All-Purpose Religion Thread

[Bazdavies79]

I linked to this before, but it deserves another link and a quote this time.

Just because you're an atheist doesn't make you rational - Mark Steel.

Having followed the latest debate about religion, I'd say the conclusion is obvious that the only thing as disturbing as the religious is the modern atheist. I'd noticed this before, after I was slightly critical of Richard Dawkins and received piles of fuming replies, that made me think that what his followers would like is to scientifically create an eternity in laboratory conditions so that they could burn me there for all of it.

It's not the rationality that's alarming, it's the smugness. Instead of trying to understand religion, if the modern atheist met a peasant in a village in Namibia, he'd shriek: "Of course, GOD didn't create light, it's a mixture of waves and particles you idiot, it's OBVIOUS."

The connection between the religious and the modern atheist was illustrated after the death of Christopher Hitchens, when it was reported that "tributes were led by Tony Blair". I know you can't dictate who leads your tributes, and it's probable that when Blair's press office suggested that he made one to someone who'd passed on, he said: "Oh, which dictator I used to go on holiday with has died NOW?"

But the commendation was partly Hitchens's fault. Because the difference between the modern atheist and the Enlightenment thinkers who fought the church in the 18th century is that back then they didn't make opposition to religion itself their driving ideology. They opposed the lack of democracy justified by the idea that a king was God's envoy on earth, and they wished for a rational understanding of the solar system, rather than one based on an order ordained by God that matched the view that everyone in society was born into a fixed status.

But once you make it your primary aim to refute the existence of God, you can miss what's really fundamental. For example, the ex-canon of St Paul's, presumably a believer unless he managed to fudge the issue in the interview, was on the radio this week expressing why he resigned in support of the protesters outside his old cathedral. He spoke with inspiring compassion, but was interrupted by an atheist who declared the Christian project is doomed because we're scientifically programmed to look after ourselves at the expense of anyone else. So the only humane rational scientific thought to have was "GO Christian, GO, Big up for the Jesus posse."

Similarly, Hitchens appears to have become obsessed with defying religion, so made himself one of the most enthusiastic supporters for a war he saw as being against the craziness of Islam. But the war wasn't about God or Allah, it was about more earthly matters, which the people conducting that war understood. And, as that war became predictably disastrous, they were grateful for whatever support they could find. And so a man dedicated to disproving GOD was praised in his death by the soppiest, sickliest, most, irrational, hypocritical Christian of them all.

So the only thing I know for certain is that I would become a Christian, if I could just get round the fact that there is no GOD.

Mark Steel

[TheDon]

I'm agnostic, I believe the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, I will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available.

Ermmm, what you've just said is that you're NOT agnostic.

Agnosticism is the view that knowledge of a deity is INHERENTLY UNKNOWABLE, not that it's "currently unknown", that you cannot ever, no matter what, know if a deity exists, that such knowledge is impossible.

You've just said you don't think it's unknowable, so how exactly, are you agnostic? That goes slap bang against the very definition of the word.

I don't really see the need to supply you with anything, when every post you've made in the last few pages DIRECTLY contradicts the meaning of the words you're trying to use.

You tell me to read a book, I suggest you start with Chindie's suggestion of the dictionary, because you clearly have no understanding of what Atheism, or Agnosticism is, as you're wrong on both counts.

[Bazdavies79]

Well, I disagree, agnosticism is the view that the veracity of a god's existence is unknown or inherently unknowable. But I'm not going to get dragged into a debate on definitions, as I said at the beginning, they are labels that get in the way. Ideas are more important.

I find it odd that you should think it's a fact that people who call themselves agnostic are 'too pussy' to admit they are atheists. Where did you find this fact, or is it just your opinion based on anecdotal evidence?

[TheDon]

Well, I disagree

You can disagree all you like, you're still wrong.

Next you'll be telling us Elephants are really Giraffes. Whilst you're free to call an Elephant a Giraffe, you'll probably get laughed at when you go to the zoo.

I find it odd that you should think it's a fact that people who call themselves agnostic are 'too pussy' to admit they are atheists. Where did you find this fact, or is it just your opinion based on anecdotal evidence?

You're doing a pretty good job of backing up my point actually.

You're doing pretty much everything you can to not admit that you're actually an atheist, despite the admittance that you're not a theist, and atheist merely being "not a theist". Why is that? You're still yet to answer.

That you seemingly have no real reason, other than wanting to avoid the label of atheist, just backs up my point.

[Bazdavies79]

I believe your definition to be incorrect. That is the answer, running through all my posts you seem strangely to have missed lol. Where on earth did you get this idea that people are afraid to admit to atheism from???

[limpid]

I have never heard the expression "weak agnosticism". Agnosticism is not a scale. Either you have knowledge that god(s) exist or you don't.

