i think i'd die in there :dizzy2: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Printable View
i think i'd die in there :dizzy2: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Wrong again. Agnosticism and atheism are not on the same scale. Agnosticism handles knowledge, atheism handles belief. They are not mutually exclusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Alco
Look at what you're saying. Atheism means not holding a belief in a god or gods, or "not-theism". So you're saying that agnosticism is not theism, but not "not-theism" either? But due to double negativity, that would make it theism!
It's just a common misconception to think that agnosticism is somewhere in between, some middle ground. It's not. You can believe that you can't know if there is a god or not, but believe in one anyway. (Agnostic theist.) You can also think that you can't know if there is a god or not and not believe in one. (Agnostic atheist.)
Oh, and by the way, you conceeded that atheism means that one does not believe in any god. But that includes those who just don't believe, the very people you call agnostics!
So you're saying that not holding a belief is a belief. Brilliant.Quote:
And you have to accept that atheism is, in its own way, a system of belief
Already answered this.Quote:
in which one believes in the non-existence of gods
Wait... a theist talks about LOGIC? That's a laugh!Quote:
therefore, it is logical that there are what could be called 'branches' in atheism where there are those atheists who simply do not believe in god/s
But anyway, since atheism is just a negative category there can't be any branches of it. There CAN'T. See, for there to be "branches", there must be a "trunk". There is no such thing in atheism, or in any other negative category.
Was that an attempt to shift the burden of proof? Because it's the one making the positive claim who has the burden to proof it. The theist claims that there is a god. If you cannot prove it, it is to be concidered false.Quote:
and those who strive to disprove religion and belief systems of a higher power, because in your words they are 'delusional'.
And you are delusional.
Oh, please! No belief deserves respect. If that were so, please don't tell the guy who believes that all Americans are idiots he's wrong, because you should respect his beliefs! Don't bother telling people that Santa Claus doesn't exist, because that's their belief! Don't you dare tell people that there is not a china teapot between Earth and Mars orbiting the sun too small for our telescopes to see, it's their belief! Don't be rude, man!Quote:
It's also contradictory, not to mention rude, to say to a person that you 'respect them as a person but don't respect their beliefs'.
How is it contradictory, by the way?
If I believed that killing Christians is the very essence of good, and refraining to do so when given a chance is the very essence of evil, and I based my whole life on it, should we "respect my beliefs" then? Or should we classify me as mental and lock me up?Quote:
I think you meant to say, or if not then it is more accurate and respectful to say, that you respect that person but do not AGREE with their beliefs. Saying you do not 'respect' a person's beliefs is tantamount to not respecting the person, since beliefs, of any kind, are a large part of what makes a person.
Only a half-right there, but that's better than nothing. Anti-theism would be someone who is against theism. It could be because it's erroneous, it could be because much pain and suffering is caused by it, it could be because it's a great tool for controlling people, it could be for the brainwashing, it could be because of the unconstitutional special rights theists get, it could be because many faiths, such as Christianity, are truly disgusting and call for all sorts of hineous crimes, it could be because religion creates bigotry, holier-than-thou mentality, it could be because it removes all critical thinking of a person, it could be because... all of these things and more!Quote:
And by using that phrase, and mentioning 'delusional beliefs' and 'shedding light on all religions', you have pretty much proven yourself to be an anti-theist, which is someone who, as I mentioned before, is of the opinion that belief in any god, or adherence to any religion, is erroneous.
But you're right, I am anti-theist in the sense that until theists learn to keep their ignorant faith completely for themselves (and that includes saving their own children from their indoctrination), I will continue to oppose theism in any shape or form it may occur. If it ever truly comes to that, I would think that, given that everyone gets a a good education, theism would die of itself.
Oh crap, you made me respond OT again! Please, stop doing it! Don't force me to contact the Holy God of Topic Keeping - he would smite thee asunder! (And he would give me a good deal of spanking, too.)
Quote:
Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of god or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism. Although atheism is often equated with irreligion, some religious philosophies, such as secular theology and some varieties of Buddhism such as Theravada, either do not include belief in a personal god as a tenet of the religion, or actively teach nontheism.
Clear now?Quote:
Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without", and gnosticism or gnosis, meaning "knowledge") is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of god, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience.
(From Wikipedia)
/chuckleQuote:
Originally Posted by The Vicious Monkey
Talk about contradictory. Christians should keep their beliefs to themselves but he's also advocating telling people how they have to raise their own children.
