|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States44012 Posts
British military required us to swear an oath on a book. Used to be the Bible, now it's literally any collection of printed pages. There is no reason not to adapt traditions to meet modern realities.
|
On September 07 2014 05:36 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2014 05:08 Crushinator wrote:On September 07 2014 05:00 Introvert wrote:On September 07 2014 04:24 Crushinator wrote:On September 07 2014 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2014 03:09 sc2isnotdying wrote:On September 06 2014 18:08 coverpunch wrote:
EDIT: The more interesting hypothetical question might be if the atheists really got their way and they demanded that the military should not only scrub "so help me God" from the oath but ban anyone from saying it. That is a far more direct push and it probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster because it would damage the rights of religious people from expressing their beliefs, although it would set that against the non-establishment clause in an interesting way. Why do you think that atheists secretly want to ban people saying "so help me God". That's a big fucking leap from the thing atheists are actually asking for, which is that they'd rather not be forced into saying, "so help me God". How about we leave your strawman out of it. I'm sure some atheists would like to see theism banned just as some theists would love to see atheism banned, but in this country specifically that is far outside mainstream values. Freedom of religion is something that is very deeply held by atheists and theists alike. I personally find atheism almost as obnoxious as theism. I think the only honest position is agnosticism, but the two are often used interchangeably (even if they shouldn't be). In the commonly accepted definition, atheism refers to a lack of a belief in a god whereas agnosticism refers to a lack of certainty about the existence of a god. The two are often used interchangeably because most atheists are also agnostics, and most people who refer to themselves as agnostics when prompted about their religion are also atheists. The terms are not mutually exclusive. Refering to yourself as an agnostic may be truthful, but it says nothing about your beliefs, it is very possible to belief in God and also be agnostic about it. It is not generally more honest, often people are too much of a pussy to call themselves what they are and go for something that sounds more neutral. Sorry, probably not very relevant to the discussion, but misconceptions such as these annoy me. That definition of atheism isn't even quite right. Atheism is rooted in a positive assertion: That God does not exist. It's not merely a lack of belief. There was an atheist blogger I saw linked who tried to correct this... let's see..... See here. I'm ignoring his actual arguments for or against atheism, but at least he sets out a narrower definition. This is off topic, so I wan't say more. I just bristle at incorrect characterizations of things. Edit: as far as I'm aware, this is the definition of atheism that has been used throughout most of philosophy, in the past up until now. This new definition is a popular one, but not technically correct. Fair point. It does however still not make agnosticism a correct term for describing a belief or lack thereof. Edit: Upon reading his argument I find the case for a narrower definition unconvincing. It seems to me we would need many more words. His characterization of how beliefs must come about is also not really in line with how they actually do come about. ANd the whole bit about assigning probability to the existence of a god is problematic to me, I have no interest in such a thing, would we need a new word for me? I think the word atheist capturing all people who are not believers is fine. Atheism:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
1. ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not SourceJust saying... Not sure where your understanding comes from? My understanding comes from the common usage of the word by people who call themselves atheists. This group includes many people who do not have any beliefs about the existence or inexistence of a deity. Some disbelief a personal god but not a deistic/pantheist/whatever god. Some don't make such a distinction. The atheist community on the internet is fairly large, and the general consensus is that active disblief is not required for the label. Since you find atheists so obnoxiously dishonest, i thought it would be of interest to you what they acctually belief the term to mean.
I prefer there being a distinction it makes sense. I am not talking about agnostics when I say Atheist and when someone calls me Atheist I correct them.
I guess you just need to lobby all the dictionaries and linguists and tell them to change the documented definition.
It seems stupid to lump someone who is maybe 70-30 in favor of a god existing with someone who thinks they are certain there is no god. If that's what people want to do I can't control the lexicon but I am not going to ever call my self an atheist just because I doubt a god and people got lazy and misused a word into thinking it was accurate and sufficient. .
|
On September 07 2014 05:51 Crushinator wrote:
It doesn't literally say that. I imagine many opponents of a change would argue that it isn't a religious test. You can say the words even if you are openly an atheist.
