Originally posted by Devil King
There's a book out on this by Christopher Hitchens that should be read by everyone in this thread. It's called "GOD IS NOT GREAT"
That's an interesting book. I was checking it out at Hasting's like 3 weeks ago, and I read the chapter about why religion has villified pigs and pork so much. He had a pretty convincing argument in the chapter, and I like the comment "Muslims seem to be oblivious to the adoption of this strictly Jewish tabbo".
I'll probably buy it eventually.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonToo many definitons of Agnostic.
Agnostic - somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
edit: The thread starter spelt atheist wrong. shakefist
Originally posted by Alliance
Any sane person believes that. Your definitoin does not adequately differentiante between observable categories.
It's not "my" definition. I put "Agnostic" into Microsoft Word and looked up the definition. If you have a problem with the definition, I suggest you have a word with Bill Gates. 😆
Originally posted by Da Pittman
Nice bolding, as “it can be” but doesn’t have to be and this is only one poll you can search for more and I would like to see just one that backs up your claims. If you are a person that considers someone to be of the faith ONLY if you attended the church regularly then yes the number would be greatly skewed but would you consider someone that believes in Jesus and follows his teaching, reads the Bible but doesn’t go to church an Agnostic?
Maybe. You do realise you can still go to chruch and be an Agnostic right. From personal experience people who dont go to Chruch are like "Well im not sure if god exists....mmmm...dunno maybe." They tend to fluctuate. The thing is eventhough surveys are not obvoulsy useless it seems to me that you have surveys and then you have the real world. For example if you were to go down to Whitechapel in East London most people would say they were muslim but when you actually discuss with them individually there like "mmm...dunno".
Originally posted by Da Pittman
The + or – on a poll or survey is consider to account for misleading information or variables that are beyond the control of the survey such as people not understanding the question, deception or other variables.
Yes but that doesnt change the fact that just because people say they are muslim, christian or whatever doesnt mean thats what they believe. You might laugh and say that means the survey is null and voids but thats the truth.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
It is obvious that they can not ask all 6 billion people in the world so they must account for variances in the poll by taking selected groups, this can vary depending on where they take and how many groups they poll and depending on how varied they are. This is how pollers can mess with them to get their desired results, but you can read this information for your self and is common knowledge however I still would like to see one that backs up your claim.
All I can tell you is that the survey was done at School Of African and Oriental Studies (SOAS) its a Universcity in London and it took place in the early 90s. My words were never to be taken as gospel.
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, I am sure you do think you knowI would say you have an interpretation of "belief system" that follows your bias toward how you want to interpret people who call themselves atheists, but that is a human function and hardly something worthy of criticism. However, a belief system (notice how the word system is there) is much more than just a bunch of beliefs. By putting system at the end, you are talking about systemic interaction of beliefs for a purpose. What beliefs accompany AND flow directly from the disbelief in God in a systemic way?
Well lets put it this way. Bob is a born again Christian lets ask him what he was like before he became born again.
Bob: Well I used to lie cheat and steal and I didnt care about anybody or anything, but since I found the Lord I have become a better person.
Brad: So what did you believe in before you became born again?
Bob: I didnt believe in God so the way I saw it I could just do what I like but since I became born again its given my life purpose.
It could be argued that his disbelief in God caused him to do bad things because he felt he had no purpose, so there is connection and cause.
I dont think this applies to all athiests but could apply.
Originally posted by inimalistyou are saying corelation is equal to causation. For instance, I never became an "atheist", and I would venture other atheists have this same experience. [/B]
Thats not relevant to the argument My point is that atheism is called a belief or disbelief and can cause you to do certain things due tot it. 😐
Originally posted by inimalistI have an "empirical" worldview, with a large dose of skepticism and cynicism. These lead me to become an atheist because in my interpretation of the facts, the idea of God is idiotic. Now, there are many other things that I think are as, if not more idiotic, than God. But, the reason I don't believe in them is not related to the fact that I don't believe in God, it is related to the fact that God is a type of thing that my belief system doesn't include. /shrug, I'm sure that is confusing, read it a couple of times to try and get the logic. [/B]
You are cynical that could be argued is the reason why you are an athiest. Athiesm doesnt make you do anything cyncism does.
Originally posted by inimalist
Oh, and let me add this. Religions are belief systems but belief systems are not religions.[/B]
Dont you mean not all belief systems are religons.
Originally posted by inimalistRight, I should have worded that differently. Atheism dose not propose a worldview that contains systemic absolutes. It can be PART of a belief system that has systemic qualities (empiricism) but it is not the system itself. Again, notice how we are using the word system.
As I stated before thats just one way of looking at it and is not incorrect. You probably know what Odinism is. Odinism is defined as heathenism. Looking at the way you defined Atheism Odinism should be defined as the belief in Odin and not the system, but its not this indicates logically that atheism can be defined as a system. Seems perfectly logical but of course im treated like an idiot and told I dont understand when there are different ways of looking at it.
No offence but it seems sometimes that you give defintions to things and then treat it likes its the only way of defining something. For exaple you said that athiesm is a disbelief...but according to anothe athiest on this forum.
Originally posted by Imperial_SamuraWhat beliefs, other then "there is no God" stem from Atheism? [/B]
Which is what I was saying. Athiesm described as a disbelief is not incorrect but another way of looking at it. Athiesm defintely could be described as a belief when dealing with explicit atheism.
Originally posted by Imperial_SamuraCorelation is not causation. Prove that it is atheism specifically that leads people to other beliefs and not that a prior belief about the world lead to both.[/B]
I actually dont think it does. 😂
Originally posted by Imperial_SamuraIt really depends, and I could get really technically involved in the behavioural differences between Sade and Mohammed (for instance, religiously proscribed pedophilia does not strike me as the same type of psychosis as Sade had, and on the same token, Sade never spoke to dieties). You are essentially looking for a psychoanalysis of historical figures, which would be fun, but its a little too specific for a general discussion forum.[/B]
Ok.
Originally posted by Imperial_SamuraI do get your more apparent point though, and I would certainly agree. An individual should not be judged by the actions of those who believed the same things as that person. The problem with most religions is that they are wholey unable to condemn the attrocities of the past.[/B]
True.
Originally posted by Imperial_SamuraRemember when you argue on the internet, you need to look really carefully at what people are saying. I know we have a history of you arguing against points I am not making.[/B]
Do you believe that religon doent cause people to do anything? The only reason why im arguing this case is because of people who say religon makes people do things.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samurathe thing is, you are making the assumption that any atheist who does something wrong is doing so because they are an atheist. This is the corelation and causation thing again. You have to prove that Sade commited his evil acts BECAUSE he was an atheist. Good luck.
[/B]
To tell the truth I dont think it does. I dont think religon causes people to do things either. I just think concepts are like guns, if you didnt ahve a gun you would use a knife instead. I just think in some cases it can be a factor . I dont think sade did what he did because he was athiest but I think maybe in some cases if somebody were to state that because they didnt believe in god but religon made them a better person it could be seen as a factor.
Originally posted by Imperial_SamuraI just answered this, but I'll hit it again. Were there a church of Sadism [man I only wish] that taught that brutal rape was allowable, it doesn't matter why Sade did it anymore. It doesn't matter whether Mohammed was schitzophrenic and a biggot, he isn't alive. The religion that refuses to cast out those evil ways is evil. People who practice that religion and do not make a clear stance against such things are evil. I am an atheist and, to be honest, a sadomasochist. I have absolutly no problem saying that the Marquis de Sade commited horrendous acts that I do not support, and were I able to, I would have him tried and punished for them. How many Muslims say that about Mohammed? [/B]
I agree with that.
Originally posted by inimalist
I will definatly get into the memes below. I love memes. 🙂But I think an idea of what "opposite" belief systems means may be in order...
yes, atheist is the opposite of theist... but neither of those are belief systems, that are particular beliefs.
Thats just one way of looking at it. Why isnt Odinism just the belief In Odin?
Originally posted by inimalist
To put it memetically, the meme you have that refers to your opinion about the existance of god is a co-adaptive meme, not a co-adaptive memeplex.For belief systems to be opposite, one would always have to come to the opposite conclusion of another. Since it is possible for atheists and theists to agree on things, they are not opposite memeplexes, they just contain memes that are not co-adaptive with eachother. I don't actually think it is realistically possible for a "belief system" to be the opposite of another "belief system"
Well if you tried hard enough I bet you could find that darkness and light have things in common that doesnt mean there not opposites. Im pretty sure if you were to look at satanism you can defeintely see that it was created as a reaction to religon but if you ask the founder he would probably deny it.