If these aren't your own personal definitions, please can you tell us where you get them from as they are apparently unknown to the people you are debating with.

[TheDon]

I believe your definition to be incorrect. That is the answer, running through all my posts you seem strangely to have missed lol. Where on earth did you get this idea that people are afraid to admit to atheism from???

How exactly is it incorrect? "atheism" literally means "without theism". That's what the "a" at the start means, without. It's impossible for that definition to be incorrect. If you're not a theist, you're an atheist by definition.

You keep on calling those elephants giraffes buddy.

[coda]

This thread is developing along the lines of 'how many angels can sit on the head of a pin?'

[TheDon]

This thread is developing along the lines of 'how many angels can sit on the head of a pin?'

All of them

[Bazdavies79]

I have never heard the expression "weak agnosticism". Agnosticism is not a scale. Either you have knowledge that god(s) exist or you don't.

If these aren't your own personal definitions, please can you tell us where you get them from as they are apparently unknown to the people you are debating with.

Google it, there is plenty of info out there.

[Bazdavies79]

I believe your definition to be incorrect. That is the answer, running through all my posts you seem strangely to have missed lol. Where on earth did you get this idea that people are afraid to admit to atheism from???

How exactly is it incorrect? "atheism" literally means "without theism". That's what the "a" at the start means, without. It's impossible for that definition to be incorrect. If you're not a theist, you're an atheist by definition.

You keep on calling those elephants giraffes buddy.

Ok, I tried, we will agree to disagree on definitions.

Just for clarity can you tell me why you think it's a fact agnostics are people who are afraid to admit to atheism.

[TheDon]

I believe your definition to be incorrect. That is the answer, running through all my posts you seem strangely to have missed lol. Where on earth did you get this idea that people are afraid to admit to atheism from???

How exactly is it incorrect? "atheism" literally means "without theism". That's what the "a" at the start means, without. It's impossible for that definition to be incorrect. If you're not a theist, you're an atheist by definition.

You keep on calling those elephants giraffes buddy.

Ok, I tried, we will agree to disagree on definitions.

Just for clarity can you tell me why you think it's a fact agnostics are people who are afraid to admit to atheism.

There is no disagreeing on definitions, the meaning is implied by the word. You cannot argue it. It's like owning a car, you either own a car, in which case you're a car owner, or you don't, in which case you're not a car owner. You either believe in God, in which case you're a theist, or you don't in which case you're not a theist, and guess what word literally means "not a theist" atheist! Same way as asexual means "not sexual" and "atypical" means "not typical". The a simply negates the meaning, and if you're not a theist, you have to be an atheist, by virtue of that's what it means.

I don't think agnostics are people who are afraid to admit to atheism, as I've said earlier, I believe that everyone is either agnostic, or mentally disturbed. Stating you are agnostic states nothing, because there is no one on this planet that can claim knowledge over the existence of God.

I say that people that say they aren't atheist but are instead agnostic are too scared to admit to their atheism for some reason.

Oh look, the wiki page on your "weak agnosticism":

Weak agnostics have often been accused of being "fence-sitters", that is, indecisive. This arises if one considers the matter to be about belief rather than about knowledge. (Cf. Epistemology) For agnostics, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there is not enough information to justify a knowledge claim

Interesting how that sides exactly with what I'm saying. Agnosticism has nothing to do with theism or atheism, it's purely about knowledge not belief. Everyone is either atheist, or theist, there is no middle ground. Anyone that says they aren't atheist, and aren't theist, but are instead agnostic, is simply too scared to come out and say they're atheist.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

What possibilities did you weigh up exactly?

All of them.

There are no gods (excluding Robert Palmer). 100% certain.

[coda]

What possibilities did you weigh up exactly?

All of them.

There are no gods (excluding Robert Palmer). 100% certain.

...and His son Carlton.

[mjmooney]

Robert Palmer doesn't exist.

[Voinjama]

And for those of you who are certain there is no god, have you had this debate with Muslims? They tend to be passionate about their religion and believe there is definitely a God (Allah). How did you try to reason with them with regards to this subject.

I take this as a serious question and I will give it a serious answer.

After decades of trying to reason with these morons, and I include all believers, I now tell them I have nothing but contempt for them, their nonexistent god and the rubbish in which they believe.

I tell muslims the same thing and usually end up saying they can stick their pig fecking Prophet Mohamed up their arse... at which they are generally quite surprised.

I truly believe I am performing a public service and that even if muslims have not been swayed by the force of logic, they should at least realise there are those who have no respect whatsoever for their moronic crap, but have still avoided the wrath of their murderous, slave trading, paedophile prophet, may pig shit be upon him.