I think swearing a religious oath qualifies as a 'religious test'. After all swearing a specific oath two times turns you into a Muslim. I'm pretty sure a lot of religious people would not swear other religion's oaths. What do you think constitutes a religious test? Sacrificing a goat?
|
On September 07 2014 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 05:36 Crushinator wrote:On September 07 2014 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2014 05:08 Crushinator wrote:On September 07 2014 05:00 Introvert wrote:On September 07 2014 04:24 Crushinator wrote:On September 07 2014 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2014 03:09 sc2isnotdying wrote:On September 06 2014 18:08 coverpunch wrote:
EDIT: The more interesting hypothetical question might be if the atheists really got their way and they demanded that the military should not only scrub "so help me God" from the oath but ban anyone from saying it. That is a far more direct push and it probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster because it would damage the rights of religious people from expressing their beliefs, although it would set that against the non-establishment clause in an interesting way. Why do you think that atheists secretly want to ban people saying "so help me God". That's a big fucking leap from the thing atheists are actually asking for, which is that they'd rather not be forced into saying, "so help me God". How about we leave your strawman out of it. I'm sure some atheists would like to see theism banned just as some theists would love to see atheism banned, but in this country specifically that is far outside mainstream values. Freedom of religion is something that is very deeply held by atheists and theists alike. I personally find atheism almost as obnoxious as theism. I think the only honest position is agnosticism, but the two are often used interchangeably (even if they shouldn't be). In the commonly accepted definition, atheism refers to a lack of a belief in a god whereas agnosticism refers to a lack of certainty about the existence of a god. The two are often used interchangeably because most atheists are also agnostics, and most people who refer to themselves as agnostics when prompted about their religion are also atheists. The terms are not mutually exclusive. Refering to yourself as an agnostic may be truthful, but it says nothing about your beliefs, it is very possible to belief in God and also be agnostic about it. It is not generally more honest, often people are too much of a pussy to call themselves what they are and go for something that sounds more neutral. Sorry, probably not very relevant to the discussion, but misconceptions such as these annoy me. That definition of atheism isn't even quite right. Atheism is rooted in a positive assertion: That God does not exist. It's not merely a lack of belief. There was an atheist blogger I saw linked who tried to correct this... let's see..... See here. I'm ignoring his actual arguments for or against atheism, but at least he sets out a narrower definition. This is off topic, so I wan't say more. I just bristle at incorrect characterizations of things. Edit: as far as I'm aware, this is the definition of atheism that has been used throughout most of philosophy, in the past up until now. This new definition is a popular one, but not technically correct. Fair point. It does however still not make agnosticism a correct term for describing a belief or lack thereof. Edit: Upon reading his argument I find the case for a narrower definition unconvincing. It seems to me we would need many more words. His characterization of how beliefs must come about is also not really in line with how they actually do come about. ANd the whole bit about assigning probability to the existence of a god is problematic to me, I have no interest in such a thing, would we need a new word for me? I think the word atheist capturing all people who are not believers is fine. Atheism:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
1. ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not SourceJust saying... Not sure where your understanding comes from? My understanding comes from the common usage of the word by people who call themselves atheists. This group includes many people who do not have any beliefs about the existence or inexistence of a deity. Some disbelief a personal god but not a deistic/pantheist/whatever god. Some don't make such a distinction. The atheist community on the internet is fairly large, and the general consensus is that active disblief is not required for the label. Since you find atheists so obnoxiously dishonest, i thought it would be of interest to you what they acctually belief the term to mean. I prefer there being a distinction it makes sense. I am not talking about agnostics when I say Atheist and when someone calls me Atheist I correct them. I guess you just need to lobby all the dictionaries and linguists and tell them to change the documented definition. It seems stupid to lump someone who is maybe 70-30 in favor of a god existing with someone who thinks they are certain there is no god. If that's what people want to do I can't control the lexicon but I am not going to ever call my self an atheist just because I doubt a god and people got lazy and misused a word into thinking it was accurate and sufficient. .
But your definition of agnostic has come about exactly by such a process.
|
On September 07 2014 06:14 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 05:51 Crushinator wrote:
It doesn't literally say that. I imagine many opponents of a change would argue that it isn't a religious test. You can say the words even if you are openly an atheist. I think swearing a religious oath qualifies as a 'religious test'. After all swearing a specific oath two times turns you into a Muslim. I'm pretty sure a lot of religious people would not swear other religion's oaths. What do you think constitutes a religious test? Sacrificing a goat?
Well you could argue that what is meant by religious test includes an explicit requirement that someone has a religion.The air force in this case is not saying that the non-religious are not allowed in, they are saying that reciting the oath in full is required for joining, regardless of one's religion.
