|
Lol how is giving people the option to attend church instead of jail not unconstitutional...
|
Churches should fuck off and mind their own business. Honestly, why the fuck do religious people constantly try to jam their agenda into matters of law?
I have no problem with anyone from any religion but come the fuck on. If a crime is so serious you can send a guy to CHURCH for it, there probably shouldn't be any punishment at all. So it's just a local church siphoning power from the local government.
|
On September 29 2011 00:01 Coraz wrote:
This sounds like how America used to be before Christianity was overthrown and America was destroyed as a culture.
"It violates one basic tenet of the Constitution, namely that government can’t force participation in religious activity," Olivia Turner, executive director for the ACLU of Alabama told the paper." - giving an option is not forcing
Thats funny, I've read the Constitution about 50 times and never come across the part mentioned here.
I love "New Law"
edit: I just got busted with a clean record for first time drug offense, I wish I could go to church instead of up to 30 days in jail for doing nothing. (In fact, I already believe in Jesus, so what does that tell you about our immoral war on drugs?)
EDIT: That came out rather big.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On September 29 2011 05:52 Demonhunter04 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 05:25 DminusTerran wrote:On September 29 2011 05:17 Demonhunter04 wrote:On September 29 2011 05:07 DminusTerran wrote:On September 29 2011 03:11 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 29 2011 03:05 Demonhunter04 wrote:On September 29 2011 03:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 29 2011 02:57 cydial wrote:On September 28 2011 22:23 DminusTerran wrote:On September 28 2011 22:12 cydial wrote:
[quote]
Atheism isn't a religion.... Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet. Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait... You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief.... Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality. Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance. When most people say atheism (myself included) they really mean nontheism, where they do not believe in any god or religion, but does not explicitly say that neither could exist. Atheism more literally means "anti-religion". You're defining a specific form of atheism known as "weak-atheism". That in no way is the definition of "atheism" as a whole. Atheism is simply the belief that a deity/deities do not exist (the actual literal meaning of it). It says nothing about whether or not that belief is based on certainty or not, which requires you to define a more specific form of atheism to do so. On September 29 2011 03:05 Mindcrime wrote:On September 29 2011 03:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 29 2011 02:57 cydial wrote:On September 28 2011 22:23 DminusTerran wrote:On September 28 2011 22:12 cydial wrote:
[quote]
Atheism isn't a religion.... Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet. Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait... You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief.... Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality. Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance. You've managed to show that you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. Well done, sir. You've managed to make a post that would be equivalent to me saying: "You are wrong and don't understand what you just said. Well done sir." So, it doesn't really require me to refute it since it provided no insight whatsoever, just a personal insult to my understanding. The thing you describe as "Weak" Atheism is properly know as Agnostic Atheism. Your choice in adjective is pretty negative. Really though if I could just put my thoughts out on this thread at large. I find when people who consider themselves atheists get involved in discussion about religion on the internet. There is such a intellectual high ground that they believe to have established. That no-one who could be described as moderate in their beliefs would ever want to interact with them. Honestly as an Agnostic I feel like I'm being patronized just reading through a good portion of the posts in this thread. Basically the tone that results is just such an us against them and they are already wrong so shut your trap and listen to what I say attitude that I really have absolutely no taste for. Stop at least to think that throughout the course of history and up into the present. Many highly intelligent individuals have been people of faith, including a good number of great scientific minds. While of course that doesn't necessarily make their beliefs correct. It really doesn't come off as very respectful to be so dismissive and negative in your tone towards something that they valued so highly. The religious leaders of a small community who believe that through their guidance(and that of the lord I suppose) they can reform petty criminals better than the judicial system. Don't really come off to me as a group of hard-line anti secular crusaders. Thus the sheer volume of vitriol shown in this thread just really doesn't come off to me as a healthy or rational response to their actions. Especially from a group of people who could probably be described, comparatively speaking to the population at large, as highly educated. It's fine to disagree even vehemently, just consider your tone and the words you use when having these conversations. Just my three cents. I suspect these reactions are not in response to the events stated in the OP, but rather because of our own personal experiences talking to religious people about religion. So many of them are instantly dismissive of reasonable arguments, present illogical arguments of their own, or feign a moral high ground and look down upon atheists. Attempting to persuade people that their religion has no logical basis (or anything that a person strongly believes in) is almost always a fruitless attempt, and that might lead to some people being bitter and venting in threads like this. Fair enough, but it just results in you falling to their level. Especially when those frustrations are vented against someone or something who might of had nothing to do with that particular person's ignorance or attitude. However I would note that you shouldn't feel the need to persuade people of religions lack of basis in actual fact. Alternatively when attempting to present such an argument try to frame it in a manner that doesn't come across as dismissive. As by doing so you can easily induce the kind of stonewall attitude that you seem to be so frustrated by. To truly convince people of the merits of your point of view you often need to present your opinion in a metered and amicable fashion. I personally didn't react so strongly in this thread. I was just saying what I suspected was their reason, without condoning it. I also don't try to persuade people by talking down to them; I know nobody likes condescension. Regardless, people will usually react negatively even if you present your opinion on religion in a friendly way.
Again I can definitely sympathize with what you're expressing. When I presented my responses my primary choice in pronoun was "you" which was really incorrect in what I was trying to get across. I could've spoke more generally, because it would have been more in line with what I was trying to make my point about.
Not so much, "you" (Demonhunter04) as, "we" (everyone) could try to approach people with opposing viewpoints, especially around such a touchy subject, with a little more patience.
Sorry, lol I'm not that great with English. Sometimes these things slip my mind.
Edit: Damn I sound way to much like a 78 year old grandma than a man my age ought too, haha.
|
On September 29 2011 05:19 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 03:11 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 29 2011 03:05 Mindcrime wrote:On September 29 2011 03:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 29 2011 02:57 cydial wrote:On September 28 2011 22:23 DminusTerran wrote:On September 28 2011 22:12 cydial wrote:On September 28 2011 20:05 KwarK wrote:
As long as you can do it for every religion (atheism included) then sure, whatever works for them. If you can only do it for Christianity then it's giving Christians preferential penal treatment which is obviously unfair. Atheism isn't a religion.... Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet. Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait... You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief.... Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality. Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance. You've managed to show that you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. Well done, sir. You've managed to make a post that would be equivalent to me saying: "You are wrong and don't understand what you just said. Well done sir." So, it doesn't really require me to refute it since it provided no insight whatsoever, just a personal insult to my understanding. Indeed it was a personal insult, and I apologize. Though you must understand that this topic has been discussed to death on teamliquid and it is rather frustrating to see people still get it so, so wrong. You seem to think that agnosticism is some sort of third way between theism and atheism, but that's not what it is at all. Atheism is quite literally, "without theism". If one is not a theist, that is if one does not believe in any god, one is an atheist. There is no third way. Belief is either there or it is not. Agnosticism lies on a separate axis. Agnosticism isn't a position on the matter of belief in a god, but rather a position on the matter of knowledge about a god.
It has been discussed to death, but on reading this post we actually agree 100% with each other, agnosticism is a matter of knowledge, not belief, therefore lies on a separate axis from theism/atheism.
I actually had edited my post shortly before you quoted it too, and what you quoted did have certain flaws to it. If you go back to look at the post this was what I had edited it to after you clicked the quote button I guess:
+ Show Spoiler +"Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be a strong form of agnosticism (maybe closer to just apathy), in which there total lack of belief either way.
Belief and disbelief are polar opposites though, just as theism and atheism are polar opposites."
I think it's a much better representation of what I was getting at, and the ultimate conclusion still remained that atheism is not a lack of belief. It takes a position on the scale of belief, such that an atheist believes that there is no god/deity - the polar opposite of the theist in belief.