It is disgusting the way society pays lip service to this filthy rubbish. We just might open a few eyes and all be a good deal better off if, like me, we finally start telling it like it really is.

That is very forthright. Some would argue too forthright. You could potentially get yourself written off for comments like that. You need to try and see things from their point of view rather then dismiss them as morons and disrespct their prophet Allah.

[Bazdavies79]

There is no disagreeing on definitions, the meaning is implied by the word.

There is, we can go around and around on this one. I don't think you have to be a theist or atheist.

You either believe in God, in which case you're a theist, or you don't in which case you're not a theist, and guess what word literally means "not a theist" atheist!

Charles Darwin."I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

I maintain agnosticism is a perfectly valid theological position to take. Why concern oneself in the belief that god 'does exist' or 'doesn't exist' without knowledge.

However as I've said before I'm not concerned with labels or definitions, because they all do such a poor job of conveying complex ideas so lets stop dancing on the end of that needle shall we.

I say that people that say they aren't atheist but are instead agnostic are too scared to admit to their atheism for some reason.

Yes, a few pages ago you said.

I hate it when someone calls themselves agnostic, because what they really mean is "I'm atheist, but I'm too much of a pussy to want to tell people that I don't believe in God".

Are these personal views then? Or did you get this info from literature?

[TheDon]

There is no disagreeing on definitions, the meaning is implied by the word.

There is, we can go around and around on this one. I don't think you have to be a theist or atheist.

You'd be wrong. You can either be a theist, or not a theist.

Atheist doesn't have some strange meaning, it's literally "not theist", so if you're not theist, and not an atheist, what exactly are you? To not be an atheist you HAVE to be a theist, to not be a theist you HAVE to be an atheist. It's literally a true or false, there is no maybe.

You either believe in God, in which case you're a theist, or you don't in which case you're not a theist, and guess what word literally means "not a theist" atheist!

Charles Darwin."I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

Notice it doesn't say he's not an atheist, just that he's not one that denies the existence of God. Essentially he's saying he's not a strong atheist.

Why would he not say "I have never been an atheist." and leave it at that?

Because he was an atheist, just not one on the level of Dawkins who vehemently denies the existence of God.

I maintain agnosticism is a perfectly valid theological position to take. Why concern oneself in the belief that god 'does exist' or 'doesn't exist' without knowledge.

An I maintain it's the ONLY valid theological position to take when it comes to divine knowledge. That however, doesn't make anyone neither atheist nor theist, as the concepts are distinctly different.

However as I've said before I'm not concerned with labels or definitions, because they all do such a poor job of conveying complex ideas so lets stop dancing on the end of that needle shall we.

I say that people that say they aren't atheist but are instead agnostic are too scared to admit to their atheism for some reason.

Yes, a few pages ago you said.

I hate it when someone calls themselves agnostic, because what they really mean is "I'm atheist, but I'm too much of a pussy to want to tell people that I don't believe in God".

Are these personal views then? Or did you get this info from literature?

Clearly they're personal views. You know what the clue is? It's at the start of the sentence, where it begins with "I hate". If it was anything other than a personal view it would have started with something different, maybe "Richard Dawkins wrote..." or "I once read", as it is, it's quite clearly a personal opinion, one crafted over years and years of conversations such as this, where self proclaimed "agnostics" do the "I'm not a theist" dance whilst ignoring that that makes them a de facto atheist whether they like it or not.

I might turn them into literature though, I'd use this thread as a source to point how examples of how people go to any means necessary to avoid admitting that yes, they are atheist.

I'm still at a loss as to why that is though, you still haven't enlightened me. Other than with your "I hate labels" dance, whilst at the same time being perfectly happy to label yourself agnostic. I suppose what you really mean is "I hate labels that have negative connotations, so instead I'm just going to avoid them, despite however apt they are".

[Bazdavies79]

It wasn't clear at all that they were personal views, so don't try and twist out of that one lol. So you think people who call themselves agnostic are wrong to do so because you don't accept the term as it is widely used. Fair enough that's fine with me. But you think they are weak and cowardly because they don't think the same as you - that says a lot about your character.

[TheDon]

Yes people often say "I hate" and then follow it up with an impersonal viewpoint. I can see how you couldn't see the clarity in that statement.

I accept the term as it is widely used. I however don't accept the term as it is incorrectly used by a small minority. You're frankly mistaken if you think agnosticism as some third position opposed to atheism and theism is anything but a small minority usage.

It's not about not thinking the same as me, it's about doing everything they can to try to avoid using a word that simply means "not a theist". It says a lot about their characters, and sorry, you're a prime example of exactly what I was talking about. You've proven my point brilliantly. You've done everything you can to try to twist away from the facts, and yet provided no real reason why you're so scared of the atheist label.

Sorry for bringing facts to a debate when you clearly just want to make up your own.