I tend to agree that it constitutes a religious test though.
|
On September 07 2014 06:14 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2014 05:36 Crushinator wrote:On September 07 2014 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2014 05:08 Crushinator wrote:On September 07 2014 05:00 Introvert wrote:On September 07 2014 04:24 Crushinator wrote:On September 07 2014 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2014 03:09 sc2isnotdying wrote:On September 06 2014 18:08 coverpunch wrote:
EDIT: The more interesting hypothetical question might be if the atheists really got their way and they demanded that the military should not only scrub "so help me God" from the oath but ban anyone from saying it. That is a far more direct push and it probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster because it would damage the rights of religious people from expressing their beliefs, although it would set that against the non-establishment clause in an interesting way. Why do you think that atheists secretly want to ban people saying "so help me God". That's a big fucking leap from the thing atheists are actually asking for, which is that they'd rather not be forced into saying, "so help me God". How about we leave your strawman out of it. I'm sure some atheists would like to see theism banned just as some theists would love to see atheism banned, but in this country specifically that is far outside mainstream values. Freedom of religion is something that is very deeply held by atheists and theists alike. I personally find atheism almost as obnoxious as theism. I think the only honest position is agnosticism, but the two are often used interchangeably (even if they shouldn't be). In the commonly accepted definition, atheism refers to a lack of a belief in a god whereas agnosticism refers to a lack of certainty about the existence of a god. The two are often used interchangeably because most atheists are also agnostics, and most people who refer to themselves as agnostics when prompted about their religion are also atheists. The terms are not mutually exclusive. Refering to yourself as an agnostic may be truthful, but it says nothing about your beliefs, it is very possible to belief in God and also be agnostic about it. It is not generally more honest, often people are too much of a pussy to call themselves what they are and go for something that sounds more neutral. Sorry, probably not very relevant to the discussion, but misconceptions such as these annoy me. That definition of atheism isn't even quite right. Atheism is rooted in a positive assertion: That God does not exist. It's not merely a lack of belief. There was an atheist blogger I saw linked who tried to correct this... let's see..... See here. I'm ignoring his actual arguments for or against atheism, but at least he sets out a narrower definition. This is off topic, so I wan't say more. I just bristle at incorrect characterizations of things. Edit: as far as I'm aware, this is the definition of atheism that has been used throughout most of philosophy, in the past up until now. This new definition is a popular one, but not technically correct. Fair point. It does however still not make agnosticism a correct term for describing a belief or lack thereof. Edit: Upon reading his argument I find the case for a narrower definition unconvincing. It seems to me we would need many more words. His characterization of how beliefs must come about is also not really in line with how they actually do come about. ANd the whole bit about assigning probability to the existence of a god is problematic to me, I have no interest in such a thing, would we need a new word for me? I think the word atheist capturing all people who are not believers is fine. Atheism:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
1. ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not SourceJust saying... Not sure where your understanding comes from? My understanding comes from the common usage of the word by people who call themselves atheists. This group includes many people who do not have any beliefs about the existence or inexistence of a deity. Some disbelief a personal god but not a deistic/pantheist/whatever god. Some don't make such a distinction. The atheist community on the internet is fairly large, and the general consensus is that active disblief is not required for the label. Since you find atheists so obnoxiously dishonest, i thought it would be of interest to you what they acctually belief the term to mean. I prefer there being a distinction it makes sense. I am not talking about agnostics when I say Atheist and when someone calls me Atheist I correct them. I guess you just need to lobby all the dictionaries and linguists and tell them to change the documented definition. It seems stupid to lump someone who is maybe 70-30 in favor of a god existing with someone who thinks they are certain there is no god. If that's what people want to do I can't control the lexicon but I am not going to ever call my self an atheist just because I doubt a god and people got lazy and misused a word into thinking it was accurate and sufficient. . But your definition of agnostic has come about exactly by such a process.
I'll call myself 'without knowledge' on God to avoid the confusion then.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
This discussion made me look up what I fall under, and apparently there is such a thing as "apatheism," so I'll go with that.
|
On September 07 2014 04:16 sc2isnotdying wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 04:01 IgnE wrote:
That wasn't a strawman. It was a digression about what he considered an interesting hypothetical. You just did the same thing thing that all the conservatives in this thread did a few pages back in response to my post about curfew laws. You read a trigger phrase out of context and got all worked up about it. "if the atheists really got their way..." This suggests he believes this is what the atheists want. He wasn't making a strawman argument, more of a strawman hypothetical. My point still stands.