You're right that lack of belief is not the same as agnosticism, but someone who argues a strong form of agnosticism would obviously not have a belief on the matter either. That's just one form of agnosticism and not a definitive trait though so you were right to criticize it in that regard pre-edit.
|
On September 28 2011 20:05 KwarK wrote:
As long as you can do it for every religion (atheism included) then sure, whatever works for them. If you can only do it for Christianity then it's giving Christians preferential penal treatment which is obviously unfair.
+ Show Spoiler [don't want to start religious ar…] + nevermind. 50 people beat me to it. + Show Spoiler +
Wait. Since when is atheism a religion? Agnosticism, Satanism (traditional, not the organized Church of Satan variety), Buddhism, etc i see as alternatives to religion, whereas athiesm is the absence of belief, no?
Anyway, i see it as a nice alternative, as long as you may attend any religion's church. Therein lies the problem of what defines a real church, and why this is a no go. Jail is jail. Religion isn't defined.
|
This is a bad idea, im sure it will work on the small scale + Show Spoiler +
but on a large scale it violates the rights of to many, because the culture is different.
|
This seems reasonable.
If this were forced, I would be entirely against it. I know the ACLU only tries to protect the Bill of Rights, but frankly, the key word is "optional". If there is an option, the Bill of Rights doesn't mean anything. You CHOOSE to go to church, it isn't forced upon you.
|
On September 29 2011 09:33 Cloud9157 wrote:
This seems reasonable.
If this were forced, I would be entirely against it. I know the ACLU only tries to protect the Bill of Rights, but frankly, the key word is "optional". If there is an option, the Bill of Rights doesn't mean anything. You CHOOSE to go to church, it isn't forced upon you.
How is that reasonable? It's clearly the lesser punishment. No one is even arguing that you'd be forced to go. Rather, it's more like "you can get away with breaking the law/other minor offenses if you attend church regularly. If you choose not to go to church, we will imprison you/fine you extensively."
|
I see it as teaching morals so eh
|
On September 29 2011 09:33 Cloud9157 wrote:
This seems reasonable.
If this were forced, I would be entirely against it. I know the ACLU only tries to protect the Bill of Rights, but frankly, the key word is "optional". If there is an option, the Bill of Rights doesn't mean anything. You CHOOSE to go to church, it isn't forced upon you.
The claim that it's a "choice" between jail and church is a joke. Any idiot would pick sitting in a church once a week for a year than going to jail. Hell, I'd pretend to be a Christian if it got me out of a jail sentence. If I offered to give you $10 or $1000, which would you take? I'm giving you a choice, but it's not really a choice. It's a no-brainer. It's cases like these where the unconstitutionality comes into play- the government is *compelling* prisoners to move towards a particular religion. Though it's not *forced*, per se, there's not *really* a choice.
|
Anyways, if you think Christianity is a load of bullshit like I do, then you won't gain anything from going but rather tune it out. Not to mention that you're not going to learn anything valuable by hearing Genesis, or reading Job.
|
It's not separation of Church and State? My ass.
If the policy says that I can go to temple, a mosque, or to the local buddhist temple then it'll be legit. If it remains exclusive to church, then it's quite obviously bullshit...
Also, isn't this quite directly stating that Church > State. It undermines the government and replaces it with religion, correct?
|
On September 29 2011 09:50 QurtStarcraft wrote:
I see it as teaching morals so eh
Based off supernatural nonsense? I don't support that in the slightest.
Also, there's certainly no reason to think that this will rehabilitate people any more than a jail would, and it doesn't punish criminals at all.
If you're going to make changes to the penal system so that jails will have fewer criminals, how about you force them to enroll in some sort of school so that they can become educated and functioning members of society? They can pay for everything too. Knowledge, rehabilitation, and not wasting money ftw.
|
On September 29 2011 07:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 05:19 Mindcrime wrote:On September 29 2011 03:11 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 29 2011 03:05 Mindcrime wrote:On September 29 2011 03:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 29 2011 02:57 cydial wrote:On September 28 2011 22:23 DminusTerran wrote:On September 28 2011 22:12 cydial wrote:On September 28 2011 20:05 KwarK wrote:
As long as you can do it for every religion (atheism included) then sure, whatever works for them. If you can only do it for Christianity then it's giving Christians preferential penal treatment which is obviously unfair. Atheism isn't a religion.... Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet. Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait... You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief.... Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality. Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance. You've managed to show that you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. Well done, sir. You've managed to make a post that would be equivalent to me saying: "You are wrong and don't understand what you just said. Well done sir." So, it doesn't really require me to refute it since it provided no insight whatsoever, just a personal insult to my understanding. Indeed it was a personal insult, and I apologize. Though you must understand that this topic has been discussed to death on teamliquid and it is rather frustrating to see people still get it so, so wrong. You seem to think that agnosticism is some sort of third way between theism and atheism, but that's not what it is at all. Atheism is quite literally, "without theism". If one is not a theist, that is if one does not believe in any god, one is an atheist. There is no third way. Belief is either there or it is not. Agnosticism lies on a separate axis. Agnosticism isn't a position on the matter of belief in a god, but rather a position on the matter of knowledge about a god. It has been discussed to death, but on reading this post we actually agree 100% with each other, agnosticism is a matter of knowledge, not belief, therefore lies on a separate axis from theism/atheism. I actually had edited my post shortly before you quoted it too, and what you quoted did have certain flaws to it. If you go back to look at the post this was what I had edited it to after you clicked the quote button I guess: + Show Spoiler +"Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be a strong form of agnosticism (maybe closer to just apathy), in which there total lack of belief either way.
Belief and disbelief are polar opposites though, just as theism and atheism are polar opposites." I think it's a much better representation of what I was getting at, and the ultimate conclusion still remained that atheism is not a lack of belief. It takes a position on the scale of belief, such that an atheist believes that there is no god/deity - the polar opposite of the theist in belief. You're right that lack of belief is not the same as agnosticism, but someone who argues a strong form of agnosticism would obviously not have a belief on the matter either. That's just one form of agnosticism and not a definitive trait though so you were right to criticize it in that regard pre-edit.
I disagree strongly. I know that there are no supernatural deities that exist. Nothing supernatural of any kind in fact. The basis for all religious belief is completely man made. The very foundations of religious faith have their roots in human beings. The "divine" experiences were experienced by people. The supposed prophets, preachers, etc etc were all human beings. Every holy book has been written by people. There is nothing that even remotely implies supernatural involvement. Quite literally all you have, is a bunch of ancient people who were completely ignorant of their world trying to make sense of it all. The very fact that there are a plethora of religions today, and that we laugh at what ancient peoples like the Egyptians or Romans believed tells me unequivocally that it is all made up. The evidence is there. Boatloads of it. In the form of fallible humanity, poorly translated texts, contradictions, and complete lack of anything approaching verifiable claims or data that can be analyzed.
Therefore I consider atheism to be pretty damn concrete.
Tl;DR: I know there are no gods in the same way everyone else knows there are no unicorns. People made them up, and there is no evidence for their existence. Sure we could have faith that there are unicorns, but that doesn't make them real does it?
