+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 225
General Chat Thread, Atheism will eat itself in General; Personally I prefer apatheism to atheism, theism, or agnosticism. The key to it you see is that while theists and ...
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,168
    Thank Post
    98
    Thanked 319 Times in 261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    113
    Personally I prefer apatheism to atheism, theism, or agnosticism.

    The key to it you see is that while theists and atheists are certain, and generally waste a lot of energy worrying about their position and arguing for it, and agnostics are considered weak and uncertain, an apatheist just honestly doesn't see how the whole debate affects their lives and so doesn't care.

  2. #32
    gwendes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,495
    Thank Post
    161
    Thanked 30 Times in 29 Posts
    Rep Power
    26
    Mark, you know that you and I can't coexist on this forum without occasionally having 1000 post threads!


    Quote Originally Posted by mark View Post
    Of course atheism isn't actually a 'Faith', but what I'm saying is that it's a faith stance... you assert something you can't know, like theists do.
    Nope. Atheists don't exist as a group that you can make statements like that about. I can instantly prove you are wrong since I am an atheist and I have never asserted something that I don't know. I make a judgement on how probable something is.

    Atheism is not a 'faith stance'.

    Religion is a faith stance because it claims to know for certain the 'truth'. If you don't do this then you are not religious. If you think God is likely but ultimately you cannot know then you are technically agnostic - like me.

    To clarify, I am agnostic (I cannot know either way) and atheist (without one or many gods)


    Quote Originally Posted by mark
    (although there are qualifying characteristics: it reflects and justifies the zeitgeist, it has prominent evangelists making a living from it..)
    Come on. That would give politics 'qualifying characteristics' of religion. You might as well say that anything that people are a fan of is somewhat religious - you're redefining religion there...

    Quote Originally Posted by mark
    Of course agnosticism is far too weedy a concept for anyone to want to be associated with, so people tend to adopt the more respectable label of atheist.
    This is due to the way we choose to use language. Agnosticism would have been very dangerous not so long


    Quote Originally Posted by mark
    'Religion' has deservedly a very bad rep, but IMHO you'd be denying yourself a rich seam of human experience and knowledge by dismissing it.

    Not even Dawkins dismisses religion. He describes himself as a 'cultural Christian' and appreciates the art and architecture, music, festivals - loves Christmas. He dismisses the idea of being certain of the unknowable and fights against causes which you share - like the teaching of Genesis in Science classrooms...

  3. #33
    mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,966
    Thank Post
    248
    Thanked 49 Times in 45 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
    Personally I prefer apatheism to atheism, theism, or agnosticism.

    The key to it you see is that while theists and atheists are certain, and generally waste a lot of energy worrying about their position and arguing for it, and agnostics are considered weak and uncertain, an apatheist just honestly doesn't see how the whole debate affects their lives and so doesn't care.
    Atheist / apathetisicm... meh - same thing!

  4. #34
    mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,966
    Thank Post
    248
    Thanked 49 Times in 45 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by gwendes View Post
    Mark, you know that you and I can't coexist on this forum without occasionally having 1000 post threads!
    A weak justification but I'll play along.. )

    Quote Originally Posted by gwendes View Post
    Nope. Atheists don't exist as a group that you can make statements like that about. I can instantly prove you are wrong since I am an atheist and I have never asserted something that I don't know. I make a judgement on how probable something is.
    Wow. Mince words whydontcha!?

    Atheism isn't a group with badges and placards (well it is), and members don't get together to listen to the evangelists (although they do), and followers don't blindly regurgitate rhetoric (ahem )... so I get what you're saying, but I'm talking simple definition of the label.. most people, I blindly assume, think atheism means a belief that there is no God. A definite statement of faith, as no one can empirically prove such a statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by gwendes View Post
    Atheism is not a 'faith stance'.
    So it definately is.

