But you still won’t cite the verse you quoted Jesus from, will you?
Did I not show a link to the book? Did it not show a picture of the book? The link told the story I said it would, what is crazy about that? I said nothing about what I thought of the book. You just jumped to a lot of unnecessary conclusions and want others to agree with you. The book exists, there is proof, just what is crazy about that pray tell if you can?
If one has a serious question as to whether another poster is suffering a mental or emotional disability, the best bet would probably be a private e-mail or PM, either to the poster in question or to a member of the staff.
This is not to say that it is impossible to ask a sincere question about someone’s mental health outside the Pit. I could easily see such a question in MPSIMS or other Fora (if carefully worded and depending on the thread topic). I could even see such a question in GD. However, after multiple pages of acrimony in GD, it is going to be read as an insult even if offered with only the deepest consideration intended. (And if it is offered in GD, it would have to be very clear on its intent, otherwise, by allowing such questions I open up the Forum to every smartass to form every insult as a solicitous question after one’s health.)
No harm; no foul on this occasion.
Admit it. You are Rod Serling and this is an episode from the Twilight Zone…
I don’t doubt that some batshit crazy freaks wrote a book I just question its…pedigree. Besides you said “jesus said…” then cited some goofy book written in the last century. Even a majority of Believers would question the authors claim of revelation.
ETA: removed snarky bit about mormons…
Damn it, man! Snarky mormon comments are the only thing I was looking forward to in this thread! You’ve ruined my fun. I hope you’re happy.
Okay, back to the original topic. This will probably be my last post on the topic, since it seems impossible to keep this thread on track.
I assert that nearly everyone who labels themselves as “atheist” would challenge any definition of atheism that implies a belief, such as “belief that there are no gods”. This means that the whole “atheists believe” argument is rejected by atheists themselves, and is supported only by people who do NOT claim to be atheists, usually either theists or agnostics.
This is pretty strong evidence that agnostics have created a strawman definition for atheism that has little to do with the actual real-life meaning of the word. The only real question left is why in the world would they do that? A pretty obvious response is that atheism is so violently rejected by our society that atheists are anxious to disassociate themselves from other atheists.
Maybe this isn’t the reason at all, but that still doesn’t change the fact that how most of you are insisting on defining atheism is NOT how atheists define themselves. If you define atheists by their ACTUAL thoughts, you’d see virtually no difference between atheism and agnosticism. Insisting on inserting distance between the two terms is only useful for social posturing, not actual clarification or definition.
Yes, I suppose most would question the book until they read it. It speaks for itself as most good works do. I have read it twice and mostly understand it. It is not an easy read. I would suggest reading the “Teachers Manual” first, it will help with the other sections. The “Workbook” section is designed to put the reader in touch with their inner self. It is not for everyone as they say, only those who still seek inner knowledge. Each has to follow their own path, the book was written as a “better way.”
Let’s ignore the hijack and get back to business, and thanks for restarting the actual thread.
While you are correct that atheism only requires absence of belief, I don’t get that bent out of shape by claims that atheism requires belief. The typical strawman argument is that atheism involves claims of proof or knoweledge that there are no gods. Considering that there are multiple defiinitions of god, and that most are pretty fuzzy, that’s an absurd requirement. Theism doesn’t require the knowledge that god exists, just a belief, so it is similar. Of course some theists can believe in things which can be and are falsified, while atheists are safe from this so long as no god pokes his head down here and says howdy.
So, some theists not only define atheism incorrectly, but define it to be pretty much self-refuting, and then feel that atheists must be god hating idiots to believe in such hogwash.
As if it was the first book to claim that. Would you regard equally all books that make that assertion?
And yet, earlier (before the massive hijackage) you pretty much dismissed how agnostics defined themselves. This seems a bit…inconsistent to me.
Again, you seem to simply except atheists at their word while rejecting agnostics self definition. Why is that? Do you not see the, um, flaw in this type of reasoning?
Well, that might be clear to you but I’m not seeing that you have proved this point.
Atheist (dictionary.com again): A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Agnostic: A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
So…unless dictionary.com is also part of the great agnostic strawman conspiracy it seems that you are willing to take atheists self definition at face value while hand waving away agnostics self definition as being weak, wrong, blah blah blah. Why?
No, the only REAL question left as I see it is why you can’t wrap your head around the fact that the two groups are different…and that agnostics aren’t simply cowardly atheists without the guts to publicly tout their convictions. And this seems to be a question that is unresolvable as you seem immune from any arguments contrary to what you already think you know.
You have built an entire logical argument on sand and then ‘prove’ what you were after all along. That’s pretty clever I’d say.
Agnostics define themselves in different terms…and yet you reject that self definition. Seems like a double standard here.
Sort of like insisting that water and oil, both being liquids, are the same…ehe?
