|
daedalus 2.0
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: October 20, 2007, 09:52:33 AM » |
|
I have tried many times to say that atheism is the absence of a god belief, just as some of you have an absence of an alien belief, but you reject this.
perhaps we can move on. for argument sake I will cede your point.
now, in order for you to not be sure of something you must know what that thing is. otherwise, you are speaking nonsense.
to say "i don't know if a djrhfdh exists" is nonsense. so, to call yourself agnostic when someone makes the claim of a supernatural being is outlandish, at best.
we need a description of what you are not sure exists.
"something" does not cut it, since the term 'god' implies something more specific - such as, "a being that wants you to cut off your foreskin and hates gays and people who don't believe in him" (which is an apt description of zuk).
so, please define what you don't know exists or not. and since it is the theists that make the claim, we need them to come forward and define the undefinable in order fore zuk, et al, to claim they don't know....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
zukiphile
|
 |
« Reply #16 on: October 20, 2007, 11:42:04 AM » |
|
The idea that you need a precise definition to discuss an historically well discussed concept is incorrect. "something" does not cut it, since the term 'god' implies something more specific - such as, "a being that wants you to cut off your foreskin and hates gays and people who don't believe in him" (which is an apt description of zuk). You do yourself no real favor by attributing to me or others beliefs we do not hold. so, please define what you don't know exists or not. and since it is the theists that make the claim, we need them to come forward and define the undefinable in order fore zuk, et al, to claim they don't know....
You've been through this with me and others before. When you did it with me, you received a definition, then claimed you still couldn't discuss it becuase the definition hadn't come with universal agreement, then you ran. You are boring. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The Genius
Shoes and socks removed,
Ahk tries to count syllables
But can\'t write haiku.
\\"...fuck off dickless.\\" -Ahkenaten
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Patere legem, quam ipse tulisti.
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #17 on: October 20, 2007, 07:49:16 PM » |
|
as I recall, u defined god as the first cause.
I don't know of many people who don't believe the universe had a cause of some sort, so I wonder why you struggle with this.
plus, I don't know many people who think of god only in this way.
its like defining an elephant as "grey".
sorry, zuk, you are a weak link.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #18 on: October 21, 2007, 08:12:27 AM » |
|
The idea that you need a precise definition to discuss an historically well discussed concept is incorrect. "something" does not cut it, since the term 'god' implies something more specific - such as, "a being that wants you to cut off your foreskin and hates gays and people who don't believe in him" (which is an apt description of zuk). You do yourself no real favor by attributing to me or others beliefs we do not hold. so, please define what you don't know exists or not. and since it is the theists that make the claim, we need them to come forward and define the undefinable in order fore zuk, et al, to claim they don't know....
You've been through this with me and others before. When you did it with me, you received a definition, then claimed you still couldn't discuss it becuase the definition hadn't come with universal agreement, then you ran. You are boring. I had a similar experience. The Christian God is extremely well defined in scripture. Anyone who is confused about the definition of the Christian God is being purposefully obtuse. That person clearly has a hidden agenda. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #19 on: October 21, 2007, 08:24:16 PM » |
|
The idea that you need a precise definition to discuss an historically well discussed concept is incorrect. "something" does not cut it, since the term 'god' implies something more specific - such as, "a being that wants you to cut off your foreskin and hates gays and people who don't believe in him" (which is an apt description of zuk). You do yourself no real favor by attributing to me or others beliefs we do not hold. so, please define what you don't know exists or not. and since it is the theists that make the claim, we need them to come forward and define the undefinable in order fore zuk, et al, to claim they don't know....
You've been through this with me and others before. When you did it with me, you received a definition, then claimed you still couldn't discuss it becuase the definition hadn't come with universal agreement, then you ran. You are boring. I had a similar experience. The Christian God is extremely well defined in scripture. Anyone who is confused about the definition of the Christian God is being purposefully obtuse. That person clearly has a hidden agenda. You feel the definition is clear and yet even well-meaning Xians can't agree, or verify that their definition is correct. (Alas, it is also self-contradictory). Some people define god as Allah, Krishna or Nature. Who is right? There doesn't seem to be an objective way to define god. If i define god as "love" or "first cause" or "chunky" how does that help us? After all, if you are willing to use "purpose" or "reason" in the same way as materialists, why call god "first cause" when we already have a fine term for that: "first cause"? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
Technocrat
Full Member
Karma: +27/-149
Posts: 149
Soviet Technate
|
|
« Reply #20 on: October 21, 2007, 10:20:31 PM » |
|
Christians can't even agree on how to interpret their own holy text, which is why half of one group of Christians hate the other half and why some sects literally consider the Pope the fucking anti-christ. It's absurd. There are so many sects because no one can come to any agreement on their own dogma.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
In Soviet Tetris blocks drop you!
|
|
|
Factinista
Full Member
Karma: +17/-35
Posts: 224
|
|
« Reply #21 on: October 25, 2007, 12:11:07 PM » |
|
Atheists book themselves with Agnostics just as "Strong" Christians are assosiated with "Weak" Christians.
For example...
My mother is a Christian, she doesn't literally believe most of the stuff in the bible. She doesn't read it very much, she goes to church once in a while. But she still finds some comfort in the idea as well as being part of a community, all her friends are Christian. So does she think the bible is the exact word of God? no. Does she think that Atheists are going to hell? no.
So is she a Christian? not in the sence that many on this forum are, but she still is
In this manner Atheists and Agnostics are very, very similar.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Biker Dude
A TRUE Liberal!
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +156/-117
Posts: 2,103
Live to Ride, Ride to Live
|
|
« Reply #22 on: October 25, 2007, 12:46:23 PM » |
|
Maybe to some. Not to the ones that I have referred to as 'evangelical' atheists. I want nothing to do with them. I am NOT part of their war on belief.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Who will watch the watchers?Now that it is over, what are we going to talk about? |
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #23 on: October 25, 2007, 04:28:13 PM » |
|
I think the definition of Athesit and agnostic rest on the definition of "god".
Until "god" is objectively defined we aren't talking about one thing. its irrelevent.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #24 on: October 27, 2007, 06:42:31 AM » |
|
It is not irrelevant that many people who claim to be atheists and claim to understand what they mean and are comfortable including the term God in their definition, continue to hide the uncertainty of what they do believe and corresponding faith that covers the uncertainty by pretending that atheists and agnostics are in the same group.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #25 on: October 27, 2007, 01:29:17 PM » |
|
It is not irrelevant that many people who claim to be atheists and claim to understand what they mean and are comfortable including the term God in their definition, continue to hide the uncertainty of what they do believe and corresponding faith that covers the uncertainty by pretending that atheists and agnostics are in the same group.
No, this is the old "atheists are theists who just reject God". Or worse. Atheists don't beleive in a god, perhaps its because the god is defined as impossible (Zeus, Yahweh, Krishna) or that it is poorly defined as to be meaningless (Neo-Xians and Agnostics). Either way, if I define God and declare that god impossible to exist, your counter will be that you define god differently so as it can exist. THat is, you will simply declare that gods definition will always be one that makes it possible for It to exist. That is not a definition, it is justifying your Faith with mental gymnastics. BTW, why do you refuse to define your God? To say "its in the Bible" is just avoidance. After all, many people have read the Bible and come to different conclusions. I Am what I am, and "Jealous" and petty, etc... :roll: |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 27, 2007, 01:30:52 PM by daedalus 2.0 »
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Dormouse
|
|
« Reply #26 on: October 31, 2007, 03:15:07 PM » |
|
insist on grouping themselves with those who are traditionalally catagorized as agnostics (those who have not decided on a belief regarding God)?
What is the motivation for this?
I think the motivation for this is essentially historical. The original 'accusation' of atheism has always applied to anyone who rejected the institutions of religion (including 'deists' who usually had to be 'closet-deists' for this reason). But nowadays, many who reject the conventional institutions of religion are called 'agnostics' (including generic 'deists', new-age pagans and equally new-age pseudo-Buddhists). From a political standpoint, the two viewpoints (atheists and agnostics) have much in common in their shared support for separation of church and state as an inviolate fundamental principle. And ultimately, there are very, very few atheists who can make a solid intellectual case to rationally or logically justify their position. That of the 'agnostic' is much easier to rationally defend for people who don't have degrees in philosophy. Thus, the two groups (atheists and agnostics) tend to blur together (fuzzy edges) and can never really be categorical distinctions. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #27 on: October 31, 2007, 03:56:28 PM » |
|
insist on grouping themselves with those who are traditionalally catagorized as agnostics (those who have not decided on a belief regarding God)?
What is the motivation for this?
I think the motivation for this is essentially historical. The original 'accusation' of atheism has always applied to anyone who rejected the institutions of religion (including 'deists' who usually had to be 'closet-deists' for this reason). Those who rejected theism were historically grouped separate from those who were undecided (agnostic). Thus, the two groups (atheists and agnostics) tend to blur together (fuzzy edges) and can never really be categorical distinctions.
The fact that we can tell the difference between those who reject theism and those who are undecided indicates it is not so blurry as many would like to believe. The motivation for this has become clear to me by reading the responses. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Findeton
Jr. Member
Karma: +7/-14
Posts: 53
|
|
« Reply #28 on: October 31, 2007, 04:29:13 PM » |
|
The question that opens this thread is pointless. Atheists and agnostics are different groups that have things in common. We both question the existance of god. But atheists think/believe that god doesn't exist and agnostics don't. We can also set differences and things in common between believers and agnostics or believers and atheists.
And btw, it's not atheists who tend to group us with agnostics together, in my experience, but believers who separate themselves from agnostics and atheists. Anyway, the question is just pointless.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dormouse
|
|
« Reply #29 on: November 01, 2007, 05:58:28 AM » |
|
Those who rejected theism were historically grouped separate from those who were undecided (agnostic). Can you support that with a historical reference? For example, the founding fathers of the US include many 'closet-deists' and even an atheists or two who are always asumed, at that time, to be Christians. Distinctions of 'agnostics' and/or 'atheists' is entirely a 20th century phenomena. The fact that we can tell the difference between those who reject theism and those who are undecided indicates it is not so blurry as many would like to believe. The motivation for this has become clear to me by reading the responses. I beg to differ. Such a distinction is absurd. Almost every 'agnostic' I've ever encountered on a discussion forum is a closet-atheist. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