    Quote Originally Posted by gwendes View Post
    Religion is a faith stance because it claims to know for certain the 'truth'. If you don't do this then you are not religious. If you think God is likely but ultimately you cannot know then you are technically agnostic - like me.
    You said it. Oddly backing up what I'm saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by gwendes View Post
    To clarify, I am agnostic (I cannot know either way) and atheist (without one or many gods)
    I understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by gwendes View Post
    Come on. That would give politics 'qualifying characteristics' of religion. You might as well say that anything that people are a fan of is somewhat religious - you're redefining religion there...
    Isn't it a matter of degree? My qualifications are a bit thin. I wasn't aiming to be definitive; just highlight the similarities. I'm sure you could go along with that?

    Quote Originally Posted by gwendes View Post
    Not even Dawkins dismisses religion. He describes himself as a 'cultural Christian' and appreciates the art and architecture, music, festivals - loves Christmas. He dismisses the idea of being certain of the unknowable and fights against causes which you share - like the teaching of Genesis in Science classrooms...
    Ooh antagonistic! - You know I don't agree with creationism, but speak out against censorship. Something Richard Dawkins seems happy to promote. I'm happy for him to have his blind faith that science will provide all the answers. Surely it's him that's being intolerant?

  5. #35

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,224
    Thank Post
    874
    Thanked 2,717 Times in 2,302 Posts
    Blog Entries
    11
    Rep Power
    780
    Quote Originally Posted by mark View Post
    You know I don't agree with creationism, but speak out against censorship. Something Richard Dawkins seems happy to promote. I'm happy for him to have his blind faith that science will provide all the answers.
    Or perhaps it is fear that religion will prevent the use of science to answer said questions or obscure any of the answers that it does find in order to prevent itself from loosing face?

  6. #36

    Andrew_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Winchester
    Posts
    2,980
    Thank Post
    64
    Thanked 379 Times in 289 Posts
    Rep Power
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by SYNACK View Post
    Or perhaps it is fear that religion will prevent the use of science to answer said questions or obscure any of the answers that it does find in order to prevent itself from loosing face?
    They wouldn't do that would they? The sun goes around the earth. The church says so, Mr Galilei, and if you say it doesn't again, you'll go on the bonfire!

  7. #37
    mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,966
    Thank Post
    248
    Thanked 49 Times in 45 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by SYNACK View Post
    Or perhaps it is fear that religion will prevent the use of science to answer said questions or obscure any of the answers that it does find in order to prevent itself from loosing face?
    Strange then that Christianity gave birth to Science (separating eastern science). A popular misconception that Religion is scared of Science - Science is wonderful and generates wonderment at nature for me. Perhaps you're scared to death. I'm certainly not. I love it.
    Last edited by mark; 8th January 2009 at 11:14 AM.

  8. #38
    mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,966
    Thank Post
    248
    Thanked 49 Times in 45 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew_C View Post
    They wouldn't do that would they? The sun goes around the earth. The church says so, Mr Galilei, and if you say it doesn't again, you'll go on the bonfire!
    Another very popular misconception. For a very short period of time this was the popular point of view, not originated by religion, that was very brifly taken on by some religious people, insignificantly.

  9. #39

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,224
    Thank Post
    874
    Thanked 2,717 Times in 2,302 Posts
    Blog Entries
    11
    Rep Power
    780
    Quote Originally Posted by mark View Post
    Strange then that Christianity gave birth to Science (separating eastern science). A popular misconception that Religion is scared of Science - Science is wonderful and generates wonderment at nature for me. Perhaps you're scared to death. I'm certainly not. I love it.
    This is well traveled ground:

    Quote Originally Posted by SYNACK View Post
    I disagree. Christianity did not give birth to science, people did. The fact that Gregor Mendel was a monk simply gave him the time, location and resources to perform the experiements.
    Quote Originally Posted by SYNACK View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mark View Post
    The point was that there was an enviroment fostering questioning (a tenet of Christianity) at the time contrary to gwendes' statement.
    Or some guy breaking the rules, I do think that you are right on this matter but at that time such questions were new and not considered dangerous.
    Once more around the merry-go-round?

  10. #40
    gwendes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,495
    Thank Post
    161
    Thanked 30 Times in 29 Posts
    Rep Power
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew_C View Post
    They wouldn't do that would they? The sun goes around the earth. The church says so, Mr Galilei, and if you say it doesn't again, you'll go on the bonfire!
    Well put.

    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair]Galileo affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    It's causes like this, that remain, that I am passionately anti-religion about. People like mark that agree with the science and choose to have a creator God instead of my 'Big Bang' are not a problem - we are equally uncertain and can never know the answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by mark
    Strange then that Christianity gave birth to Science
    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

    You've tried this one before and it's rubbish. Religion actively attacked Science - look at poor Galileo.

    Religion gave people power, money and time. Religion had the resources to study science in pursuit of knowledge about God - they just didn't find it.

    Certainty that the truth is already known is the thing that is dangerous. Why is it such a big problem for religion to just admit that it doesn't know for sure?

  11. #41
    gwendes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,495
    Thank Post
    161
    Thanked 30 Times in 29 Posts
    Rep Power
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by SYNACK View Post

    Once more around the merry-go-round?
    I was THIS close to writing exactly that!

  12. #42
    Friez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    839
    Thank Post
    22
    Thanked 22 Times in 21 Posts
    Rep Power
    23
    Scientology Thread MkII GO!

  13. #43
    mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,966
    Thank Post
    248
    Thanked 49 Times in 45 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by SYNACK View Post
    Once more around the merry-go-round?
    The Christian church sponsored scientific study when theology was part of it, and this was a major contribution to science acknowledged by Dawkins and the like. You can split hairs and say that cave men were scientists to some degree, but the facts remain.

  14. #44

    Andrew_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Winchester
    Posts
    2,980
    Thank Post
    64
    Thanked 379 Times in 289 Posts
    Rep Power
    160
    Most of us have learned that theology has no place in science (America excluded). Some still hold out for a return to the dark ages...

  15. #45
    gwendes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,495
    Thank Post
    161
    Thanked 30 Times in 29 Posts
    Rep Power
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by mark View Post
    A weak justification but I'll play along.. )
    Thanks I couldn't resist.

    Quote Originally Posted by mark
    Atheism isn't a group with badges and placards (well it is), and members don't get together to listen to the evangelists (although they do), and followers don't blindly regurgitate rhetoric (ahem )... so I get what you're saying, but I'm talking simple definition of the label.. most people, I blindly assume, think atheism means a belief that there is no God. A definite statement of faith, as no one can empirically prove such a statement.
    But you've been proven wrong. I can say 'Christians believe in God' and it is 100% true - you cannot, by definition, be a Christian without accepting that.

    You cannot say that atheists know something is true based on faith because they don't - I know that because even if the majority did (and I don't believe they do) I don't and I am one.

    I think it's quite simple.

    I don't know that there is no God. (agnostic)

    I don't think that it's likely.

    I live my life as if there is no God. (atheist in real terms)


    Quote Originally Posted by mark
    Isn't it a matter of degree? My qualifications are a bit thin. I wasn't aiming to be definitive; just highlight the similarities. I'm sure you could go along with that?
    Not really because it's not a useful similarity and we can't learn anything from it. You might as well be saying that both are concepts that humans partake in.

    Quote Originally Posted by mark
    Ooh antagonistic! - You know I don't agree with creationism, but speak out against censorship. Something Richard Dawkins seems happy to promote. I'm happy for him to have his blind faith that science will provide all the answers. Surely it's him that's being intolerant?
    I was just trying to get you on-side. I don't agree with everything that Dawkins says either. I do think that the important thing that he stands for is not anti-religion but anti-irrationality.

    Liberal religion is not a problem - I understand he is good friends with the Bishop Of Oxford.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 20K and all the chicken you can eat?
    By ITWombat in forum General Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 3rd March 2007, 07:51 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •