Let's do a religion poll!

[weirdichi]

Where's SHAMANISM?

 

[Fineghal]

Originally posted by: weirdichi
Where's SHAMANISM?

MMmm... Sweet Sweet Peyote.

 

[Vic]

Humanism is an ethical philosophy, not a religion. Otherwise, I would select it. I'm not a necessarily a secular humanist though (as I think that belief is a human right inherent to the human condition), and I'm certainly not a religious humanist (as I reject all belief in the mystical or supernatural). Hell, I'll just choose agnostic.

And Garth, take your apologetic atheism elsewhere, eh? Your same-old argument has gotten boring. The divide from theism to atheism is not a spectrum with agnosticism in the middle. Atheism and agnositicism, theism and gnosticism have different meanings. If you want to call yourself an agnostic atheist, by all means go ahead, but if you maintain an active disbelief in a higher power (whereas agnositicism means an active disbelief in revelation/the supernatural/mysticism AND an open acceptance to believing anything that might be observed or rationally deduced), then you are still an atheist no matter how much you want to apology for it. I suggest just coming to terms with it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: FoBoT
i mean, why does belief come into the picture? if there is no god, it has nothing to do with what you believe

if you have to not believe in God for him to not exist , it sounds like you have faith that he doesn't exist and i thought the whole thing about athiest is that they don't have to believe or not believe , there just isn't any god


i don't think i am explaining myself very well, but it just sounds like you are being contradicting by saying "no positive belief in the existence of a god". if there is no god then you don't need to not believe

nevermind if i am not communicating clearly

Yeah, I'm sorry but I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

I think what he is saying is that God either is or is not. Your belief or disbelief has nothing to do with that.

 

[SilthDraeth]

There are Celtic Druids still todayDruids

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: weirdichi
Where's SHAMANISM?

It sounds nice, and has been greatly romanticized in the modern era, but the oldest of the known human religions is really just kind of a mix of Christian Scientism (shaman were the first medical doctors, using that word loosely) and cult of personality worship with a lot of mumbo-jumbo mysticism, animism, and fear. I'm not giving someone else power over my mind and body simply because they claim to be able to control the supernatural.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

And Garth, take your apologetic atheism elsewhere, eh? Your same-old argument has gotten boring. The divide from theism to atheism is not a spectrum with agnosticism in the middle. Atheism and agnositicism, theism and gnosticism have different meanings. If you want to call yourself an agnostic atheist, by all means go ahead, but if you maintain an active disbelief in a higher power (whereas agnositicism means an active disbelief in revelation/the supernatural/mysticism AND an open acceptance to believing anything that might be observed or rationally deduced), then you are still an atheist no matter how much you want to apology for it. I suggest just coming to terms with it.

Umm... I never said anything in conflict with the above, except for your definition of agnosticism. Agnosticism represents the acknowledgment that one's beliefs or lack thereof with regard to metaphysical reality are not properly justified as knowledge. Only recently has the meaning been distorted by the overwhelming numbers of armchair philosophers that lack the sophistication to discern the real subtleties of its meaning with relation to other -isms.

So, I will continue to make the argument. It isn't unsound.

 

[engineereeyore]

LDS

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Vic

And Garth, take your apologetic atheism elsewhere, eh? Your same-old argument has gotten boring. The divide from theism to atheism is not a spectrum with agnosticism in the middle. Atheism and agnositicism, theism and gnosticism have different meanings. If you want to call yourself an agnostic atheist, by all means go ahead, but if you maintain an active disbelief in a higher power (whereas agnositicism means an active disbelief in revelation/the supernatural/mysticism AND an open acceptance to believing anything that might be observed or rationally deduced), then you are still an atheist no matter how much you want to apology for it. I suggest just coming to terms with it.

Umm... I never said anything in conflict with the above, except for your definition of agnosticism. Agnosticism represents the acknowledgment that one's beliefs or lack thereof with regard to metaphysical reality are not properly justified as knowledge. Only recently has the meaning been distorted by the overwhelming numbers of armchair philosophers that lack the sophistication to discern the real subtleties of its meaning with relation to other -isms.

So, I will continue to make the argument. It isn't unsound.

Gnosticism is the belief in "special knowledge," i.e. mysticism, revelation, etc, all covered under the Greek gnosis. The best known gnostic in history is argubly St. John the Evangelist of Patmos, writer of the Book of Revelation, etc. To him, Jesus was the Logos, the word of God revealed to mankind. That's gnosticism.

Agnosticism is the opposite. The belief that "special knowledge" is impossible and that the sum of all human knowledge is only that which is observable by the senses and that which can be rationally deduced. "It is what it is and only what it is." That sentence is agnosticism in a nutshell.

And as usual, you resort to little hidden insults, etc. to cover up your ignorance with arrogance, your blantant apologism with rudeness. I find such condescension repulsive, and I'm not such a passive pussy, I keep that sh!t out in the open. The armchair philosopher distorting the meaning because he lacks sophistication is you, prick. The definitions are clear and not subject to your "sophisticated" interpretations. Like I said, if you want to be both, that is fine. I don't care, irrational as atheism is. Be proud of it then.

 

[Alone]

Agnostic.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't care, irrational as atheism is.

What's so irrational about it?

 

[Alone]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't care, irrational as atheism is.

What's so irrational about it?

I assume he'll claim that it's ignorant to be 100% against something that you can't prove.

But then, can you not be 100% against the flying spaghetti monster, since you can't prove it doesn't exist?

I'm starting to lean more towards atheism.

 

[Miramonti]

Wow, there's a lot more heathens here than I thought.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't care, irrational as atheism is.

What's so irrational about it?

It's an active belief in something that cannot be known.

Like I said, God is or is not. Your belief or disbelief has nothing to do with that. Believing that it does is what makes both theism and atheism irrational.

Consider this example. You are not the whole, the one, you think you are (or that most people think they are). The human body is composed of something like 100 trillion cells. It is the summation of these cells that creates the oneness of mind and body that we think of as the whole self. Now, do you think that those individual cells are aware of this fact? Almost certaintly not. Do brain cells have arguments about the existence of the invisible consciousness? (that is "you")

 

[mrkun]

Anyone that isn't a theist is an atheist. It's that simple. Agnosticism is an epistemilogical position and is actually compatible with both theism and atheism.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't care, irrational as atheism is.

What's so irrational about it?

I assume he'll claim that it's ignorant to be 100% against something that you can't prove.

But then, can you not be 100% against the flying spaghetti monster, since you can't prove it doesn't exist?

I'm starting to lean more towards atheism.

No, it's a belief system not based from observation. Without observation, we have no basis of rationalization. We're just stabbing blindly at conjecture and insisting that reality is created by what we believe.

The FSM is IMO a form of reductio ad absurdum that I find to be anti-intellectual. It's like claiming for the sake of argument that your dog is God and then declaring that proves the non-existence of God because your dog doesn't have god-like powers. In other words, it's a confusion of communication that begins from an improper definition. That's why I always argue that any discussion over the existence/non-existence of God has to start by getting all parties to agree on the definition of God. Once you have that, then the conversation can continue. Otherwise, it'll just get stupid and emotional, and fall apart into 2 separate camps of extremists fighting over irrational beliefs rather than any attempts at rational reasoning or communication.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't care, irrational as atheism is.

What's so irrational about it?

It's an active belief in something that cannot be known.

Like I said, God is or is not. Your belief or disbelief has nothing to do with that. Believing that it does is what makes both theism and atheism irrational.

Consider this example. You are not the whole, the one, you think you are (or that most people think they are). The human body is composed of something like 100 trillion cells. It is the summation of these cells that creates the oneness of mind and body that we think of as the whole self. Now, do you think that those individual cells are aware of this fact? Almost certaintly not. Do brain cells have arguments about the existence of the invisible consciousness? (that is "you")

No offense but nice try, obviously you are not stupid because it takes some one with intellect to come up with such a creative steaming pile of "You know what" like that.:roll::laugh:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: mrkun
Anyone that isn't a theist is an atheist. It's that simple. Agnosticism is an epistemilogical position and is actually compatible with both theism and atheism.

And see, that's false dilemma. I am not required to choose between your 2 extreme positions. Nor is anyone else. A person could simply hold no opinion whatsoever. On top of that, the concept of "God," which is the basis of this unending theist/atheist argument, is so poorly defined and understood by most people that to claim everyone falls into either one of 2 camps is simply ridiculous.

Your 2nd sentence is correct though.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't care, irrational as atheism is.

What's so irrational about it?