Originally posted by Imperial_SamuraThe difference though would have something to do with organisation and motivation. Yes, people will find a way to justify what they have done, and others will find a way of using a system as a means of control to influence the way others behave and the kind of things they are prepared to do.
Religion is a great example, politics and ideology also pretty good, Atheism a very poor example.[/B]
That depends on how you look at it.
Originally posted by Imperial_SamuraSo he was what... an Atheist who became a Muslim and then became an Atheist again?[/B]
The point is religon didnt make him do anything. He was just an *******.
Originally posted by Imperial_SamuraI am sorry - Atheist principle? Atheism, by its very nature, is not an organised thing. It is, by any definition just the lack of a God. Which is the point - it has trouble being used as a motivator/justifyier for actions since it doesn't subscribe any. It doesn't advocate the overthrow of governments or the flying of planes into buildings or anything else. It is simply not believing in God.[/B]
That depends on how you look at it. Then Odinism should just be the belief in Odin.
Originally posted by Imperial_SamuraDon't mistake actual philosophical stances such as those of the extreme libertines to equate with Atheism as a motivator. Certainly it can be seen that those who followed them, such as the Marquis, were Atheist, but they needed something more advanced to develop their particular brand of social idealism. Sade has views that went against things most Atheists support - including ethical, lawful behaviour. But that stems from the kind of libertine he was. As in Atheism had nothing to do with his actions/world view, it was another system entirely he subscribed to that motivated him.[/B]
Im not mistaking anything im just not looking at things from one angle.
Originally posted by Imperial_SamuraUnless you can provide further illumination on "Atheist principles" that show "take what you can and don't get caught" is one of them then it is not an argument. I would be surprised if you could, since that wouldn't be Atheism which is simply not believing in a God/gods.
[/B]
A person who becomes born again could argue because he didnt believe in god felt that he could do as he pleased. 😐
Originally posted by Imperial_SamuraAnd when we have an Atheist Pope and an Atheist Mecca we won't be Atheists. You are trying to shoe horn Atheism into some sort of ideology with goals and aims like a political or religious theory. It doesn't have such things. People who are Atheists do, but they can't say "I fight for Atheism, Atheism wants me to do this" because there is no Atheist doctrine, no set of Atheist laws, no five year Atheist plan, no Atheist utopia on the horizon if they do things for Atheism. Which is why there is no superpowerful Atheist lobby group influencing politics. [/B]
Thats just one way of looking at it. Odinism is not just the belief in Odin therefore atheism doesnt just have to be the belief there is no god. Furthermore if somebody states that his disbleief ingod made him do things we can see that the belief in no god can cause you to do things.
Originally posted by Imperial_SamuraAnd sorry, but that is no good - a lot of assumptions there on a study you don't seem to remember well. I can remember it, and I know the findings did not indicate any connection between religious belief or lack of it - there was no finding of "Religious men between 20 and 35 say no while Atheist/Agnostic men between 20 and 35 say yes if they aren't caught" because the view was spread across the sample. And it was not most men, it was 35% of those surveyed. The only surveys that have found higher are ones done exclusively in collages and the like which apparently highlighted poor awareness of laws and social ethics. And both indicated the figure was as high as it was in part due to some ignorance on the part of men ie. men "rape is ok in marriage" because they didn't think it could be rape in marriage, thus giving the "then I guess I would commit rape if I wasn't going to get caught." And the survey occurred in the US, which or the Western, Secular nations is one of the most religious still. [/B]
It took place in the UK. SOAS (School of Oriental and African Stuides). Your not supposed to take what I said bloody serioulsy its just food for thought. I dont think athiesm or religon makes people do anything. Im just suggesting another way of looking at things.
Originally posted by Imperial_SamuraThus no proof there to support the idea that an Atheist's morals and ethics change to the point where they live by "take what you can and don't get caught." What we have is your belief that is how it is, against actual Atheists saying they have never encountered such a thing within themselves or with other Atheists.
[/B]
I could say the samething about religon.
Originally posted by Imperial_SamuraWhat beliefs, other then "there is no God" stem from Atheism? [/B]
Already discussed.
There goes my schedule.... *sigh*