Nah, IgnE was right, I was just making a hypothetical and not trying to make an implied point about atheists. I thought that would be clear since I've been completely neutral about whether any of this is "right" or "good".
|
On September 07 2014 05:36 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2014 05:08 Crushinator wrote:On September 07 2014 05:00 Introvert wrote:On September 07 2014 04:24 Crushinator wrote:On September 07 2014 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2014 03:09 sc2isnotdying wrote:On September 06 2014 18:08 coverpunch wrote:
EDIT: The more interesting hypothetical question might be if the atheists really got their way and they demanded that the military should not only scrub "so help me God" from the oath but ban anyone from saying it. That is a far more direct push and it probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster because it would damage the rights of religious people from expressing their beliefs, although it would set that against the non-establishment clause in an interesting way. Why do you think that atheists secretly want to ban people saying "so help me God". That's a big fucking leap from the thing atheists are actually asking for, which is that they'd rather not be forced into saying, "so help me God". How about we leave your strawman out of it. I'm sure some atheists would like to see theism banned just as some theists would love to see atheism banned, but in this country specifically that is far outside mainstream values. Freedom of religion is something that is very deeply held by atheists and theists alike. I personally find atheism almost as obnoxious as theism. I think the only honest position is agnosticism, but the two are often used interchangeably (even if they shouldn't be). In the commonly accepted definition, atheism refers to a lack of a belief in a god whereas agnosticism refers to a lack of certainty about the existence of a god. The two are often used interchangeably because most atheists are also agnostics, and most people who refer to themselves as agnostics when prompted about their religion are also atheists. The terms are not mutually exclusive. Refering to yourself as an agnostic may be truthful, but it says nothing about your beliefs, it is very possible to belief in God and also be agnostic about it. It is not generally more honest, often people are too much of a pussy to call themselves what they are and go for something that sounds more neutral. Sorry, probably not very relevant to the discussion, but misconceptions such as these annoy me. That definition of atheism isn't even quite right. Atheism is rooted in a positive assertion: That God does not exist. It's not merely a lack of belief. There was an atheist blogger I saw linked who tried to correct this... let's see..... See here. I'm ignoring his actual arguments for or against atheism, but at least he sets out a narrower definition. This is off topic, so I wan't say more. I just bristle at incorrect characterizations of things. Edit: as far as I'm aware, this is the definition of atheism that has been used throughout most of philosophy, in the past up until now. This new definition is a popular one, but not technically correct. Fair point. It does however still not make agnosticism a correct term for describing a belief or lack thereof. Edit: Upon reading his argument I find the case for a narrower definition unconvincing. It seems to me we would need many more words. His characterization of how beliefs must come about is also not really in line with how they actually do come about. ANd the whole bit about assigning probability to the existence of a god is problematic to me, I have no interest in such a thing, would we need a new word for me? I think the word atheist capturing all people who are not believers is fine. Atheism:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
1. ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not SourceJust saying... Not sure where your understanding comes from? My understanding comes from the common usage of the word by people who call themselves atheists. This group includes many people who do not have any beliefs about the existence or inexistence of a deity. Some disbelief a personal god but not a deistic/pantheist/whatever god. Some don't make such a distinction. The atheist community on the internet is fairly large, and the general consensus is that active disblief is not required for the label. Since you find atheists so obnoxiously dishonest, i thought it would be of interest to you what they acctually belief the term to mean.
Actually a priest here would fall into the category of atheism, not just agnostic. His historical knowledge of christianity is pretty impressive and ultimately the knowledge he had was what pushed him to write a book where he claimed that: "God belongs in the past. He is actually so old fashioned that I am baffled by modern people believing in his existence. I am thoroughly fed up with empty words about miracles and eternal life."
It created quite a debate 10 years ago, but given his very strong knowledge of the religious background material (he is able to debate specific religious events in history in details as well as discuss biblical interpretation), he was very popular in his big city parish before he was moved around and eventually retired.
Anyway, the distinction between the two is thin. Most religion students here would probably fall within the agnostic spectrum, if not straight atheism. The focus in the education as a priest today is different from pure interpretation of texts, which is imo. progress.
|
On September 07 2014 06:38 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 05:36 Crushinator wrote:On September 07 2014 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2014 05:08 Crushinator wrote:On September 07 2014 05:00 Introvert wrote:On September 07 2014 04:24 Crushinator wrote:On September 07 2014 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2014 03:09 sc2isnotdying wrote:On September 06 2014 18:08 coverpunch wrote:
EDIT: The more interesting hypothetical question might be if the atheists really got their way and they demanded that the military should not only scrub "so help me God" from the oath but ban anyone from saying it. That is a far more direct push and it probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster because it would damage the rights of religious people from expressing their beliefs, although it would set that against the non-establishment clause in an interesting way. Why do you think that atheists secretly want to ban people saying "so help me God". That's a big fucking leap from the thing atheists are actually asking for, which is that they'd rather not be forced into saying, "so help me God". How about we leave your strawman out of it. I'm sure some atheists would like to see theism banned just as some theists would love to see atheism banned, but in this country specifically that is far outside mainstream values. Freedom of religion is something that is very deeply held by atheists and theists alike. I personally find atheism almost as obnoxious as theism. I think the only honest position is agnosticism, but the two are often used interchangeably (even if they shouldn't be). In the commonly accepted definition, atheism refers to a lack of a belief in a god whereas agnosticism refers to a lack of certainty about the existence of a god. The two are often used interchangeably because most atheists are also agnostics, and most people who refer to themselves as agnostics when prompted about their religion are also atheists. The terms are not mutually exclusive. Refering to yourself as an agnostic may be truthful, but it says nothing about your beliefs, it is very possible to belief in God and also be agnostic about it. It is not generally more honest, often people are too much of a pussy to call themselves what they are and go for something that sounds more neutral. Sorry, probably not very relevant to the discussion, but misconceptions such as these annoy me. That definition of atheism isn't even quite right. Atheism is rooted in a positive assertion: That God does not exist. It's not merely a lack of belief. There was an atheist blogger I saw linked who tried to correct this... let's see..... See here. I'm ignoring his actual arguments for or against atheism, but at least he sets out a narrower definition. This is off topic, so I wan't say more. I just bristle at incorrect characterizations of things. Edit: as far as I'm aware, this is the definition of atheism that has been used throughout most of philosophy, in the past up until now. This new definition is a popular one, but not technically correct. Fair point. It does however still not make agnosticism a correct term for describing a belief or lack thereof. Edit: Upon reading his argument I find the case for a narrower definition unconvincing. It seems to me we would need many more words. His characterization of how beliefs must come about is also not really in line with how they actually do come about. ANd the whole bit about assigning probability to the existence of a god is problematic to me, I have no interest in such a thing, would we need a new word for me? I think the word atheist capturing all people who are not believers is fine. Atheism:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
1. ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not SourceJust saying... Not sure where your understanding comes from? My understanding comes from the common usage of the word by people who call themselves atheists. This group includes many people who do not have any beliefs about the existence or inexistence of a deity. Some disbelief a personal god but not a deistic/pantheist/whatever god. Some don't make such a distinction. The atheist community on the internet is fairly large, and the general consensus is that active disblief is not required for the label. Since you find atheists so obnoxiously dishonest, i thought it would be of interest to you what they acctually belief the term to mean. Actually a priest here would fall into the category of atheism, not just agnostic. His historical knowledge of christianity is pretty impressive and ultimately the knowledge he had was what pushed him to write a book where he claimed that: "God belongs in the past. He is actually so old fashioned that I am baffled by modern people believing in his existence. I am thoroughly fed up with empty words about miracles and eternal life." It created quite a debate 10 years ago, but given his very strong knowledge of the religious background material (he is able to debate specific religious events in history in details as well as discuss biblical interpretation), he was very popular in his big city parish before he was moved around and eventually retired. Anyway, the distinction between the two is thin. Most religion students here would probably fall within the agnostic spectrum, if not straight atheism. The focus in the education as a priest today is different from pure interpretation of texts, which is imo. progress.
There are several atheist preachers in the Netherlands aswell. There also seem to be many Jews who partake in the traditions of their religion without believing in a god.
|
On September 07 2014 06:35 Souma wrote:
This discussion made me look up what I fall under, and apparently there is such a thing as "apatheism," so I'll go with that.
Funny I was reading about that the other day and thought that might apply to me
On September 07 2014 06:46 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 06:35 Souma wrote:
This discussion made me look up what I fall under, and apparently there is such a thing as "apatheism," so I'll go with that. Interesting word. Living in Japan, I would call it an "untheistic" society, where they rarely if ever bother to ask or answer the question of whether there is a god. Apatheism might be a better description because I think they just don't care.
It's unfortunate because 'atheist' has become so politicized people think it means you are positively against god/its existence, but in my understanding it's just a default unbelief/not caring position. Also in Japan, aren't they more into Shinto? Like all of nature is God - the whole pantheist view?
|
On September 07 2014 06:35 Souma wrote:
This discussion made me look up what I fall under, and apparently there is such a thing as "apatheism," so I'll go with that.
Interesting word. Living in Japan, I would call it an "untheistic" society, where they rarely if ever bother to ask or answer the question of whether there is a god. Apatheism might be a better description because I think they just don't care.
|
On September 07 2014 06:46 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 06:35 Souma wrote:
This discussion made me look up what I fall under, and apparently there is such a thing as "apatheism," so I'll go with that. Interesting word. Living in Japan, I would call it an "untheistic" society, where they rarely if ever bother to ask or answer the question of whether there is a god. Apatheism might be a better description because I think they just don't care.
Most people in many European countries are also this.
|
On September 07 2014 05:23 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 05:08 Crushinator wrote:On September 07 2014 05:00 Introvert wrote:On September 07 2014 04:24 Crushinator wrote:On September 07 2014 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2014 03:09 sc2isnotdying wrote:On September 06 2014 18:08 coverpunch wrote:
EDIT: The more interesting hypothetical question might be if the atheists really got their way and they demanded that the military should not only scrub "so help me God" from the oath but ban anyone from saying it. That is a far more direct push and it probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster because it would damage the rights of religious people from expressing their beliefs, although it would set that against the non-establishment clause in an interesting way. Why do you think that atheists secretly want to ban people saying "so help me God". That's a big fucking leap from the thing atheists are actually asking for, which is that they'd rather not be forced into saying, "so help me God". How about we leave your strawman out of it. I'm sure some atheists would like to see theism banned just as some theists would love to see atheism banned, but in this country specifically that is far outside mainstream values. Freedom of religion is something that is very deeply held by atheists and theists alike. I personally find atheism almost as obnoxious as theism. I think the only honest position is agnosticism, but the two are often used interchangeably (even if they shouldn't be). In the commonly accepted definition, atheism refers to a lack of a belief in a god whereas agnosticism refers to a lack of certainty about the existence of a god. The two are often used interchangeably because most atheists are also agnostics, and most people who refer to themselves as agnostics when prompted about their religion are also atheists. The terms are not mutually exclusive. Refering to yourself as an agnostic may be truthful, but it says nothing about your beliefs, it is very possible to belief in God and also be agnostic about it. It is not generally more honest, often people are too much of a pussy to call themselves what they are and go for something that sounds more neutral. Sorry, probably not very relevant to the discussion, but misconceptions such as these annoy me. That definition of atheism isn't even quite right. Atheism is rooted in a positive assertion: That God does not exist. It's not merely a lack of belief. There was an atheist blogger I saw linked who tried to correct this... let's see..... See here. I'm ignoring his actual arguments for or against atheism, but at least he sets out a narrower definition. This is off topic, so I wan't say more. I just bristle at incorrect characterizations of things. Edit: as far as I'm aware, this is the definition of atheism that has been used throughout most of philosophy, in the past up until now. This new definition is a popular one, but not technically correct. Fair point. It does however still not make agnosticism a correct term for describing a belief or lack thereof. Edit: Upon reading his argument I find the case for a narrower definition unconvincing. It seems to me we would need many more words. His characterization of how beliefs must come about is also not really in line with how they actually do come about. ANd the whole bit about assigning probability to the existence of a god is problematic to me, I have no interest in such a thing, would we need a new word for me? I think the word atheist capturing all people who are not believers is fine. I was trying to find other sources, because from what I know I'm fairly certain that the narrow position of atheism is based on the assertion that God does not exist. Maybe some of the philosophy students would like to chime in. And there is this.I find the argument for a narrow definition convincing, anyway. It makes sense with the word, as well. "a" "theism." The new definition it not the opposite of the definition of "theism." This is again historical, since we don't define words this way. But it is a matter of historical fact that the definition of atheism at least used to be the narrower one. But I always get warned for posting on this stuff, so I'll stop.
As that philosophy student you were asking for (I have a B.A. in philosophy), I can tell you that this is a really hotly debated topic in philosophy and has been for many, many, many years. Philosophers define it both as a positive and negative claim.
So no, you're incorrect. It is not fundamentally a positive claim and it isn't a matter of fact.
It doesn't literally say that. I imagine many opponents of a change would argue that it isn't a religious test. You can say the words even if you are openly an atheist.
Dutch military swears allegiance to the monarch, even though some are republican. Everyone seems to agree that republicans should be allowed in, but they should just say the words because tradition or something. I geuss it is the same for most other monarchies and arguably not too different from the US situation.
It's completely different.
Dutch soldiers, whether they like it or not, are actually fighting for a nation that is headed by a monarch. This is a fact, even if they believe that there shouldn't be a monarch, as it is part of the political system. U.S. soldiers aren't fighting for a Christian God if they don't believe in him, and you can't force them to. The U.S. isn't a Christian state.
When I was in the Navy I had to go through this oath and I was given the option to remove the last line about God from my oath. They even re-printed my contract so it didn't have it in there. There's absolutely no justification for this and the Air Force will get a swift ass-kicking in court for it.
|
On September 07 2014 06:02 KwarK wrote:
British military required us to swear an oath on a book. Used to be the Bible, now it's literally any collection of printed pages. There is no reason not to adapt traditions to meet modern realities. I take it you weren't incensed and refused to undergo the process? All this hate leveled at traditions is not equal to the significance attached to them. The responsible position is to change the oaths administratively (advocacy, suits) and comply with the status quo. Mountains out of molehills for all these wanton religious crusaders.
|
On September 07 2014 06:43 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 06:38 radiatoren wrote:On September 07 2014 05:36 Crushinator wrote:On September 07 2014 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2014 05:08 Crushinator wrote:On September 07 2014 05:00 Introvert wrote:On September 07 2014 04:24 Crushinator wrote:On September 07 2014 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2014 03:09 sc2isnotdying wrote:On September 06 2014 18:08 coverpunch wrote:
EDIT: The more interesting hypothetical question might be if the atheists really got their way and they demanded that the military should not only scrub "so help me God" from the oath but ban anyone from saying it. That is a far more direct push and it probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster because it would damage the rights of religious people from expressing their beliefs, although it would set that against the non-establishment clause in an interesting way. Why do you think that atheists secretly want to ban people saying "so help me God". That's a big fucking leap from the thing atheists are actually asking for, which is that they'd rather not be forced into saying, "so help me God". How about we leave your strawman out of it. I'm sure some atheists would like to see theism banned just as some theists would love to see atheism banned, but in this country specifically that is far outside mainstream values. Freedom of religion is something that is very deeply held by atheists and theists alike. I personally find atheism almost as obnoxious as theism. I think the only honest position is agnosticism, but the two are often used interchangeably (even if they shouldn't be). In the commonly accepted definition, atheism refers to a lack of a belief in a god whereas agnosticism refers to a lack of certainty about the existence of a god. The two are often used interchangeably because most atheists are also agnostics, and most people who refer to themselves as agnostics when prompted about their religion are also atheists. The terms are not mutually exclusive. Refering to yourself as an agnostic may be truthful, but it says nothing about your beliefs, it is very possible to belief in God and also be agnostic about it. It is not generally more honest, often people are too much of a pussy to call themselves what they are and go for something that sounds more neutral. Sorry, probably not very relevant to the discussion, but misconceptions such as these annoy me. That definition of atheism isn't even quite right. Atheism is rooted in a positive assertion: That God does not exist. It's not merely a lack of belief. There was an atheist blogger I saw linked who tried to correct this... let's see..... See here. I'm ignoring his actual arguments for or against atheism, but at least he sets out a narrower definition. This is off topic, so I wan't say more. I just bristle at incorrect characterizations of things. Edit: as far as I'm aware, this is the definition of atheism that has been used throughout most of philosophy, in the past up until now. This new definition is a popular one, but not technically correct. Fair point. It does however still not make agnosticism a correct term for describing a belief or lack thereof. Edit: Upon reading his argument I find the case for a narrower definition unconvincing. It seems to me we would need many more words. His characterization of how beliefs must come about is also not really in line with how they actually do come about. ANd the whole bit about assigning probability to the existence of a god is problematic to me, I have no interest in such a thing, would we need a new word for me? I think the word atheist capturing all people who are not believers is fine. Atheism:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
1. ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not SourceJust saying... Not sure where your understanding comes from? My understanding comes from the common usage of the word by people who call themselves atheists. This group includes many people who do not have any beliefs about the existence or inexistence of a deity. Some disbelief a personal god but not a deistic/pantheist/whatever god. Some don't make such a distinction. The atheist community on the internet is fairly large, and the general consensus is that active disblief is not required for the label. Since you find atheists so obnoxiously dishonest, i thought it would be of interest to you what they acctually belief the term to mean. Actually a priest here would fall into the category of atheism, not just agnostic. His historical knowledge of christianity is pretty impressive and ultimately the knowledge he had was what pushed him to write a book where he claimed that: "God belongs in the past. He is actually so old fashioned that I am baffled by modern people believing in his existence. I am thoroughly fed up with empty words about miracles and eternal life." It created quite a debate 10 years ago, but given his very strong knowledge of the religious background material (he is able to debate specific religious events in history in details as well as discuss biblical interpretation), he was very popular in his big city parish before he was moved around and eventually retired. Anyway, the distinction between the two is thin. Most religion students here would probably fall within the agnostic spectrum, if not straight atheism. The focus in the education as a priest today is different from pure interpretation of texts, which is imo. progress. There are several atheist preachers in the Netherlands aswell. There also seem to be many Jews who partake in the traditions of their religion without believing in a god.