|
|
|
On September 29 2011 07:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 05:19 Mindcrime wrote:On September 29 2011 03:11 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 29 2011 03:05 Mindcrime wrote:On September 29 2011 03:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 29 2011 02:57 cydial wrote:On September 28 2011 22:23 DminusTerran wrote:On September 28 2011 22:12 cydial wrote:On September 28 2011 20:05 KwarK wrote:
As long as you can do it for every religion (atheism included) then sure, whatever works for them. If you can only do it for Christianity then it's giving Christians preferential penal treatment which is obviously unfair. Atheism isn't a religion.... Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet. Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait... You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief.... Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality. Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance. You've managed to show that you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. Well done, sir. You've managed to make a post that would be equivalent to me saying: "You are wrong and don't understand what you just said. Well done sir." So, it doesn't really require me to refute it since it provided no insight whatsoever, just a personal insult to my understanding. Indeed it was a personal insult, and I apologize. Though you must understand that this topic has been discussed to death on teamliquid and it is rather frustrating to see people still get it so, so wrong. You seem to think that agnosticism is some sort of third way between theism and atheism, but that's not what it is at all. Atheism is quite literally, "without theism". If one is not a theist, that is if one does not believe in any god, one is an atheist. There is no third way. Belief is either there or it is not. Agnosticism lies on a separate axis. Agnosticism isn't a position on the matter of belief in a god, but rather a position on the matter of knowledge about a god. It has been discussed to death, but on reading this post we actually agree 100% with each other, agnosticism is a matter of knowledge, not belief, therefore lies on a separate axis from theism/atheism. I actually had edited my post shortly before you quoted it too, and what you quoted did have certain flaws to it. If you go back to look at the post this was what I had edited it to after you clicked the quote button I guess: + Show Spoiler +"Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be a strong form of agnosticism (maybe closer to just apathy), in which there total lack of belief either way.
Belief and disbelief are polar opposites though, just as theism and atheism are polar opposites." I think it's a much better representation of what I was getting at, and the ultimate conclusion still remained that atheism is not a lack of belief. It takes a position on the scale of belief, such that an atheist believes that there is no god/deity - the polar opposite of the theist in belief.
You're misusing the word "disbelief". I've seen this all too often before too.
disbelief
noun
1.
the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
2.
amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief.
disbelieve
verb (used with object)
1.
to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings.
verb (used without object)
2.
to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.
In the absence of evidence, if you were to tell me that microbial life exists on Mars, I would disbelieve i.e. have no belief in that claim. I would not necessarily believe the opposite. I would simply not accept your claims as true.
|
On September 29 2011 11:09 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 07:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 29 2011 05:19 Mindcrime wrote:On September 29 2011 03:11 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 29 2011 03:05 Mindcrime wrote:On September 29 2011 03:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 29 2011 02:57 cydial wrote:On September 28 2011 22:23 DminusTerran wrote:On September 28 2011 22:12 cydial wrote:On September 28 2011 20:05 KwarK wrote:
As long as you can do it for every religion (atheism included) then sure, whatever works for them. If you can only do it for Christianity then it's giving Christians preferential penal treatment which is obviously unfair. Atheism isn't a religion.... Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet. Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait... You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief.... Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality. Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance. You've managed to show that you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. Well done, sir. You've managed to make a post that would be equivalent to me saying: "You are wrong and don't understand what you just said. Well done sir." So, it doesn't really require me to refute it since it provided no insight whatsoever, just a personal insult to my understanding. Indeed it was a personal insult, and I apologize. Though you must understand that this topic has been discussed to death on teamliquid and it is rather frustrating to see people still get it so, so wrong. You seem to think that agnosticism is some sort of third way between theism and atheism, but that's not what it is at all. Atheism is quite literally, "without theism". If one is not a theist, that is if one does not believe in any god, one is an atheist. There is no third way. Belief is either there or it is not. Agnosticism lies on a separate axis. Agnosticism isn't a position on the matter of belief in a god, but rather a position on the matter of knowledge about a god. It has been discussed to death, but on reading this post we actually agree 100% with each other, agnosticism is a matter of knowledge, not belief, therefore lies on a separate axis from theism/atheism. I actually had edited my post shortly before you quoted it too, and what you quoted did have certain flaws to it. If you go back to look at the post this was what I had edited it to after you clicked the quote button I guess: + Show Spoiler +"Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be a strong form of agnosticism (maybe closer to just apathy), in which there total lack of belief either way.
Belief and disbelief are polar opposites though, just as theism and atheism are polar opposites." I think it's a much better representation of what I was getting at, and the ultimate conclusion still remained that atheism is not a lack of belief. It takes a position on the scale of belief, such that an atheist believes that there is no god/deity - the polar opposite of the theist in belief. You're misusing the word "disbelief". I've seen this all too often before too. Show nested quote +disbelief
noun
1.
the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
2.
amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief. Show nested quote +disbelieve
verb (used with object)
1.
to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings.
verb (used without object)
2.
to refuse or reject belief; have no belief. In the absence of evidence, if you were to tell me that microbial life exists on Mars, I would disbelieve i.e. have no belief in that claim. I would not necessarily believe the opposite. I would simply not accept your claims as true.
You guys are basically all arguing about strong and weak atheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism
Positive atheism is a term popularly used to describe the form of atheism that maintains that "There is no god" is a true statement. Negative atheism refers to any other type of non-theism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deity, but does not explicitly claim that the statement "There is at least one god" is false.
One is the assertion that there is no God, and the other is just lack of belief. If I told you that microbial life existed on Mars, would you tell me that you don't believe me (but don't make the assertion that there can't be microbial life on Mars), or that there is no possibility of microbial life on Mars? That's the difference.
|
On September 29 2011 11:18 Mr. Wiggles wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 11:09 Mindcrime wrote:On September 29 2011 07:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 29 2011 05:19 Mindcrime wrote:On September 29 2011 03:11 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 29 2011 03:05 Mindcrime wrote:On September 29 2011 03:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 29 2011 02:57 cydial wrote:On September 28 2011 22:23 DminusTerran wrote:On September 28 2011 22:12 cydial wrote:
[quote]
Atheism isn't a religion.... Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet. Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait... You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief.... Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality. Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance. You've managed to show that you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. Well done, sir. You've managed to make a post that would be equivalent to me saying: "You are wrong and don't understand what you just said. Well done sir." So, it doesn't really require me to refute it since it provided no insight whatsoever, just a personal insult to my understanding. Indeed it was a personal insult, and I apologize. Though you must understand that this topic has been discussed to death on teamliquid and it is rather frustrating to see people still get it so, so wrong. You seem to think that agnosticism is some sort of third way between theism and atheism, but that's not what it is at all. Atheism is quite literally, "without theism". If one is not a theist, that is if one does not believe in any god, one is an atheist. There is no third way. Belief is either there or it is not. Agnosticism lies on a separate axis. Agnosticism isn't a position on the matter of belief in a god, but rather a position on the matter of knowledge about a god. It has been discussed to death, but on reading this post we actually agree 100% with each other, agnosticism is a matter of knowledge, not belief, therefore lies on a separate axis from theism/atheism. I actually had edited my post shortly before you quoted it too, and what you quoted did have certain flaws to it. If you go back to look at the post this was what I had edited it to after you clicked the quote button I guess: + Show Spoiler +"Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be a strong form of agnosticism (maybe closer to just apathy), in which there total lack of belief either way.
Belief and disbelief are polar opposites though, just as theism and atheism are polar opposites." I think it's a much better representation of what I was getting at, and the ultimate conclusion still remained that atheism is not a lack of belief. It takes a position on the scale of belief, such that an atheist believes that there is no god/deity - the polar opposite of the theist in belief. You're misusing the word "disbelief". I've seen this all too often before too. disbelief
noun
1.
the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
2.
amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief. disbelieve
verb (used with object)
1.
to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings.
verb (used without object)
2.
to refuse or reject belief; have no belief. In the absence of evidence, if you were to tell me that microbial life exists on Mars, I would disbelieve i.e. have no belief in that claim. I would not necessarily believe the opposite. I would simply not accept your claims as true. You guys are basically all arguing about strong and weak atheism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheismShow nested quote +Positive atheism is a term popularly used to describe the form of atheism that maintains that "There is no god" is a true statement. Negative atheism refers to any other type of non-theism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deity, but does not explicitly claim that the statement "There is at least one god" is false. One is the assertion that there is no God, and the other is just lack of belief. If I told you that microbial life existed on Mars, would you tell me that you don't believe me (but don't make the assertion that there can't be microbial life on Mars), or that there is no possibility of microbial life on Mars? That's the difference.
so when asked if there is a good weak atheists just refuse to answer the question? your example seems to be more agnostic about life on mars rather than differing atheisms
|
On September 29 2011 11:26 Holykitty wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 11:18 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On September 29 2011 11:09 Mindcrime wrote:On September 29 2011 07:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 29 2011 05:19 Mindcrime wrote:On September 29 2011 03:11 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 29 2011 03:05 Mindcrime wrote:On September 29 2011 03:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 29 2011 02:57 cydial wrote:On September 28 2011 22:23 DminusTerran wrote:
[quote]
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait... You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief.... Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality. Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance. You've managed to show that you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. Well done, sir. You've managed to make a post that would be equivalent to me saying: "You are wrong and don't understand what you just said. Well done sir." So, it doesn't really require me to refute it since it provided no insight whatsoever, just a personal insult to my understanding. Indeed it was a personal insult, and I apologize. Though you must understand that this topic has been discussed to death on teamliquid and it is rather frustrating to see people still get it so, so wrong. You seem to think that agnosticism is some sort of third way between theism and atheism, but that's not what it is at all. Atheism is quite literally, "without theism". If one is not a theist, that is if one does not believe in any god, one is an atheist. There is no third way. Belief is either there or it is not. Agnosticism lies on a separate axis. Agnosticism isn't a position on the matter of belief in a god, but rather a position on the matter of knowledge about a god. It has been discussed to death, but on reading this post we actually agree 100% with each other, agnosticism is a matter of knowledge, not belief, therefore lies on a separate axis from theism/atheism. I actually had edited my post shortly before you quoted it too, and what you quoted did have certain flaws to it. If you go back to look at the post this was what I had edited it to after you clicked the quote button I guess: + Show Spoiler +"Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be a strong form of agnosticism (maybe closer to just apathy), in which there total lack of belief either way.
Belief and disbelief are polar opposites though, just as theism and atheism are polar opposites." I think it's a much better representation of what I was getting at, and the ultimate conclusion still remained that atheism is not a lack of belief. It takes a position on the scale of belief, such that an atheist believes that there is no god/deity - the polar opposite of the theist in belief. You're misusing the word "disbelief". I've seen this all too often before too. disbelief
noun
1.
the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
2.
amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief. disbelieve
verb (used with object)
1.
to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings.
verb (used without object)
2.
to refuse or reject belief; have no belief. In the absence of evidence, if you were to tell me that microbial life exists on Mars, I would disbelieve i.e. have no belief in that claim. I would not necessarily believe the opposite. I would simply not accept your claims as true. You guys are basically all arguing about strong and weak atheism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheismPositive atheism is a term popularly used to describe the form of atheism that maintains that "There is no god" is a true statement. Negative atheism refers to any other type of non-theism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deity, but does not explicitly claim that the statement "There is at least one god" is false. One is the assertion that there is no God, and the other is just lack of belief. If I told you that microbial life existed on Mars, would you tell me that you don't believe me (but don't make the assertion that there can't be microbial life on Mars), or that there is no possibility of microbial life on Mars? That's the difference. so when asked if there is a good weak atheists just refuse to answer the question?
The answer would be "I don't believe so" as opposed to "I believe that there is not"
your example seems to be more agnostic about life on mars rather than differing atheisms
are you trolling me
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.openclipart.org/people/Master-Sayien/Seriously.svg)