-XT
I wonder if using dictionary.com is proper in that it doesn’t define words-it shows how words are commonly used. Because atheists are in the minority, their own definition will never be the primary one.
I can’t speak for most atheists of course, but in my experiences with fellow atheists in real life and on the internets, I see nothing wrong with the definitions xtisme pasted from dictionary.com for atheist and agnostic.
Me neither. I think the problem arises when someone interprets “disbelief” as active belief against, as opposed to lack of belief.
The posted definitions are orthogonal, just as agnosticism and atheism are orthogonal.
It’s theists that attempt to argue that it takes as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a believer that have created the strawman definition. As I’ve been trying to get through to you, agnostics are either atheists or theists.
I think the answer I gave above is much more obvious as your answer contradicts what I first quoted you as saying in this post:
You first say that it’s agnostics that have created the strawman definition and then you go on to imply that it’s atheists who are redefining the word “to disassociate themselves from other atheists”. Which is it?
Again, I can only speak from my experiences, but atheists are sick of theists claiming that atheism is a belief and the bit I mentioned about it taking faith to be an atheist. That need for atheists to disassociate themselves from strong atheists is because of those two theist claims. Also, it’s the truth; all that is required to be an atheist is to be without belief in God/gods.
If I may put up myslf as a poster boy, I am both an agnostic and an atheist, in as much as I believe A) absolute knowledge is impossible to achieve (ask Kurt Godel) and B) I don´t believe in the existance of divine beings as normally defined.
Persoanally I don´t see those two things contradicting themselves, they are two separate beliefs with little in common.
It might help to view these things externally.
Ask theists/deists if they believe in the existence of some sort of god, without getting into the details of that belief, and they’ll answer Yes.
Ask atheists if they believe in the existence of any sort of god, and they’ll answer No.
Ask agnostics if they believe in the existence of some sort of god, without getting into the details of that belief, and they’ll answer I don’t know.
The hard agnostics believe that the framework for answering the question does not exist, and hence the question itself is forever doomed to an indeterminate fate.
The medium agnostics believe that the framework for answering the question currently does not exist, and hence the question itself is currently doomed to an indeterminate fate.
The soft agnostics believe that the framework for answering the question currently does not exist, and hence the question itself is currently doomed to an indeterminate fate, but that the framework might be worked out at a later date.
Leaving the question as an “I don’t know” is quite distinct from the atheists’ definite “No.”
I disagree. An atheist can say I currently do not believe in god and also say I don’t know if god exists. The fact that one does not believe does not in any way assert that in fact that god does not exist. Just that no proof has satisfied me that it does. Maybe someday proof will change my mind. Agnostics on the other hand affirmatively assert that no proof of god can exist.
In other words you can ask an atheist Do you believe in god? He will say no. But if you ask him Does god exist? Some will answer I don’t know. The questions are not the same at all.
How many agnostics do you suppose would define their position as “belief that the nature and existence of gods is unknowable”?
How many agnostics would define their position as “belief that there is not enough evidence to support or deny the existence of god”?
My bet is that maybe an extremely small minority would choose the “unknowable” route unless guided to do so, and almost all would say something close to the second quote.
If I’m right, and the second self-identification quote is more likely to be chosen by agnostics, there is absolutely no difference between most agnostics, and most atheists, who would gladly accept the second quote as a definition for their own beliefs.
So WHY do agnostics insist on defining a gap between their views and those of the atheist?
Most people I know, who call themselves agnostic, would fall into the second category.
They cannot find themselves agreeing with the main religion’s presentations of the nature of God. Just like the atheist.
They call themselves agnostic because there is no proof against God’s existence either.
So they just don’t know what to believe. They just don’t go as far as the atheist who says he disbelieves.
I can’t think I know of anyone who would say it is a priori impossible to know either way.
After all, a god just might suddenly show up. Then you would know.
Most atheists wouldn’t discount that possibility out of hand either. Very few would go as far as to tell Horatio that there it is absolutely, positively, nothing else at… all…, between heaven and earth.
Most self-termed agnostics, I personally know, are somethingites. As in " No, I don’t beleive that [insert religious dogma] either so they [insert religuous group] don’t hold the truth either, but I still believe there is something out there."
So, IMHO, I would term an atheist someone who disbelieves the religion at hand, while an agnostic doesn’t know what to believe. He has very serious doubts but what if they are right after all? Oh dear, what to believe…
Fear of the label “atheist”, in many cases, I think. To be an atheist in America is to be despised by most of the population. To be an American atheist is to be pretty much at the bottom socially; distrusted, regarded as evil, the sort of person you’d be horrified for your son or daughter to marry.
And as well, i think there is an attempt to subdivide the already small number of unbelievers into yet smaller groups in order to keep them as weak as possible; the old divide and conquer tactic.