It's an active belief in something that cannot be known.

Like I said, God is or is not. Your belief or disbelief has nothing to do with that. Believing that it does is what makes both theism and atheism irrational.

Consider this example. You are not the whole, the one, you think you are (or that most people think they are). The human body is composed of something like 100 trillion cells. It is the summation of these cells that creates the oneness of mind and body that we think of as the whole self. Now, do you think that those individual cells are aware of this fact? Almost certaintly not. Do brain cells have arguments about the existence of the invisible consciousness? (that is "you")

Nice try, obviously you are not stupid because it takes some one with intellect to come up with such a creative steaming pile of Bullsh!t like that.:roll::laugh:

Call it what you will. Perception ain't reality.

 

[Alone]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: mrkun
Anyone that isn't a theist is an atheist. It's that simple. Agnosticism is an epistemilogical position and is actually compatible with both theism and atheism.

And see, that's false dilemma. I am not required to choose between your 2 extreme positions. Nor is anyone else. A person could simply hold no opinion whatsoever. On top of that, the concept of "God," which is the basis of this unending theist/atheist argument, is so poorly defined and understood by most people that to claim everyone falls into either one of 2 camps is simply ridiculous.

Your 2nd sentence is correct though.

So I can believe in God (theist), or not choose a side (agnostic), but I can't be opposed to the belief? I have as much proof of Him not existing as a theist has of Him existing.

Not very fair, is it?

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: mrkun
Anyone that isn't a theist is an atheist. It's that simple. Agnosticism is an epistemilogical position and is actually compatible with both theism and atheism.

And see, that's false dilemma. I am not required to choose between your 2 extreme positions. Nor is anyone else. A person could simply hold no opinion whatsoever. On top of that, the concept of "God," which is the basis of this unending theist/atheist argument, is so poorly defined and understood by most people that to claim everyone falls into either one of 2 camps is simply ridiculous.

Your 2nd sentence is correct though.

So I can believe in God (theist), or not choose a side (agnostic), but I can't be opposed to the belief? I have no less proof of Him not existing than a theist has of Him existing.

Not very fair, is it?

This has been Vic's stance for as long as I've seen him posting. If confronted, he'll hem and haw without really saying anything productive about it. Push harder, and he'll say atheists are all proselytizing jerks and the religious are not. Push harder still, and he'll resort to childish namecalling. I've never seen someone with religious beliefs who was so ashamed to just admit them.

 

[LeiZaK]

How about Discordian? Not that I profess to be, but I find the Anametamystichood of Eris Esoteric to be quite titillating.

 

[CKent]

Jedi (?)
5 votes 2.75 (%)

:laugh:

 

[LeiZaK]

Also, The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

edit: I suppose I am agnostic by the way... Though I also put stock in aspects of many religions... Buddhism and Humanism to name a couple, and lets not forget about some of the more obscure principles in quantum theory.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't care, irrational as atheism is.

What's so irrational about it?

I assume he'll claim that it's ignorant to be 100% against something that you can't prove.

But then, can you not be 100% against the flying spaghetti monster, since you can't prove it doesn't exist?

I'm starting to lean more towards atheism.

No, it's a belief system not based from observation. Without observation, we have no basis of rationalization. We're just stabbing blindly at conjecture and insisting that reality is created by what we believe.

The FSM is IMO a form of reductio ad absurdum that I find to be anti-intellectual. It's like claiming for the sake of argument that your dog is God and then declaring that proves the non-existence of God because your dog doesn't have god-like powers. In other words, it's a confusion of communication that begins from an improper definition. That's why I always argue that any discussion over the existence/non-existence of God has to start by getting all parties to agree on the definition of God. Once you have that, then the conversation can continue. Otherwise, it'll just get stupid and emotional, and fall apart into 2 separate camps of extremists fighting over irrational beliefs rather than any attempts at rational reasoning or communication.

How about you let the people who know the most about atheism tell you what it's all about, yes?

Atheism is a LACK of belief in a higher power. It's that simple. There are offshoots of atheism, but for the most part, it's supposed to be a simple lack of belief in a higher power.

I am not a theist, so therefor, I'm an atheist. I do not actively have FAITH that there is no god, I simply do not believe.

I am somewhat of an anti-organized-theism. I can not STAND organized religion. I don't mind, nor do I actively disagree with theists, though.