|
On April 18 2014 08:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 08:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 08:12 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2014 08:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 08:05 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2014 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 07:51 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2014 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 07:39 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2014 04:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
The reason for the difference is that there are also a LOT of religious individuals who are, for the most part, Agnostic. A grand majority of them practice to their absence of absolute knowledge and hence lean heavily on the teachings of preachers, counsels, and spiritual guidance. Its a very specific difference between Agnostics and Atheists.
One can be Atheist and Agnostic.
One can also be religious, and Agnostic.
One can also be Religious/Atheist and NOT Agnostic.
There's a very big difference between "there's no proof God is real" compared to "I know, for a fact, that God isn't real"
Much like there's a very big difference between "God is real, so shut your mouth with that heresy" compared to "These ancient texts are witness testimonies to the truth of God, unless I don't believe in history how can I not believe in God?"
One can still question everything and have faith in an almighty whatever. Even if that almighty whatever is merely laws of the universe that exist because the universe says so. No atheist anywhere claims factual knowledge of the non existence of God, that would require factual knowledge of everything. Rather they subscribe to Russel's teapot whereby falsifiable claims are dismissed out of hand until the claimant provides evidence to back the claim. I've known many people say that God does not exist. Are you saying that I simply hallucinated them? That there aren't people out there who say that God does not exist? Don't be naive. They are not making a claim that they have personally surveyed every atom of the universe and checked, they are rather making a broad statement about baseless unverifiable assertions being presumed to not exist until proven. These are two very different things. You opened with "I know, for a fact, that God doesn't exist" and are now asserting that because you've known many people say "God does not exist" then you have heard them say that "I know, for a fact, that God doesn't exist". You appear to have hallucinated the words "for a fact". Do you really wish to speak for a totality that you have not personally conversed with? Someone made the statement that there is a difference between being an athiest and being an agnostic. Someone suggested that Agnostic means almost the same thing as Athiest, and I showed him that it is very much possible for Theists to be Agnostics. Willingness to accept that not all things are known is someone that is not unique to being Athiest. You, apparently, want to make the assertion that its impossible for there to be an athiest that isn't agnostic; which is equally as silly as imagining a theist that can be agnostic. You're not getting this. Atheists don't need a factual knowledge of the lack of a God. I think you need to look up Russel's Teapot, you're clearly unfamiliar with the concepts involved. You do understand the concept of being Agnostic and not being Agnostic right? Agnostics take the lack of evidence as meaning they don't have a say. Non-agnostics feels that a lack of evidence does not allows them to make a conclusions. Being able to make conclusions without evidence means that you're not agnostic. By definition. Saying Russels Teapot allows you to call yourself agnostic despite not having evidence contradicts the definition of Agnostic. That didn't even make sense. Let me speak slowly then. Agnostics, by definition, need evidence. Because, by definition, Agnostics believe they don't know everything. If you can make conclusions through lack of evidence, you are not Agnostic. By definition. Instead of speaking slowly I suggest you take the time to achieve a basic grasp of the English language. I'm normally fairly tolerant but if English isn't your first language then holy shit you're bad at this. Although I'm not sure what to expect by debating atheism with someone who can't even spell the word atheist. Nice triple negative in your sentence "Non-agnostics feels that a lack of evidence does not allows them to make a conclusions" by the way, if what you were trying to say by that is that agnostics feel that a lack of evidence does allow them to make conclusions then no, that's atheists. Which, incidentally, is what we were talking about until you randomly made a post full of the word agnostic, sometimes capitalised for no fucking reason, and sometimes not. My only explanation for how you somehow forgot what we were talking about in a quote exchange is that you realised you couldn't spell atheist and panicked, although why you didn't just read up and see is beyond me. Again, atheists do not claim an exact knowledge of the entirety of creation, nor that they have personally checked the entirety of creation and personally verified the non existence of God through some kind of test. They believe that one does not need to have done that in order to make claims about the non existence of things. And with that I give up because at this point my posting is basically charity work on behalf of the US Department of Education which has clearly been negligent in your case.
Atheist => not Theist
Agnostic => believes he doesn't know everything
Theist => Believes in a God/s
Attacks spelling/grammar => weirdo
Agnostics, by definition, requires evidence. Not believing in Gods (Atheists) does not require evidence.
Atheists *can* be Agnostic. Theists can *also* be agnostic.
What is so difficult about word comprehension to you?
|
I am pretty sure that you are just using the most broad definition of agnosticism you could find so you could act like a smartass. There are multiple flavours of agnosticism, and the most popularly used one is that an agnostic is someone who believes that he does not know if a god exists, or that it is impossible to know if that is the fact.
An Atheist on the other hand is someone who believes that no god exists.
If you use those two definitions, there is no overlap between the two, because you can not both not know if god exists or not and be sure that no god exists.
Now, if one slightly broadens the definition of an atheist to encompass all the people who think that unless there is some relevant proof of a theory being true, it can be discarded as irrelevant, meaning that they believe that as long as there is no proof of the existence of a god there is no god, you still don't have any overlap.
