caves can be used as prisons and as traps to kill people too, so we'll have to go back to living naked on the prairies.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >