|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 4, 2010 17:20:02 GMT -4
What about those that reject the belief in God without actually denying His existence? It is the rejection of belief that traditionally defines atheism. Personally, I tend to go with "atheist" defined as "doesn't believe there's a God." "Agnostic" is "not sure." I have a friend who calls himself a fundamentalist agnostic--he doesn't know if there's a God, and you don't, either. Actually, I concede his point; I don't know. I believe. If I knew, I wouldn't have to believe any more than I believe in tables. You can make logical arguments to support just about any fool thing, but without evidence, they're just thought exercises. |
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 5, 2010 11:25:49 GMT -4
An atheist, to my mind, is someone who actively denies the existence of God. What about those that reject the belief in God without actually denying His existence? It is the rejection of belief that traditionally defines atheism. If they don't personally believe in God but admit that they don't know if He actually exists or not then I class them as agnostic. My agnostics category is obviously much larger than my atheist category. |
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 5, 2010 12:00:47 GMT -4
I do not say that atheists must of necessity be arrogant, merely that my observation is that they are prone to arrogance. I would submit that this conclusion is subject to your own selection bias. Nor did I claim that belief applied to you. But do you consider that belief benign? (A-)Theism speaks to belief, (a-)gnosticism speaks to knowledge, or the claim thereof. Absence of belief in a god claim is atheism. One can claim to be gnostic on either side of the theism coin. You, for example, I presume are atheistic toward Zeuss, Odin, Ra, Krishna, Quetzalcoatl, and all other god claims throughout the history of man, except the LDS interpretation of YHWH (or, to be more specific, your own personal interpretation of the LDS interpretation of YHWH), toward whom you are theistic. Would you consider yourself gnostic or agnostic in your atheistic stance toward those other claims? Do you know they don't exist, or do you simply not believe in their existence? Your implication that atrocities committed in the name of theism might be motivated by some other factor suggested an attempt to distance yourself from the perpetrators by excluding them from your ilk, namely theists in general. That being the case, would you then agree that there is no way to determine if religion has any impact on human behavior at all, negative or positive? Quite the interesting proposal you've put forth here. I question how something can be objective only to a select subset of observers. Objectivity, by definition, is observer-neutral. It's not a case of only the religious having this trait, but might be only the religious properly recognizing it when they encounter it. This sounds like a perfectly testable hypothesis. For instance, place 5 different objects before a religious person to whom those objects would be sacred. Only 1 of the objects would be "genuinely" sacred, the others would be replicas. Ask the person to identify the genuine object. Repeat the experiment with different subjects and proper randomization until a statistically satisfactory conclusion can be reached. I can already hear the special pleading in the event of a negative result. |
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 5, 2010 12:09:43 GMT -4
I believe. If I knew, I wouldn't have to believe any more than I believe in tables. Knowledge is a subset of belief. I believe tables exist, because I've been presented with evidence of their existence, hence I also know tables exist. Ergo, I'm a gnostic tableist. I believe my car is parked outside my house, as I saw it there not 10 minutes ago. But, at this moment, I don't know that it's still parked there, so right now I'm an agnostic car-parked-outside-ist. I know, as surely as I can know anything (without descending into solipsism), that my fingers are typing on my keyboard right now, as 3 of my 5 senses tell me this. (All 5 would, were I to lick and sniff them while typing, but I save that for special occasions.) [ETA further wacky examples:] I don't believe that Bigfoot exists (the cryptozoological creature, not the monster truck), but I don't know that it doesn't, hence I'm an agnostic abigfootist. I do know, however (barring the ability of Bigfoot to evade by field of view no matter how quickly I turn my head) that Bigfoot is not presently in my living room, so I'm a gnostic a-bigfoot-in-my-livingroom-ist. |
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 5, 2010 12:34:25 GMT -4
I do not say that atheists must of necessity be arrogant, merely that my observation is that they are prone to arrogance. I would submit that this conclusion is subject to your own selection bias. Since my own definition of what an atheist is is rather narrow compared to some other definitions, I suppose you could call it selection bias in that I have different criteria for determining who is and isn't an atheist than you seem to have. Insofar as those who believe it also believe that they must make every effort to convince these people to change their ways without also forcing them to change their ways against their will it is a more benign belief than attempting to force others to give up what you view as primitive superstitions through legislation and judiciary pressure. Again, it depends somewhat on how this belief is enacted. Those are not the definitions I typically use. That is too much of a simplification for me to readily agree. I would say that I have knowledge that the claims of other faiths are not entirely correct (though not necessarily outright false) in some areas with a reasonable certainty. Well, then let me state plainly that it is perfectly possible for those who believe in God (theists) to commit atrocities. Yes I would agree that there is no sure way to determine religion's effect on human behavior, except in the case of oneself. There are ways to measure the material aid that religions supply but the net effect of their ideas on humanity as a whole cannot be accurately determined. Any objective quality is only observable to those who have the ability to perceive it, and this ability can in some cases be a learned skill. I await the outcome of your experiment. |
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 5, 2010 16:28:47 GMT -4
I believe. If I knew, I wouldn't have to believe any more than I believe in tables. Knowledge is a subset of belief. I believe tables exist, because I've been presented with evidence of their existence, hence I also know tables exist. Ergo, I'm a gnostic tableist. I believe my car is parked outside my house, as I saw it there not 10 minutes ago. But, at this moment, I don't know that it's still parked there, so right now I'm an agnostic car-parked-outside-ist. I know, as surely as I can know anything (without descending into solipsism), that my fingers are typing on my keyboard right now, as 3 of my 5 senses tell me this. (All 5 would, were I to lick and sniff them while typing, but I save that for special occasions.) [ETA further wacky examples:] I don't believe that Bigfoot exists (the cryptozoological creature, not the monster truck), but I don't know that it doesn't, hence I'm an agnostic abigfootist. I do know, however (barring the ability of Bigfoot to evade by field of view no matter how quickly I turn my head) that Bigfoot is not presently in my living room, so I'm a gnostic a-bigfoot-in-my-livingroom-ist. O come on, you're just pulling our leg now surely...  Personally, the biggest reason I left the "church" was because the god of the Bible did not act godly - at least to my eyes. He was too jealous, cruel and erratic to be "GOD". All you have to do is read the Bible to see this. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 5, 2010 16:49:14 GMT -4
I left the Church (in my case Catholic) for social reasons. I like the ceremony, and I find the history fascinating (even when it's pretty horrifying), but things like the attitude towards gays, when Jesus never talked about it anyway, and the ignoring places in the Bible where women were treated equally in the early Church really bothered me.
|
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 6, 2010 10:52:59 GMT -4
What about those that reject the belief in God without actually denying His existence? It is the rejection of belief that traditionally defines atheism. If they don't personally believe in God but admit that they don't know if He actually exists or not then I class them as agnostic. My agnostics category is obviously much larger than my atheist category. Then I would say that your definition is "politically" driven not meant to convey a clear meaning in conversation. Better definitions are derived from other sources such as historical context of the root words and what educated people who use words carefully mean when they use the word. The most common use of the word atheism among those that define themselves as atheist is the absence of belief in a supernatural power. |
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 6, 2010 11:29:44 GMT -4
If they don't personally believe in God but admit that they don't know if He actually exists or not then I class them as agnostic. My agnostics category is obviously much larger than my atheist category. Then I would say that your definition is "politically" driven not meant to convey a clear meaning in conversation. I'm not sure what you mean by "politically" driven, but if it's clear that someone doesn't understand what I mean then I'm happy to clarify. I also use a much broader definition of Christian than many people are willing to use. To me, anyone who self-identifies as a Christian is one, regardless of the exact particulars of their belief or whether they behave in a moral fashion. They could even be atheist and Christian (someone who finds Jesus Christ to be a great moral teacher worthy of emulation while believing there was nothing divine about him and denying that God exists). "Better" is of course a relative term. So long as communication occurs it doesn't matter too much which definitions I prefer to use. And I am well aware of this. |
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 9, 2010 14:18:46 GMT -4
Since my own definition of what an atheist is is rather narrow compared to some other definitions, I suppose you could call it selection bias in that I have different criteria for determining who is and isn't an atheist than you seem to have. Of course. When you make up your own definitions for words, you can apply them as broadly or narrowly as you like. I could define "Nazi" as any caucasian with blond hair and blue eyes, but people would probably look at me kinda funny. (Oops, pardon me while I go sacrifice a goat to Godwin.) This is action you speak of, not belief. And since it is impossible to force anyone to give up, change, or take on a belief (though most theocracies don't seem to get that), any such attempt would not only be unconstitutional, but futile. Did you have any particular examples in mind of attempted legislative and/or judicial antitheism? And do not others have knowledge that their faiths are correct, with a reasonable certainty, and yours isn't? These statements appear to be in contradiction. There may be ways to measure material aid that people (religious or otherwise) supply, but per the former agreement, there is no way to know if religion had any influence on that behavior. Myriad dowsers, mentalists, aura readers and other ESPers claim the ability to detect that which others can't, claims which have yet to hold up under rigorous scrutiny. Some of them are hucksters, no doubt, but many are simply and genuinely self-deluded. As you are the claimant, the burden lies on you to supply the evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 9, 2010 14:24:01 GMT -4
O come on, you're just pulling our leg now surely... I'm not pulling your (collective) leg, and don't call me Shirley. ;D Indeed, it has been said that one of the shortest paths to atheism is actually reading the Bible. (Kinda makes sense of the Catholic church's policy of hiding it from the masses [pun intended] for so long.) |
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 9, 2010 14:26:28 GMT -4
but things like the attitude towards gays, when Jesus never talked about it anyway, and the ignoring places in the Bible where women were treated equally in the early Church really bothered me. And let's not forget the Biblical regulation (and not prohibition) of slavery. |
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 9, 2010 15:19:54 GMT -4
Of course. When you make up your own definitions for words, you can apply them as broadly or narrowly as you like. I could define "Nazi" as any caucasian with blond hair and blue eyes, but people would probably look at me kinda funny. (Oops, pardon me while I go sacrifice a goat to Godwin.) Or they could say, "you might have a point. Perhaps I should think differently on the subject." Since I'm happy to explain what I mean by the terms it is no barrier to communication. Point taken. I wouldn't say that only theorcracies have made this mistake. Unfortunately, the current trend is that what is constitutional is a matter of a judge's opinion. And those change often. No specific examples, no, but it seems quite common in the U.S. these days. Elimination of school prayer, agitation against the pledge of allegiance, removal of Ten Commandments monuments, removal of crosses on public grounds, restrictions on what songs may be sung by school signing groups, the hub-bub about the LDS Main Street plaza and their restrictions there, etc. I cannot compare the religious experiences of others to my own, as I do not have direct access to their experiences. Therefore it is a pointless exercise to attempt to evaluate who is correct. I can only evaluate my own experiences. It was not a contradiction. I was merely pointing out that organized religions do engage in charitable service, and that service is somewhat quantifiable, in contrast to their influence on behavior which is not. It wasn't dowsers, mentalists, aura readers, etc. that I had in mind. In fact, as I have observed in my daughter (three months old) being able to perceive anything with the possible exception physical pain appears to be a learned skill. But the experiment is your idea. I wouldn't think of encroaching. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 9, 2010 15:34:31 GMT -4
And let's not forget the Biblical regulation (and not prohibition) of slavery. Oh, yeah. The thing is, the Bible is a product of its time. Taking its every word literally as applicable to this one is frankly foolish. There are a lot of things they didn't know a few thousand years ago which change the interaction we have with the world, or anyway should. And if we're willing to, say, agree that slavery is wrong, why should we follow the Bible's morality on every other issue? Here's a place the Catholics are sensible--they consider large amounts of the Bible allegory instead of wanting everything taken literally. |
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 9, 2010 16:26:28 GMT -4
O come on, you're just pulling our leg now surely... I'm not pulling your (collective) leg, and don't call me Shirley. ;D Indeed, it has been said that one of the shortest paths to atheism is actually reading the Bible. (Kinda makes sense of the Catholic church's policy of hiding it from the masses [pun intended] for so long.) ... unless you could speak Latin. |
|