Ah well - discussion of faith brings out loons of all sorts - be it Christian or Athiest.
OT - I have little doubt that the PP portrayed in the NT is distorted to broaden Christian appeal to the Romans. My OP, of course.
Just about time for: :dancinglock:
I gotta say I agree with that. I tried to tell Magister etc Titus Pullo, rather forcibly, to cool it, and he told me, essentially (let's be polite) to screw off, though not using those exact words. The themes that have arisen here are better discused via pm's than on the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
On a side note, I just wanna say that I never intended all of this when I started the thread, though I gotta say I shoulda seen it coming.
Yep, Livy is a very flawed source for history. Parts of the Bible are at least that bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by chairman
I disagree, based on the source I mentioned above..Quote:
Originally Posted by chairman
I feel you are correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
Funny how no-one has mentioned those exercises he invented.
lol has anyone ever tried to claim Livy was flawless??????? he's writing an apologetic history of rome, without factual basis, since archives from that length didn't exist. BUT there is still a difference between a religious document and a semi-historical document. Livy is a flawless source for how contemporary romans looked back at their history. the bible tells us to KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL TURN OTHER CHEEK KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL... even if you disagree... all ppl ever did since the 'oh so tolerant christian church' became statereligion, was destroying and persecuting all other religions who tolerated them. christianity was intolerant from the start. hypocritical by accepting slavery, jesus would have been pissed i suppose though i dont know his view on slavery.
however i respect your choice to believe, but it should be kept indoor in the private sphere of society. i dont blame all you believers for your ancestors faults, your not to blame of course. :book:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Vicious Monkey
Atheism is a philosophical belief. Like any belief, its adherents belief's alter slightly. That would be called the branches of atheism.
As for your second part, that's exactly what I just said. I said the branch of atheism that says there is no gods is called Anti-Theism.
lol, I think you're mistaking your definition of atheism. That's actually agnosticism. Agnostics don't hold belief for or against the existence of God(s) due to a lack of evidence.Quote:
'majority of atheists thinks that there could be a god or many gods for that matter but they just don't hold belief in any because there is no evidence for one'
What set of principles does anti-agnosticism have? Not every philosophy has a contradictory opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Vicious Monkey
Agnosticism is more a lack of interest in the whole issue. Eg. insofar as I'm concerned it's one and the same whether the divine exists or not, and if then in what form - but I know that if it turns out it does I'm going to complain about grossly defective information distribution to someone. That aside it seems pointless to me to claim the existence or nonexistence of something that cannot be perceived or proven; IMO you might as well be arguing passionately over the intimate life of the Alpha Centaurians who may or may not exist.
Atheism, as far as I understand it, is the position that the divine definitely does not exist; which insofar as I can see is equally a matter of sheer subjective faith as claiming it definitively does.
Although in all honesty I find the religious more annoying than the anti-religious, chiefly because the former much more commonly demonstrate a bad habit of claiming dumb things on really dodgy premises and arguments also in contexts which their divine hobby horse has no business with. I often find their lines of argumentation to personally insult my intellect.
The fervent atheists tend to be almost as annoying in discussions involving the issue of religion, but are far less prone to displaying structurally buggered reasoning in other matters.
To my understanding, I believe the branch of atheism that says God(s) definitely do not exist and can be disproved is 'Anti-Theism,' and is a religion itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
As far as I'm concerned theres religous people who follow an organised religion on whatever level. Theres agnostic people who are at a loss as to whats going on or aren't sure whether a God or Gods exist. There's atheists, like me, who believe that there is no God for whatever reason and don't necessarily push other people to believe that. And then theres the apatheteic who really just don't care!
Secular as it may sound people have a right to believe whatever they want. Its not down to me (or anyone else) to change their minds.
*shrug* Semantics never interested me. I just call the counter-believers "atheists" and the indifferent (or undecided, if you prefer) "agnostics".Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
I mean, if I'm going to be disinterested in the existence or lack thereof of something as potentially heavy duty as the divine, it makes little sense to mince words over the exact taxonomy of unbelievers right ? :laugh4:
Yeah and then there's the midnight Catholics like me. When its daylight I'm a condescending agnostic know-all (yep I know, oxymoron, but thats me OK), but in the midnight hour, after a beer or two or maybe an Alien movie, all of a sudden I remember the words to the Hail Mary a whole lot better...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
If MAA and the thread starter are asking for it to be closed, let it be so!