Of course, if you use different definitions, then you could have different results. But it is usually a good idea to use the same definitions when talking about something, otherwise you don't reach any meaningful communication. So instead of trying to make everyone use the same definitions you are using, just use the definitions everyone else is using and get to actually meaningful communication instead of pseudointellectual wankery.
Generally speaking, if you are trying to make a point, you should try using full sentences, not short snippets. Unless the point you are trying to make is that you are insufferably annoying.
|
On April 18 2014 08:44 Simberto wrote:
I am pretty sure that you are just using the most broad definition of agnosticism you could find so you could act like a smartass. There are multiple flavours of agnosticism, and the most popularly used one is that an agnostic is someone who believes that he does not know if a god exists, or that it is impossible to know if that is the fact.
An Atheist on the other hand is someone who believes that no god exists.
If you use those two definitions, there is no overlap between the two, because you can not both not know if god exists or not and be sure that no god exists.
Now, if one slightly broadens the definition of an atheist to encompass all the people who think that unless there is some relevant proof of a theory being true, it can be discarded as irrelevant, meaning that they believe that as long as there is no proof of the existence of a god there is no god, you still don't have any overlap.
Of course, if you use different definitions, then you could have different results. But it is usually a good idea to use the same definitions when talking about something, otherwise you don't reach any meaningful communication. So instead of trying to make everyone use the same definitions you are using, just use the definitions everyone else is using and get to actually meaningful communication instead of pseudointellectual wankery.
Generally speaking, if you are trying to make a point, you should try using full sentences, not short snippets. Unless the point you are trying to make is that you are insufferably annoying.
Agnosticism does not require the subject to be God. That isn't being overly broad, its literally being specific to its definition.
Atheism is the disbelief in Gods. That isn't being overly broad, it is literally being specific to its definition.
If you do not like the definitions of the labels you use on yourself or others, then use more accurate labels.
|
On April 18 2014 09:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 08:44 Simberto wrote:
I am pretty sure that you are just using the most broad definition of agnosticism you could find so you could act like a smartass. There are multiple flavours of agnosticism, and the most popularly used one is that an agnostic is someone who believes that he does not know if a god exists, or that it is impossible to know if that is the fact.
An Atheist on the other hand is someone who believes that no god exists.
If you use those two definitions, there is no overlap between the two, because you can not both not know if god exists or not and be sure that no god exists.
Now, if one slightly broadens the definition of an atheist to encompass all the people who think that unless there is some relevant proof of a theory being true, it can be discarded as irrelevant, meaning that they believe that as long as there is no proof of the existence of a god there is no god, you still don't have any overlap.
Of course, if you use different definitions, then you could have different results. But it is usually a good idea to use the same definitions when talking about something, otherwise you don't reach any meaningful communication. So instead of trying to make everyone use the same definitions you are using, just use the definitions everyone else is using and get to actually meaningful communication instead of pseudointellectual wankery.
Generally speaking, if you are trying to make a point, you should try using full sentences, not short snippets. Unless the point you are trying to make is that you are insufferably annoying. Agnosticism does not require the subject to be God. That isn't being overly broad, its literally being specific to its definition. Atheism is the disbelief in Gods. That isn't being overly broad, it is literally being specific to its definition. If you do not like the definitions of the labels you use on yourself or others, then use more accurate labels.
In the context of a religious discussion, agnostic specifically means you aren't taking a stance on if there is or is not a god (because as you say, more evidence is required), or at least that is what the general population will take it to mean.
|
Apparently we've evolved from stupid questions to stupid semantical arguments about religion. I'm quite enjoying this.
|
On April 18 2014 10:30 Najda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 09:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 08:44 Simberto wrote:
I am pretty sure that you are just using the most broad definition of agnosticism you could find so you could act like a smartass. There are multiple flavours of agnosticism, and the most popularly used one is that an agnostic is someone who believes that he does not know if a god exists, or that it is impossible to know if that is the fact.
An Atheist on the other hand is someone who believes that no god exists.
If you use those two definitions, there is no overlap between the two, because you can not both not know if god exists or not and be sure that no god exists.
Now, if one slightly broadens the definition of an atheist to encompass all the people who think that unless there is some relevant proof of a theory being true, it can be discarded as irrelevant, meaning that they believe that as long as there is no proof of the existence of a god there is no god, you still don't have any overlap.
Of course, if you use different definitions, then you could have different results. But it is usually a good idea to use the same definitions when talking about something, otherwise you don't reach any meaningful communication. So instead of trying to make everyone use the same definitions you are using, just use the definitions everyone else is using and get to actually meaningful communication instead of pseudointellectual wankery.
Generally speaking, if you are trying to make a point, you should try using full sentences, not short snippets. Unless the point you are trying to make is that you are insufferably annoying. Agnosticism does not require the subject to be God. That isn't being overly broad, its literally being specific to its definition. Atheism is the disbelief in Gods. That isn't being overly broad, it is literally being specific to its definition. If you do not like the definitions of the labels you use on yourself or others, then use more accurate labels. In the context of a religious discussion, agnostic specifically means you aren't taking a stance on if there is or is not a god (because as you say, more evidence is required), or at least that is what the general population will take it to mean.
What religious discussion? As far as I've seen no one has talked about the great meaning of God in the last few pages and instead have been simply talking about the practices of different cultural groups.
What it has looked like to me was that I was stating that agnostics need evidence before they are willing to commit to a stance while Athiest don't require evidence. Someone pops in talking about Russel's Teapot not realizing he's saying the exact same thing as me that Atheists do not need evidence to make their stance. He then argues that I don't spell Atheist correctly--because for some odd reason he feels the discussion is now about grammar and spelling, and now you're here telling me that you want me to change the definitions of the words I brought up to begin with. If you guys were not following the discussion I was in, you don't get to change the definitions of words arbitrarily when you jump halfway in the discussion.
If you want Atheist to mean what the majority of the population thinks it means in say, America--then Atheist is someone who hates god. Now, I didn't say that because I know its a false definition. Atheist has a specific definition hinged on the word itself that it is a person that does not believe in Theism. Hence why when I kept talking about religious practices I continually stated over and over again that some people think God is Jesus, others do not, and that others don't believe in gods at all. My posts have been purely abstract and general in order to encompass the specific reason why my answers to the questions posed to me are what they are.
People who require evidence to believe something are Agnostics--by definition. No matter the topic at hand Agnosticism remains the same. If there's no evidence for a stance, then there's no need to make a stance at all. Even in the abstract idea of a religious discussion they still require evidence to have an opinion. Atheist, by definition, don't need evidence to form their opinion because Atheism is simply the act of not believing in Gods if you do not believe in Gods for any reason (even dumb ones) then you are an Atheist. A theist is someone who believes in a God/Gods for any reason (even dumb ones). Agnostics are the people looking for evidence. You can believe that God/Gods exist, but still want more evidence in order to make yourself feel better. Or you can believe that no God/Gods exist, but still study it to make certain.
Kwark's problem was the idea of Atheism not being specifically linked to skepticism and instead being linked to the actual word Atheist. This is because he feels that all Atheists are automatically similar to himself and that its impossible for someone to be an atheist for reasons other than the reasons he himself believes in. His dogmatic understanding of Atheist stances made it so that when I made the statement that Atheists don't need evidence that he starts shoving Russel's teapot down my throat to show me that Atheists don't need evidence. This was because I was not speaking negatively about Theist practices and even suggesting that many theists practices similar philosophies to what he practices. This caused him to become upset and want to attack my word choice when I presented hyperbolic examples because it makes him feel better. I understand why he would do that, my previous pastors did that all the time when something on the news felt like it was attacking Christmas. Hence why I had to repeat what I said over and over to show him just how silly he was.
People naturally want to take their stances and defend it from anything that does not support it. That is understandable. But I'm not going to simply sit by and take it just because he has different opinions than me. If he wants to defend his axioms then so be it, by I won't have him twisting my words just because he's unhappy with how I depict his belief system.
|
On April 18 2014 11:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 10:30 Najda wrote:On April 18 2014 09:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 08:44 Simberto wrote:
I am pretty sure that you are just using the most broad definition of agnosticism you could find so you could act like a smartass. There are multiple flavours of agnosticism, and the most popularly used one is that an agnostic is someone who believes that he does not know if a god exists, or that it is impossible to know if that is the fact.
An Atheist on the other hand is someone who believes that no god exists.
If you use those two definitions, there is no overlap between the two, because you can not both not know if god exists or not and be sure that no god exists.
Now, if one slightly broadens the definition of an atheist to encompass all the people who think that unless there is some relevant proof of a theory being true, it can be discarded as irrelevant, meaning that they believe that as long as there is no proof of the existence of a god there is no god, you still don't have any overlap.
Of course, if you use different definitions, then you could have different results. But it is usually a good idea to use the same definitions when talking about something, otherwise you don't reach any meaningful communication. So instead of trying to make everyone use the same definitions you are using, just use the definitions everyone else is using and get to actually meaningful communication instead of pseudointellectual wankery.
Generally speaking, if you are trying to make a point, you should try using full sentences, not short snippets. Unless the point you are trying to make is that you are insufferably annoying. Agnosticism does not require the subject to be God. That isn't being overly broad, its literally being specific to its definition. Atheism is the disbelief in Gods. That isn't being overly broad, it is literally being specific to its definition. If you do not like the definitions of the labels you use on yourself or others, then use more accurate labels. In the context of a religious discussion, agnostic specifically means you aren't taking a stance on if there is or is not a god (because as you say, more evidence is required), or at least that is what the general population will take it to mean. What religious discussion? As far as I've seen no one has talked about the great meaning of God in the last few pages and instead have been simply talking about the practices of different cultural groups. What it has looked like to me was that I was stating that agnostics need evidence before they are willing to commit to a stance while Athiest don't require evidence. Someone pops in talking about Russel's Teapot not realizing he's saying the exact same thing as me that Atheists do not need evidence to make their stance. He then argues that I don't spell Atheist correctly--because for some odd reason he feels the discussion is now about grammar and spelling, and now you're here telling me that you want me to change the definitions of the words I brought up to begin with. If you guys were not following the discussion I was in, you don't get to change the definitions of words arbitrarily when you jump halfway in the discussion. If you want Atheist to mean what the majority of the population thinks it means in say, America--then Atheist is someone who hates god. Now, I didn't say that because I know its a false definition. Atheist has a specific definition hinged on the word itself that it is a person that does not believe in Theism. Hence why when I kept talking about religious practices I continually stated over and over again that some people think God is Jesus, others do not, and that others don't believe in gods at all. My posts have been purely abstract and general in order to encompass the specific reason why my answers to the questions posed to me are what they are. People who require evidence to believe something are Agnostics--by definition. No matter the topic at hand Agnosticism remains the same. If there's no evidence for a stance, then there's no need to make a stance at all. Even in the abstract idea of a religious discussion they still require evidence to have an opinion. Atheist, by definition, don't need evidence to form their opinion because Atheism is simply the act of not believing in Gods if you do not believe in Gods for any reason (even dumb ones) then you are an Atheist. A theist is someone who believes in a God/Gods for any reason (even dumb ones). Agnostics are the people looking for evidence. You can believe that God/Gods exist, but still want more evidence in order to make yourself feel better. Or you can believe that no God/Gods exist, but still study it to make certain. Kwark's problem was the idea of Atheism not being specifically linked to skepticism and instead being linked to the actual word Atheist. This is because he feels that all Atheists are automatically similar to himself and that its impossible for someone to be an atheist for reasons other than the reasons he himself believes in. His dogmatic understanding of Atheist stances made it so that when I made the statement that Atheists don't need evidence that he starts shoving Russel's teapot down my throat to show me that Atheists don't need evidence. This was because I was not speaking negatively about Theist practices and even suggesting that many theists practices similar philosophies to what he practices. This caused him to become upset and want to attack my word choice when I presented hyperbolic examples because it makes him feel better. I understand why he would do that, my previous pastors did that all the time when something on the news felt like it was attacking Christmas. Hence why I had to repeat what I said over and over to show him just how silly he was. People naturally want to take their stances and defend it from anything that does not support it. That is understandable. But I'm not going to simply sit by and take it just because he has different opinions than me. If he wants to defend his axioms then so be it, by I won't have him twisting my words just because he's unhappy with how I depict his belief system.
What I meant is this: If there was a site that had a dropdown menu for your religion, it would list options such as Atheist, Agnostic, Christian etc. and everyone would understand the options to be Atheist = There is no god, Agnostic = There may or may not be a god, Christian = There is a god. I don't think there would be anyone that would sit at that menu and think to themselves "Well I'm agnostic because I consider evidence before making conclusions, but having looked at the evidence I decided there is a god so I don't know whether to pick Christian or Agnostic."
(Or sometimes people pick Agnostic because they think there is a god but they don't identify with Christianity or whatever, but that's not really related.)
|
On April 18 2014 12:12 Najda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 11:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 10:30 Najda wrote:On April 18 2014 09:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 08:44 Simberto wrote:
I am pretty sure that you are just using the most broad definition of agnosticism you could find so you could act like a smartass. There are multiple flavours of agnosticism, and the most popularly used one is that an agnostic is someone who believes that he does not know if a god exists, or that it is impossible to know if that is the fact.
An Atheist on the other hand is someone who believes that no god exists.
If you use those two definitions, there is no overlap between the two, because you can not both not know if god exists or not and be sure that no god exists.
Now, if one slightly broadens the definition of an atheist to encompass all the people who think that unless there is some relevant proof of a theory being true, it can be discarded as irrelevant, meaning that they believe that as long as there is no proof of the existence of a god there is no god, you still don't have any overlap.
Of course, if you use different definitions, then you could have different results. But it is usually a good idea to use the same definitions when talking about something, otherwise you don't reach any meaningful communication. So instead of trying to make everyone use the same definitions you are using, just use the definitions everyone else is using and get to actually meaningful communication instead of pseudointellectual wankery.
Generally speaking, if you are trying to make a point, you should try using full sentences, not short snippets. Unless the point you are trying to make is that you are insufferably annoying. Agnosticism does not require the subject to be God. That isn't being overly broad, its literally being specific to its definition. Atheism is the disbelief in Gods. That isn't being overly broad, it is literally being specific to its definition. If you do not like the definitions of the labels you use on yourself or others, then use more accurate labels. In the context of a religious discussion, agnostic specifically means you aren't taking a stance on if there is or is not a god (because as you say, more evidence is required), or at least that is what the general population will take it to mean. What religious discussion? As far as I've seen no one has talked about the great meaning of God in the last few pages and instead have been simply talking about the practices of different cultural groups. What it has looked like to me was that I was stating that agnostics need evidence before they are willing to commit to a stance while Athiest don't require evidence. Someone pops in talking about Russel's Teapot not realizing he's saying the exact same thing as me that Atheists do not need evidence to make their stance. He then argues that I don't spell Atheist correctly--because for some odd reason he feels the discussion is now about grammar and spelling, and now you're here telling me that you want me to change the definitions of the words I brought up to begin with. If you guys were not following the discussion I was in, you don't get to change the definitions of words arbitrarily when you jump halfway in the discussion. If you want Atheist to mean what the majority of the population thinks it means in say, America--then Atheist is someone who hates god. Now, I didn't say that because I know its a false definition. Atheist has a specific definition hinged on the word itself that it is a person that does not believe in Theism. Hence why when I kept talking about religious practices I continually stated over and over again that some people think God is Jesus, others do not, and that others don't believe in gods at all. My posts have been purely abstract and general in order to encompass the specific reason why my answers to the questions posed to me are what they are. People who require evidence to believe something are Agnostics--by definition. No matter the topic at hand Agnosticism remains the same. If there's no evidence for a stance, then there's no need to make a stance at all. Even in the abstract idea of a religious discussion they still require evidence to have an opinion. Atheist, by definition, don't need evidence to form their opinion because Atheism is simply the act of not believing in Gods if you do not believe in Gods for any reason (even dumb ones) then you are an Atheist. A theist is someone who believes in a God/Gods for any reason (even dumb ones). Agnostics are the people looking for evidence. You can believe that God/Gods exist, but still want more evidence in order to make yourself feel better. Or you can believe that no God/Gods exist, but still study it to make certain. Kwark's problem was the idea of Atheism not being specifically linked to skepticism and instead being linked to the actual word Atheist. This is because he feels that all Atheists are automatically similar to himself and that its impossible for someone to be an atheist for reasons other than the reasons he himself believes in. His dogmatic understanding of Atheist stances made it so that when I made the statement that Atheists don't need evidence that he starts shoving Russel's teapot down my throat to show me that Atheists don't need evidence. This was because I was not speaking negatively about Theist practices and even suggesting that many theists practices similar philosophies to what he practices. This caused him to become upset and want to attack my word choice when I presented hyperbolic examples because it makes him feel better. I understand why he would do that, my previous pastors did that all the time when something on the news felt like it was attacking Christmas. Hence why I had to repeat what I said over and over to show him just how silly he was. People naturally want to take their stances and defend it from anything that does not support it. That is understandable. But I'm not going to simply sit by and take it just because he has different opinions than me. If he wants to defend his axioms then so be it, by I won't have him twisting my words just because he's unhappy with how I depict his belief system. What I meant is this: If there was a site that had a dropdown menu for your religion, it would list options such as Atheist, Agnostic, Christian etc. and everyone would understand the options to be Atheist = There is no god, Agnostic = There may or may not be a god, Christian = There is a god. I don't think there would be anyone that would sit at that menu and think to themselves "Well I'm agnostic because I consider evidence before making conclusions, but having looked at the evidence I decided there is a god so I don't know whether to pick Christian or Agnostic." (Or sometimes people pick Agnostic because they think there is a god but they don't identify with Christianity or whatever, but that's not really related.)
Sorry that you had to deal with all that Magpie. I totally got what you meant.
That site would get emails the moment it went live with people like Magpie from all over the spectrum religious and not saying that their religion wasn't listed or that it was unfairly lumped in with another.
If common use was the only criteria for meaning I'd be telling you that your making a big mistake. 
Examples of agnostic Christians might include people in between religions (discrepancies on dogma).
Our conversation started around who should non-Christians call Christians or not, particularly around stuff like Mormonism which is referred to as a cult instead of Christianity by large swaths of the 'Christian' community.
Magpies response gave me a perspective that 'Christian' in at least mag's view means 'Christ-like'. That being the case while the Mormon religion teaches some ridiculous stuff around religion itself they are far more 'Christ-like' than ''Christians' like the Westboro baptist church, or the other 'Christians' and those like them mentioned here
http://www.advocate.com/politics/2012/10/31/10-disasters-gays-were-blamed-causing?page=full
|
On April 18 2014 12:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 12:12 Najda wrote:On April 18 2014 11:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 10:30 Najda wrote:On April 18 2014 09:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 08:44 Simberto wrote:
I am pretty sure that you are just using the most broad definition of agnosticism you could find so you could act like a smartass. There are multiple flavours of agnosticism, and the most popularly used one is that an agnostic is someone who believes that he does not know if a god exists, or that it is impossible to know if that is the fact.
An Atheist on the other hand is someone who believes that no god exists.
If you use those two definitions, there is no overlap between the two, because you can not both not know if god exists or not and be sure that no god exists.
Now, if one slightly broadens the definition of an atheist to encompass all the people who think that unless there is some relevant proof of a theory being true, it can be discarded as irrelevant, meaning that they believe that as long as there is no proof of the existence of a god there is no god, you still don't have any overlap.
Of course, if you use different definitions, then you could have different results. But it is usually a good idea to use the same definitions when talking about something, otherwise you don't reach any meaningful communication. So instead of trying to make everyone use the same definitions you are using, just use the definitions everyone else is using and get to actually meaningful communication instead of pseudointellectual wankery.
Generally speaking, if you are trying to make a point, you should try using full sentences, not short snippets. Unless the point you are trying to make is that you are insufferably annoying. Agnosticism does not require the subject to be God. That isn't being overly broad, its literally being specific to its definition. Atheism is the disbelief in Gods. That isn't being overly broad, it is literally being specific to its definition. If you do not like the definitions of the labels you use on yourself or others, then use more accurate labels. In the context of a religious discussion, agnostic specifically means you aren't taking a stance on if there is or is not a god (because as you say, more evidence is required), or at least that is what the general population will take it to mean. What religious discussion? As far as I've seen no one has talked about the great meaning of God in the last few pages and instead have been simply talking about the practices of different cultural groups. What it has looked like to me was that I was stating that agnostics need evidence before they are willing to commit to a stance while Athiest don't require evidence. Someone pops in talking about Russel's Teapot not realizing he's saying the exact same thing as me that Atheists do not need evidence to make their stance. He then argues that I don't spell Atheist correctly--because for some odd reason he feels the discussion is now about grammar and spelling, and now you're here telling me that you want me to change the definitions of the words I brought up to begin with. If you guys were not following the discussion I was in, you don't get to change the definitions of words arbitrarily when you jump halfway in the discussion. If you want Atheist to mean what the majority of the population thinks it means in say, America--then Atheist is someone who hates god. Now, I didn't say that because I know its a false definition. Atheist has a specific definition hinged on the word itself that it is a person that does not believe in Theism. Hence why when I kept talking about religious practices I continually stated over and over again that some people think God is Jesus, others do not, and that others don't believe in gods at all. My posts have been purely abstract and general in order to encompass the specific reason why my answers to the questions posed to me are what they are. People who require evidence to believe something are Agnostics--by definition. No matter the topic at hand Agnosticism remains the same. If there's no evidence for a stance, then there's no need to make a stance at all. Even in the abstract idea of a religious discussion they still require evidence to have an opinion. Atheist, by definition, don't need evidence to form their opinion because Atheism is simply the act of not believing in Gods if you do not believe in Gods for any reason (even dumb ones) then you are an Atheist. A theist is someone who believes in a God/Gods for any reason (even dumb ones). Agnostics are the people looking for evidence. You can believe that God/Gods exist, but still want more evidence in order to make yourself feel better. Or you can believe that no God/Gods exist, but still study it to make certain. Kwark's problem was the idea of Atheism not being specifically linked to skepticism and instead being linked to the actual word Atheist. This is because he feels that all Atheists are automatically similar to himself and that its impossible for someone to be an atheist for reasons other than the reasons he himself believes in. His dogmatic understanding of Atheist stances made it so that when I made the statement that Atheists don't need evidence that he starts shoving Russel's teapot down my throat to show me that Atheists don't need evidence. This was because I was not speaking negatively about Theist practices and even suggesting that many theists practices similar philosophies to what he practices. This caused him to become upset and want to attack my word choice when I presented hyperbolic examples because it makes him feel better. I understand why he would do that, my previous pastors did that all the time when something on the news felt like it was attacking Christmas. Hence why I had to repeat what I said over and over to show him just how silly he was. People naturally want to take their stances and defend it from anything that does not support it. That is understandable. But I'm not going to simply sit by and take it just because he has different opinions than me. If he wants to defend his axioms then so be it, by I won't have him twisting my words just because he's unhappy with how I depict his belief system. What I meant is this: If there was a site that had a dropdown menu for your religion, it would list options such as Atheist, Agnostic, Christian etc. and everyone would understand the options to be Atheist = There is no god, Agnostic = There may or may not be a god, Christian = There is a god. I don't think there would be anyone that would sit at that menu and think to themselves "Well I'm agnostic because I consider evidence before making conclusions, but having looked at the evidence I decided there is a god so I don't know whether to pick Christian or Agnostic." (Or sometimes people pick Agnostic because they think there is a god but they don't identify with Christianity or whatever, but that's not really related.) Sorry that you had to deal with all that Magpie. I totally got what you meant. That site would get emails the moment it went live with people like Magpie from all over the spectrum religious and not saying that their religion wasn't listed or that it was unfairly lumped in with another. If common use was the only criteria for meaning I'd be telling you that your making a big mistake. Examples of agnostic Christians might include people in between religions (discrepancies on dogma). Our conversation started around who should non-Christians call Christians or not, particularly around stuff like Mormonism which is referred to as a cult instead of Christianity by large swaths of the 'Christian' community. Magpies response gave me a perspective that 'Christian' in at least mag's view means 'Christ-like'. That being the case while the Mormon religion teaches some ridiculous stuff around religion itself they are far more 'Christ-like' than ''Christians' like the Westboro baptist church, or the other 'Christians' and those like them mentioned here http://www.advocate.com/politics/2012/10/31/10-disasters-gays-were-blamed-causing?page=full
Try any dating site ever and they have an option like that for religion, and obviously it isn't just limited to those three options, but it was just meant as an example of a situation where you would say your religion. I have literally never heard agnostic used in the way Magpie is using it except just now whereas saying you are agnostic because you are undecided is much more common and better understood.
It's like calling the # by the name of octothorpe, while technically correct, you would only confuse people by that usage in a conversation.
|
On April 18 2014 13:17 Najda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 12:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 18 2014 12:12 Najda wrote:On April 18 2014 11:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 10:30 Najda wrote:On April 18 2014 09:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 18 2014 08:44 Simberto wrote:
I am pretty sure that you are just using the most broad definition of agnosticism you could find so you could act like a smartass. There are multiple flavours of agnosticism, and the most popularly used one is that an agnostic is someone who believes that he does not know if a god exists, or that it is impossible to know if that is the fact.
An Atheist on the other hand is someone who believes that no god exists.
If you use those two definitions, there is no overlap between the two, because you can not both not know if god exists or not and be sure that no god exists.
Now, if one slightly broadens the definition of an atheist to encompass all the people who think that unless there is some relevant proof of a theory being true, it can be discarded as irrelevant, meaning that they believe that as long as there is no proof of the existence of a god there is no god, you still don't have any overlap.
Of course, if you use different definitions, then you could have different results. But it is usually a good idea to use the same definitions when talking about something, otherwise you don't reach any meaningful communication. So instead of trying to make everyone use the same definitions you are using, just use the definitions everyone else is using and get to actually meaningful communication instead of pseudointellectual wankery.
Generally speaking, if you are trying to make a point, you should try using full sentences, not short snippets. Unless the point you are trying to make is that you are insufferably annoying. Agnosticism does not require the subject to be God. That isn't being overly broad, its literally being specific to its definition. Atheism is the disbelief in Gods. That isn't being overly broad, it is literally being specific to its definition. If you do not like the definitions of the labels you use on yourself or others, then use more accurate labels. In the context of a religious discussion, agnostic specifically means you aren't taking a stance on if there is or is not a god (because as you say, more evidence is required), or at least that is what the general population will take it to mean. What religious discussion? As far as I've seen no one has talked about the great meaning of God in the last few pages and instead have been simply talking about the practices of different cultural groups. What it has looked like to me was that I was stating that agnostics need evidence before they are willing to commit to a stance while Athiest don't require evidence. Someone pops in talking about Russel's Teapot not realizing he's saying the exact same thing as me that Atheists do not need evidence to make their stance. He then argues that I don't spell Atheist correctly--because for some odd reason he feels the discussion is now about grammar and spelling, and now you're here telling me that you want me to change the definitions of the words I brought up to begin with. If you guys were not following the discussion I was in, you don't get to change the definitions of words arbitrarily when you jump halfway in the discussion. If you want Atheist to mean what the majority of the population thinks it means in say, America--then Atheist is someone who hates god. Now, I didn't say that because I know its a false definition. Atheist has a specific definition hinged on the word itself that it is a person that does not believe in Theism. Hence why when I kept talking about religious practices I continually stated over and over again that some people think God is Jesus, others do not, and that others don't believe in gods at all. My posts have been purely abstract and general in order to encompass the specific reason why my answers to the questions posed to me are what they are. People who require evidence to believe something are Agnostics--by definition. No matter the topic at hand Agnosticism remains the same. If there's no evidence for a stance, then there's no need to make a stance at all. Even in the abstract idea of a religious discussion they still require evidence to have an opinion. Atheist, by definition, don't need evidence to form their opinion because Atheism is simply the act of not believing in Gods if you do not believe in Gods for any reason (even dumb ones) then you are an Atheist. A theist is someone who believes in a God/Gods for any reason (even dumb ones). Agnostics are the people looking for evidence. You can believe that God/Gods exist, but still want more evidence in order to make yourself feel better. Or you can believe that no God/Gods exist, but still study it to make certain. Kwark's problem was the idea of Atheism not being specifically linked to skepticism and instead being linked to the actual word Atheist. This is because he feels that all Atheists are automatically similar to himself and that its impossible for someone to be an atheist for reasons other than the reasons he himself believes in. His dogmatic understanding of Atheist stances made it so that when I made the statement that Atheists don't need evidence that he starts shoving Russel's teapot down my throat to show me that Atheists don't need evidence. This was because I was not speaking negatively about Theist practices and even suggesting that many theists practices similar philosophies to what he practices. This caused him to become upset and want to attack my word choice when I presented hyperbolic examples because it makes him feel better. I understand why he would do that, my previous pastors did that all the time when something on the news felt like it was attacking Christmas. Hence why I had to repeat what I said over and over to show him just how silly he was. People naturally want to take their stances and defend it from anything that does not support it. That is understandable. But I'm not going to simply sit by and take it just because he has different opinions than me. If he wants to defend his axioms then so be it, by I won't have him twisting my words just because he's unhappy with how I depict his belief system. What I meant is this: If there was a site that had a dropdown menu for your religion, it would list options such as Atheist, Agnostic, Christian etc. and everyone would understand the options to be Atheist = There is no god, Agnostic = There may or may not be a god, Christian = There is a god. I don't think there would be anyone that would sit at that menu and think to themselves "Well I'm agnostic because I consider evidence before making conclusions, but having looked at the evidence I decided there is a god so I don't know whether to pick Christian or Agnostic." (Or sometimes people pick Agnostic because they think there is a god but they don't identify with Christianity or whatever, but that's not really related.) Sorry that you had to deal with all that Magpie. I totally got what you meant. That site would get emails the moment it went live with people like Magpie from all over the spectrum religious and not saying that their religion wasn't listed or that it was unfairly lumped in with another. If common use was the only criteria for meaning I'd be telling you that your making a big mistake. Examples of agnostic Christians might include people in between religions (discrepancies on dogma). Our conversation started around who should non-Christians call Christians or not, particularly around stuff like Mormonism which is referred to as a cult instead of Christianity by large swaths of the 'Christian' community. Magpies response gave me a perspective that 'Christian' in at least mag's view means 'Christ-like'. That being the case while the Mormon religion teaches some ridiculous stuff around religion itself they are far more 'Christ-like' than ''Christians' like the Westboro baptist church, or the other 'Christians' and those like them mentioned here http://www.advocate.com/politics/2012/10/31/10-disasters-gays-were-blamed-causing?page=full Try any dating site ever and they have an option like that for religion, and obviously it isn't just limited to those three options, but it was just meant as an example of a situation where you would say your religion. I have literally never heard agnostic used in the way Magpie is using it except just now whereas saying you are agnostic because you are undecided is much more common and better understood. It's like calling the # by the name of octothorpe, while technically correct, you would only confuse people by that usage in a conversation.
The problem with the colloquial use of the words is that it is very imprecise. I do not belief in any god, I think that makes me an atheist. I also think knowledge of the existence of god in a broad sense is ultimately unattainable, so there may or may not be a god in a broad sense, so that would make me agnostic. I do not actively disbelief in a broadly defined god, though i actively disbelief the abrahamic gods/norse gods/greek gods etc etc, but do not think I absolutely know they don't exist. I ascribe some probability to the possibility of a deistic god. So what should I put on a dating site?
If we are to accept your definition of the words we would need new words to desccribe people who hold no belief in a god but don't necessarily hold the belief that there is no god, and people who think knowledge about the existence of a deity is attainable. Using a dating site as an authority on religious belief is probably not the best plan in any case.
|
Why is there less stupidity and more serious discussion in this thread than there was ~50 pages ago?
|
I always tought that being agnostic means that you do believe there is "something", some kind of a higher "force" or a "purpose" that exists, but they do not adopt any of the religious dogmas on the issue that explain what it is exactly that "exists", what is the "higher purpose" itself or what God is. Like they're more like "yeah I believe something exists but I have no clue nor is there any possible way for me to find out what it is".
|
On April 18 2014 20:02 NukeD wrote:
I always tought that being agnostic means that you do believe there is "something", some kind of a higher "force" or a "purpose" that exists, but they do not adopt any of the religious dogmas on the issue that explain what it is exactly that "exists", what is the "higher purpose" itself or what God is. Like they're more like "yeah I believe something exists but I have no clue nor is there any possible way for me to find out what it is".
That is not what agnosticism is in essence. That is very unspecific theism/deism/pantheism, that exists in tandem with agnosticism and irreligion.
|
On April 18 2014 18:42 Oukka wrote:
Why is there less stupidity and more serious discussion in this thread than there was ~50 pages ago?
religion, that's why! and this doesn't make it less stupid, the texts just become longer. 
|
Question: Today is Good Friday... why is it Good? Aren't we "celebrating" the crucifixion of Jesus? Seems rather morbid and counter-intuitive to me. I could see a religious group celebrating the supposed resurrection (Easter), but the death first? I'm a little confused.
|
In Sweden we call it "The long Friday". Don't know what makes it long though.
|
On April 18 2014 22:27 AlternativeEgo wrote:
In Sweden we call it "The long Friday". Don't know what makes it long though.
Genetics.
Edit: I really wasted my 25K on a lame pun? -____-' My posting on TL has clearly devolved...
+ Show Spoiler +from being bad to being worse.
|
On April 18 2014 22:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 22:27 AlternativeEgo wrote:
In Sweden we call it "The long Friday". Don't know what makes it long though. Genetics.
And that was your 25k. I feel honored.
|
Why does people want to keep using XP? Any time I have to use it I feel like picking up a book (to while away the time) since I will be restarting for every single program or setting I change.
|
This discussion is improving already, thank Laws of the Universes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