In many ways Netherlands and Denmark are very similar in culture and tradition, so it doesn't surprise me at all. I think it is an important aspect that culture is a big part of belief systems. A majority in northwestern Europe are living on the edge between what you would define as aghnostic/atheist and politics is basically banned in churches. The american divide is very different. Their religious influence in society is massive. Some of it is incorporated into rites like the airforce, court oath or their constitution and the other side is engaged in political actions against homosexual acts and for pro-life activity. Most americans see religion as more or less a cultural inevitability and an important part of the national identity since the constitution is such a central part of their history. With cultural inevitability comes the distinction between those who value the traditions (agnostics) and those who don't (atheists). Because of that divide atheists will usually only consist of some people actively trying to change the culture of society and the constitution, while agnostics are fighting against the political religious extreme. I think the difference in society is hard for us to grasp, since we lack the strong cultural religion in society. A spaniard, italian or irish will likely have a far more understanding attitude towards the divide since religion still has an important power in their society at large.
|
On September 07 2014 06:45 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 06:35 Souma wrote:
This discussion made me look up what I fall under, and apparently there is such a thing as "apatheism," so I'll go with that. Funny I was reading about that the other day and thought that might apply to me Show nested quote +On September 07 2014 06:46 coverpunch wrote:On September 07 2014 06:35 Souma wrote:
This discussion made me look up what I fall under, and apparently there is such a thing as "apatheism," so I'll go with that. Interesting word. Living in Japan, I would call it an "untheistic" society, where they rarely if ever bother to ask or answer the question of whether there is a god. Apatheism might be a better description because I think they just don't care. It's unfortunate because 'atheist' has become so politicized people think it means you are positively against god/its existence, but in my understanding it's just a default unbelief/not caring position. Also in Japan, aren't they more into Shinto? Like all of nature is God - the whole pantheist view?
I'm not sure if pantheistic is the right word. Most Japanese see no problem with going to Shinto shrines, Buddhist temples, and family graves to pray, but I don't think they treat any of it as a religious experience. Spiritual but not religious, if that makes any sense. Refusing to go would be more like refusing Thanksgiving dinner than going to church on Christmas - it is a weird and antisocial thing to do but people don't get religiously offended. It is also strange that on the first working day of the year, all Japanese workers go to the nearest shrine to pray, but it isn't mandatory and it usually doubles as a networking event to reach out to other colleagues or contacts.
I think atheism does require a positive affirmation that there is no God. It doesn't have to be hostile or confrontational, but I think it requires asking the question and answering no, rather than never asking. But most japanese in surveys do count themselves as atheist.
|
The whole line about agnosticism being the only intellectually honest position is crap. For example, let's say that I am agnostic about the existence of unicorns. To declare yourself agnostic about the existence of unicorns is an absurd position, yet people do it with the existence of god and I am suppose to think they are the intellectually honest ones? In your heart, you either believe unicorns exist or you believe they don't. Maybe you think that its impossible to prove that god does or doesn't exist but you are going to have a tough time trying to convince me that you believe those things equally. Being agnostic isn't a real position, it just shows that you haven't reached a decision yet.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 07 2014 07:47 Livelovedie wrote:
The whole line about agnosticism being the only intellectually honest position is crap. For example, let's say that I am agnostic about the existence of unicorns. To declare yourself agnostic about the existence of unicorns is an absurd position, yet people do it with the existence of god and I am suppose to think they are the intellectually honest ones? In your heart, you either believe unicorns exist or you believe they don't. Maybe you think that its impossible to prove that god does or doesn't exist but you are going to have a tough time trying to convince me that you believe those things equally. Being agnostic isn't a real position, it just shows that you haven't reached a decision yet.
that's just wrong. I'm Agnostic and it does NOT mean "I don't know if there's a God or not, maybe I'll think about it harder later on" it means "I do not believe it's possible for any human to know what happens (or not) after death, and anyone who claims to know is taking a leap of faith not based on any scientifically demonstrable evidence."
|
I should add that as a computer scientist, if I can mathematically prove that a problem is unsolvable, I'm not going to spend huge chunks of my life trying to solve it anyway. Same thing with my agnosticism. I'm under no obligation to you, myself, or anyone else to "take a stand one way or another" about the existence of a diety
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
